Turner v. Apple, Inc.

Background

Alasdair Turner alleges that certain versions of Apple’s iOS operating system contain code that misuses consumers’ cellular data. He sought discovery of an internal Apple dashboard that allegedly tracked and helped fix code that misused customers’ data. Turner argued that the dashboard was relevant to the data-consumption problem at the center of his case.

Apple opposed the request, arguing that the dashboard contained information from beta testers and other internal testers. Apple contended that those data were not representative of the iOS versions released to consumers or of how ordinary consumers used their phones. Magistrate Judge Cousins denied Turner’s request, stating that he was not persuaded that the information was relevant and proportional to the needs of the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. He also described the requested discovery as potentially an expensive and burdensome fishing expedition.

Standard of Review

The district court may set aside or modify a magistrate judge’s nondispositive order—a ruling on a matter other than final case-ending relief—only if the order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Clear error concerns factual findings and exists when the court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake occurred. The court reviews legal conclusions and mixed legal-factual questions independently when deciding whether they are contrary to law.

Court’s Analysis

Turner argued that Judge Cousins clearly erred by finding the dashboard’s relevance too speculative to justify the burden of producing it. Judge Davila rejected that argument. The record included testimony that the dashboard reflected data from pre-release versions of iOS and that beta and internal testers did not use their phones like average consumers. Turner’s disagreement with the interpretation or weight of that testimony did not establish clear error.

Turner also argued that Judge Cousins applied a legally improper standard by considering the case’s procedural posture. Judge Davila concluded that Judge Cousins referred to the procedural posture only to recognize that discovery might have different relevance to class certification than to later merits issues involving damages. Judge Davila found that consideration proper and not contrary to law.

Disposition

Judge Davila denied Turner’s motion for relief from Magistrate Judge Cousins’ nondispositive discovery order. The order addressed the requested dashboard discovery and did not decide the underlying allegations about Apple’s alleged misuse of cellular data.