In re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litigation

Background

The court addressed Apple’s motion to compel discovery from nonparty Samsung Electronics America, Inc. The motion arose from two antitrust lawsuits alleging that Apple monopolized distribution of software applications on iPhones by requiring apps to be distributed through Apple’s App Store. The plaintiffs’ theories included that Apple’s App Store practices allowed it to charge developers a 30% commission. Apple disputed that it monopolized any relevant market and intended to argue that competition from other devices, platforms, and app marketplaces constrained its pricing and policies.

Apple served Samsung with a subpoena seeking documents about competition between mobile devices and platforms, competition among app marketplaces, app review and security practices, and communications between Samsung and Google. Samsung objected that the requests were overbroad, burdensome, and sought confidential commercial information. Samsung also argued that much of the information was held by its parent company, Samsung Electronics in Korea, and that the protective order was inadequate. The court applied the federal discovery rules governing relevance, proportionality, confidential commercial information, and undue burden.

Rulings on the Requests

- Request No. 10: The court quashed the request. As narrowed by Apple, it sought documents about competition between Samsung and Apple devices related to apps or app marketplaces. The court found that Apple had not shown a substantial need because Apple could obtain or develop comparable competitive information itself. - Requests Nos. 11–13: The court found that Apple had not shown a substantial need for most of the requested internal competitive information. However, Samsung had offered to produce data about current U.S. active users of the Galaxy Store, Google Play, and Apple’s store, along with syndicated market research concerning mobile apps and marketplaces. The court ordered Samsung to produce that information, subject to third-party confidentiality restrictions, and denied Apple’s motion to compel production beyond that offer. - Request No. 3: The court ordered Samsung to produce certain available information about Galaxy Store users, apps, awareness and usage, and information responsive to subparts 3(h) through 3(j), including revenues from paid apps and in-app products and the number of developer submissions. The court did not order production of information Samsung said it did not possess or could not determine, such as certain Google Play data and historical download information. - Request No. 4: The court quashed the request for documents about the introduction of Samsung’s app marketplace and related historical competitive analyses. - Request No. 5: The court ordered Samsung to produce responsive documents concerning the Galaxy Store’s performance and usage, including downloads, developer submissions, and sales of apps and in-app products, to the extent the documents were within Samsung’s possession, custody, or control. - Requests Nos. 6–9: The court quashed these requests. They sought confidential information about app comparisons, Samsung’s marketing strategy, competition among Android marketplaces, and competition between Android marketplaces and Apple’s App Store. The court found that Apple had not shown a substantial need for this information from Samsung. - Request No. 20(c): The court ordered Samsung to produce syndicated research in its possession estimating the number of Samsung Android phones sold in the United States since 2009. - Requests Nos. 14, 15, and 18: The court ordered Samsung to produce documents about its app-review guidelines, policies, and procedures; the percentage of submitted apps it did not publish; and whether users could install apps from sources other than the Galaxy Store or Google Play. Samsung did not have to produce every copy of an app-distribution guide if fewer copies adequately showed the relevant procedures. If Samsung determined that it had no documents responsive to Request No. 15, it did not have to produce any. - Requests Nos. 16, 17, and 19: Although the requests were broader as written, the court interpreted Apple’s motion as limiting them to communications between Samsung and Google. The court found those communications relevant and ordered Samsung to search for and produce them if it had them. - Request No. 21: The court ordered Samsung to produce documents describing the organizational structure and personnel of units responsible for the Galaxy Store, app review, or protecting Samsung devices from malware.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part Apple’s motion to compel. It quashed the requests identified above and ordered production of the specified materials. The court also stated that the existing protective order was sufficient to protect the confidentiality of the documents it required Samsung to produce. The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson.