Gordoa v. Apple, Inc.

Background

The court considered a joint letter concerning discovery disputes between the plaintiffs and Apple. The court’s standing order required the parties to describe each unresolved issue, summarize each side’s position with legal authority, and state each party’s final proposed compromise. The court also noted that the attachments to the letter exceeded the standing order’s 12-page limit.

Depositions

The plaintiffs said they requested depositions of fact witnesses with personal knowledge of material facts from their employment and work for Apple, as well as a corporate representative to testify for Apple about substantive matters. Apple contended that the requested depositions were duplicative, irrelevant, or harassing.

The court found that the plaintiffs’ submission did not adequately explain the dispute, provide reasons for ruling in their favor, or identify the ruling they sought. The court therefore denied the plaintiffs’ opaque request regarding depositions.

Sound Files, User Interface, and Usability

The plaintiffs sought production of sound files, user-interface information, and usability evidence. They relied on the argument that the evidence was “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” The court explained that the current discovery standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) requires discovery to concern nonprivileged matters relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.

The court held that the plaintiffs did not explain how the requested discovery was relevant or proportional. It denied their motion to compel this evidence.

Customer Complaints

The plaintiffs moved to compel customer complaints from outside the United States concerning ear damage from AirPods. Apple argued that complaints from outside the United States were not relevant because Amber Alerts do not exist outside the United States. Apple also argued that the plaintiffs had waived their right to seek those complaints because Apple had previously said it was producing only complaints from the United States.

The court rejected those arguments on the record before it. It found that Apple’s relevance theory was too narrow, that Apple cited no authority supporting waiver, and that the submission did not support a finding that the plaintiffs knowingly waived their right to seek complaints from outside the United States. The court also noted that the complaints appeared to be stored in a different database, so responding would not duplicate the search for United States complaints. The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to compel customer complaints outside the United States.

Disposition

The court denied the plaintiffs’ deposition request, denied their motion to compel sound files, user-interface, and usability evidence, and granted their motion to compel customer complaints from outside the United States. The order stated that it disposed of Docket No. 143.