Documents

Team chat reconciling the exhibit list against the binders: two exhibits missing tabs, one duplicate, fixed before the hearing.

Team chat about hearing-day logistics: binder delivery, courtroom technology check and who attends the first day.

After the holiday period plaintiff's counsel accepts the 80/40 page limits, notes that the stipulation was entered on 22 January, and confirms rebuttal reports remain due 12 February.

Defendant's counsel agrees to the exchange dates but asks for an 80-page limit given the economic analysis, and asks for the stipulation to reflect it.

Plaintiff's counsel proposes a simultaneous exchange of opening expert reports on 15 January and a 60-page limit excluding exhibits.

Plaintiff's associate agrees to 16 November for Witness D and confirms that amended notices with the platform details will follow.

Defendant's associate confirms four of the five dates and asks to move Witness D to 16 November because of a conflicting hearing.

Plaintiff's associate proposes dates for five fact-witness depositions over two weeks in November and asks for the witnesses' availability.

Defendant's counsel confirms the ten custodians and the date range, attaches the organisational chart and sets the first rolling production for 23 October.

Following the call, plaintiff's counsel records the compromise on ten custodians and a January 2022 start date, with one custodian reserved.

Defendant's counsel accepts eight custodians, objects to four as duplicative, and proposes a shorter date range starting July 2019.

Plaintiff's counsel proposes twelve custodians and a date range of January 2021 to June 2023 for the first production, and asks for a call this week.

Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, on behalf of Apple Inc., ordered a transcript of the October 19, 2020 case management conference in Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc. The order was signed by M. Brent Byars and identifies Pamela Batalo-Hebel as the court reporter.

Epic Games, Inc., Apple Inc., and plaintiffs in related consumer and developer actions jointly submitted a proposed agenda for an October 19, 2020 case management conference in the Northern District of California. The agenda addresses coordination of the three cases, discovery, trial briefing, scheduling, and Zoom access issues.

Epic Games, Inc. and Apple Inc. jointly submitted a case management statement in October 2020 for proceedings before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The statement describes their competing antitrust and contract claims, pending motions, discovery and preservation issues, subpoenas, requested relief, related cases, and trial planning concerning iOS app distribution and in-app payments. The parties stated that settlement and ADR were unlikely at that time and agreed to a bench trial.

Apple Inc. opposed Epic Games, Inc.’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in the Northern District of California, with the matter set for hearing on November 10, 2020. Apple argued that Epic’s alleged secret Fortnite payment hotfix bypassed Apple’s in-app purchase system, diverted commissions, and undermined security and privacy protections. Apple maintained that its contractual and tort counterclaims, including conversion, were adequately pleaded and asked the Court to deny Epic’s motion.

On October 12, 2020, the parties and counsel in Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc. certified that they had read the Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures Handbook, discussed available ADR options, and considered whether the case would benefit from them. Counsel further indicated that the parties preferred to discuss ADR selection with the assigned judge at the case management conference.

On October 9, 2020, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California partially granted and partially denied Epic Games, Inc.’s motion for a preliminary injunction against Apple Inc. The Court found serious but unresolved antitrust questions concerning iOS app distribution and in-app payments, but held that the record did not establish a likelihood of success or define the relevant market sufficiently for Epic’s monopolization claims. It denied reinstatement of Fortnite and related relief, while enjoining Apple from restricting Epic Affiliates’ developer-program access based on Epic Games’ Fortnite payment breach, subject to compliance with Apple’s agreements and guidelines.

On October 8, 2020, Apple Inc. filed a corporate disclosure statement and certificate of interested entities or persons in the Northern District of California action brought by Epic Games, Inc. Apple disclosed that it has no parent corporation and that no publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of its stock.

On October 6, 2020, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers issued a scheduling and pretrial order in Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc. The order set discovery, expert, pretrial, compliance, and bench-trial deadlines, including a May 3, 2021 trial date.

Rachele R. Byrd of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP ordered a transcript from court reporter Raynee Mercado for the September 28, 2020 preliminary-injunction hearing in Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc. The order was filed in the Northern District of California on October 5, 2020.

This reporter’s transcript records September 28–29, 2020 hearings before Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on Epic Games, Inc.’s motion for a preliminary injunction against Apple Inc. Counsel and the court addressed relevant markets, monopoly power, aftermarket and tying theories, Apple’s App Store and in-app payment rules, security and contractual defenses, and alleged harm involving Fortnite and the Unreal Engine. The hearings also covered discovery, counterclaims, trial scheduling, and the possibility of a jury trial.

On October 2, 2020, Epic Games, Inc. moved in the Northern District of California for judgment on the pleadings against Apple Inc.’s counterclaims for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage and conversion, as well as Apple’s requests for punitive damages. Epic argued that the claims were duplicative of contract claims, that the conversion claim did not identify a definite and specific sum, and that punitive damages were unavailable for contract-based claims.

Rishi Satia, on behalf of Epic Games, Inc., submitted a transcript order to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The order requests a transcript from the September 28, 2020 preliminary injunction hearing before Judge YGR in Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc., case 20-cv-05640.

Epic Games, Inc. and Apple Inc. jointly submitted a proposed protective order in their federal antitrust litigation pursuant to the Court’s September 29, 2020 case-management order. The order governs the designation, access, use, challenges, filing, and disposition of confidential information, including source code. The parties signed it on October 1, 2020, and Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered it on October 2, 2020, requiring protected material generally to be returned or destroyed within 60 days after final disposition.

Epic Games, Inc. and Apple Inc. jointly stipulated to a proposed protective order in their Northern District of California litigation. The order governs designation, access, use, challenges, filing, and disposition of confidential, highly confidential, source-code, and other protected discovery materials. Counsel signed the stipulation on October 1, 2020, and submitted it to Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers for approval.

Epic Games, Inc. answers Apple Inc.’s counterclaims in the Northern District of California arising from the August 2020 Fortnite dispute. Filed in September 2020, the pleading denies that Epic’s use of Epic Direct Pay and refusal to comply with Apple’s in-app payment restrictions were wrongful, while admitting limited procedural and contractual facts. Epic asserts affirmative defenses including antitrust violations, illegality, duress, waiver, lack of injury and causation, and speculative damages, and seeks judgment against Apple.

On September 29, 2020, EPIC GAMES, INC. and APPLE INC. jointly informed the Northern District of California that Epic’s antitrust claims and Apple’s counterclaims should be tried by the Court rather than a jury. APPLE INC. withdrew its jury-trial demand under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(d), with EPIC GAMES, INC.’s consent, and the parties requested a bench-trial schedule.

On September 29, 2020, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers issued an order memorializing case-management directives discussed at the September 28 hearing on Epic Games’ motion for a preliminary injunction. The order set deadlines for a protective order, initial disclosures, document production, and pleadings, and rescheduled the October 19 case management conference.

Jack Cardwell of Keystone Strategy ordered a complete transcript of the September 28, 2020 proceeding in Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc. The transcript order was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on September 29, 2020.