Case 2:24-md-03113-JXN-LDW Document 22 Filed 08/22/24 Page 1 of 20 PageID: 905
`
`James E. Cecchi
`CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI
`BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
`5 Becker Farm Road
`Roseland, New Jersey 07068
`Telephone: (973) 994-1700
`jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
`
`Christopher A. Seeger
`SEEGER WEISS LLP
`55 Challenger Road, Suite 600
`Ridgefield Park, New Jersey 07660
`Telephone: (973) 639-9100
`cseeger@seegerweiss.com
`
`Attorneys for Fifty-One Plaintiffs
`
`[Additional counsel appear on signature page]
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
`
`
`Civil Action No. 2:24-md-03113
`(JXN)(LDW) MDL 3113
`
`
`IN RE: APPLE INC. SMARTPHONE
`ANTITRUST LITIGATION
`
`This Document Relates to:
`DIRECT PURCHASER ACTIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RESPONSE MEMORANDUM IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF
`APPOINTMENT OF THE MAJORITY GROUP’S LEADERSHIP SLATE FOR
`IPHONE DIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-md-03113-JXN-LDW Document 22 Filed 08/22/24 Page 2 of 20 PageID: 906
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Title Page
`
`I.
`
`II. ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................ 4
`
`
`INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ....................................... 1
`
`
`
`A.
`
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`The Majority Group Has a Superlative Record and the Right Experience
`for this Case ................................................................................................. 4
`
`The Majority Group Is the Right Size to Litigate This Case ...................... 7
`
`The Majority Group Has a Proven Track Record of Litigating and
`Resolving Private Cases Side by Side with Government Enforcers ........... 9
`
`The Majority Group Has New Jersey-Based Leadership .......................... 11
`
`The Majority Group Co-Lead Firms Have a Deep Antitrust Bench ......... 12
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 15
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-md-03113-JXN-LDW Document 22 Filed 08/22/24 Page 3 of 20 PageID: 907
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`O’Bannon v. NCAA,
`2016 WL 1255454 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2016) .................................................... 7
`In re Qualcomm Antitrust Litig.,
`2023 WL 6301063 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2023) ..................................................... 7
`Stromberg v. Qualcomm Inc.,
`14 F.4th 1059 (9th Cir. 2021) ............................................................................... 7
`
`Page
`
`
`Other Authority
`Standards And Best Practices For Large And Mass-Tort MDLs, Bolch
`Judicial Institute, Duke Law School, Bolch Judicial Institute (2014),
`Best Practice 4B (available at
`https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/bolch/3/) ........................................................... 3
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-md-03113-JXN-LDW Document 22 Filed 08/22/24 Page 4 of 20 PageID: 908
`
`
`
`Fifty-one Plaintiffs1 respectfully submit this memorandum in further support of
`
`the appointment of the “Majority Group” for the iPhone Direct Purchaser Plaintiff
`
`(“DPP”) class [ECF 17] and in response to the Hausfeld/Susman leadership submission
`
`[ECF 19]. The Majority Group’s application also is supported by the proposed
`
`leadership for the Indirect Purchaser track and the Apple Watch track.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`The Majority Group and the Hausfeld/Susman applicants each propose teams
`
`comprising well qualified, experienced antitrust and class action lawyers with scores of
`
`leadership positions, billions of dollars in recoveries for plaintiffs in tech and non-tech
`
`cases, and firm resumes replete with Chambers rankings, clerkships, and recognitions
`
`from the bench, bar, and academia. Numerically too, the teams are on par: the Majority
`
`Group proposes 16 lawyers (no liaison counsel) and the Hausfeld/Susman group
`
`proposes 19 lawyers total (including liaison counsel). In a case with so much at stake
`
`for consumers, these are the minimum qualifications for leadership.
`
`
`1 Barbara Aceto, Eraldo Aguiar, Sarah Babb, Connie Balogh, George Bauman,
`Denise Bove, Angela Boykin, Jarell Brown, Jennifer B. Chiuchiarelli, Deborah Collins,
`Bridget Collins, Hunter Collins, Patricia Yaneth, Cornejo Oraheta, Amy Cross, Tory
`Daines, Alfredo De La Hoz, Ana Deluca, Richard Dwyer, Enrique Finkelstein, Marisa
`Filter, David Freifeld, Jack Townsend Good, Aimen Halim, Mauricio Hernandez, Zaneth
`Hernandez, Richard K. Hopper, Kiyomi Ishii, Michele Kielbasa, Moussa Kouyate, Stacy
`Kurtz, Kendra Kyndberg, Robert Mason, Christopher Miller, John Miller, Robert
`Michaelson, Timothy Moody, Jerry Morgan, Henry Morales, Ayan Mukherjee, Gene
`Philbrook, Kerry Philbrook, Sharon Rabadi, Brian Rodgers, Deanna Siano, Tamara
`Stuck, Tahisha Styron, Milicient Sutters, Christopher Walker, Dane Webb, and April H.
`Yamaichi.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-md-03113-JXN-LDW Document 22 Filed 08/22/24 Page 5 of 20 PageID: 909
`
`
`
`The Majority Group respectfully submits that several additional qualities set it
`
`apart and best serve the needs of the class members and the Court.
`
`First, diligence and representativeness. The Majority Group’s members filed
`
`private plaintiff cases immediately after the DOJ/State AGs commenced their action.
`
`Collectively, the Majority Group have done extensive work to identify and file on behalf
`
`of 51 plaintiffs from 15 jurisdictions. The Majority Group also has shown its desire and
`
`ability to build consensus based on inclusion—both among the Majority Group’s diverse
`
`membership (by experience, seniority, gender, and community) and with those who
`
`represent the indirect purchasers and smart watch purchasers. By comparison, the
`
`Hausfeld/Susman group represents just two plaintiffs—with Susman having filed its
`
`complaint only after CMO-1 was proposed. The Hausfeld/Susman group’s approach
`
`also is non-inclusive, with just one law firm (Hausfeld) that was part of this MDL from
`
`the beginning. The other Hausfeld/Susman team members were brought in ex post facto
`
`to burnish Hausfeld’s application. This approach is inconsistent with the ethos and spirit
`
`of MDL proceedings, which favor collegiality and inclusiveness.
`
`The Hausfeld/Susman group also overstates its investigative work, which
`
`comprises work done by others quoted in seven paragraphs in the Goldfus complaint that
`
`add nothing of substance to the DOJ/State AGs’ allegations. Moreover, Goldfus was
`
`filed by Hausfeld and Carella Byrne, one of the Majority Group’s proposed co-leads.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-md-03113-JXN-LDW Document 22 Filed 08/22/24 Page 6 of 20 PageID: 910
`
`
`
`Second, the ability to productively coordinate with the DOJ and State AGs as the
`
`government and private cases proceed side-by-side. The Majority Group has a proven
`
`record of effective work with the DOJ and many of the State AG offices that have sued
`
`here, including ground-breaking work on cases like the Apple E-Books antitrust case, the
`
`Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing antitrust case, and the VW Diesel, Mercedes-Benz,
`
`Juul and Opioids cases—each of which required skillfully coordinated public/private
`
`litigation and the negotiation of public/private settlements.
`
`Third, New Jersey-based attorneys who have the support of every group of
`
`plaintiffs’ counsel save one and who will be actual co-leads of the litigation. An MDL
`
`is not a securities case with a “winner take all” leadership mentality. For an MDL to
`
`succeed, the lawyers need to trust each other and work collaboratively together toward
`
`a common goal, under proposed leaders who enjoy broad support of the bar. This is in
`
`line with the “best practice” that appointed leadership in an MDL must not only be
`
`excellent lawyers, but also “team players who can work cooperatively with colleagues,
`
`opposing counsel, and the court.”2 The Majority Group fulfills this requirement.
`
`The Majority Group’s experience, skill, and collaborative approach to complex
`
`litigation—both vis-à-vis the plaintiffs’ bar and the Government—make it uniquely
`
`qualified and best suited to serve the interests of the class members in this case. We
`
`
`2 Standards And Best Practices For Large And Mass-Tort MDLs, Bolch Judicial
`Institute, Duke Law School, Bolch Judicial Institute (2014), Best Practice 4B (available
`at https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/bolch/3/).
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-md-03113-JXN-LDW Document 22 Filed 08/22/24 Page 7 of 20 PageID: 911
`
`
`
`would be honored to represent the class in this matter of such immense consequence to
`
`consumers and to free and fair competition.
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`A. The Majority Group Has a Superlative Record and the Right
`Experience for this Case
`The Majority Group’s initial submission detailed its members’ expertise and
`
`extensive experience in U.S. antitrust, class action, and technology cases, as well as
`
`coordinated public-private complex litigation with the DOJ and State AG offices. ECF
`
`17 at 11-35 and Exh. A (firm resumes). Among the many professional accolades
`
`members of the group have earned are individual or firm Chambers Band 1 and Band 2
`
`rankings, 3 as well as merit-based awards from the American Antitrust Institute for
`
`exceptional work on behalf of antitrust plaintiffs (which has selected Steve Berman three
`
`times for its Outstanding Antitrust Litigation Achievement award). Dena Sharp literally
`
`helped write the ABA’s book on Class Action practice. Steve Berman has guest lectured
`
`on class actions at Stanford University, University of Washington, University of
`
`Michigan, and Seattle University Law School. And Chris Seeger is a member of the
`
`
`3 For example, Chris Seeger and Seeger Weiss are Band 1 ranked nationally in Product
`Liability. Hagens Berman is Band 2 ranked nationally for plaintiff’s antitrust work.
`Dena Sharp is Band 1 ranked in California for plaintiff’s antitrust work and Band 2
`ranked nationally. Additional Majority Group members Roberta Liebenberg, Robbins
`Geller, Cotchett Pitre, Kaplan Fox, Gustafson Gluek, and Sperling & Slater also have
`earned similar Chambers rankings individually or for their firms.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-md-03113-JXN-LDW Document 22 Filed 08/22/24 Page 8 of 20 PageID: 912
`
`
`
`American Law Institute who also is regularly invited to speak at and participate in
`
`complex litigation conferences educating federal and state court judges.
`
`Accolades and awards are only as meaningful as the excellence of the work that
`
`earned them. And one of the advantages of a leadership structure comprising lawyers
`
`from multiple firms is the depth and diversity of experience they bring to the table. The
`
`quality and relevance of the Majority Group’s work is bar none. Collectively, relevant
`
`examples of the Majority Group’s members’ and their firms’ leadership include:
`
`Antitrust Cases: Apple E-Books (S.D.N.Y.), Cameron v. Apple (N.D. Cal.), Floyd v.
`
`Amazon.com and Apple (W.D. Wash.), Google Play (N.D. Cal.), Google Digital
`
`Advertising (S.D.N.Y.), High-Tech Employees (N.D. Cal.), Alston v. NCAA (N.D. Cal.),
`
`Keller v. NCAA (N.D Cal.), Liquid Aluminum Sulfate (D.N.J.), Copaxone (D.N.J.),
`
`Fragrance Direct Purchaser (D.N.J.), Vascepa (D.N.J.), Sanofi-Pasteur (D.N.J.),
`
`California Gasoline Spot Market (N.D. Cal.), Restasis (E.D.N.Y.), Automotive Parts
`
`(E.D. Mich.), Zetia (E.D Va.), Urethane (D. Kan.), ISDAfix (S.D.N.Y.), and Payment
`
`Card Interchange Fee & Merchant Discount (E.D.N.Y.).
`
`Additional Technology Cases: Apple Inc. Device Performance (N.D. Cal.), MacBook
`
`Keyboard (N.D. Cal.), Maldonado v. Apple. Inc. (N.D. Cal.), Google RTB Consumer
`
`Privacy (N.D. Cal.), Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury (N.D. Cal.),
`
`and Facebook Inc. Consumer Privacy User Profile (N.D. Cal.).
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-md-03113-JXN-LDW Document 22 Filed 08/22/24 Page 9 of 20 PageID: 913
`
`
`
`Additional Class Actions: NFL Players Concussion Litig. (E.D. Pa.), Philips Recalled
`
`CPAP, Bi-Level Pap, and Mechanical Ventilator Litig. (W.D. Pa.), Takata Airbag (S.D.
`
`Fla.), Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” (N.D. Cal.), and Mercedes-Benz Emissions (D.N.J.),
`
`Additional Public-Private Plaintiff Coordination: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing
`
`(E.D. Pa.), Opioids (N.D. Ohio), and JUUL (N.D. Cal.).4
`
`The above, along with the firm resumes and websites referenced in our initial
`
`submission (ECF 17), confirms the depth and breadth of relevant experience the
`
`Majority Group possesses. Indeed, the experience the Hausfeld/Susman application
`
`cites was often on the same cases as one or more Majority Group members.5
`
`The Hausfeld/Susman group’s successes also are not as clear-cut as it describes.
`
`One of the principal matters it cites—NFL Sunday Ticket—resulted in a complete
`
`defense judgment in a post-trial ruling.6 Another case Hausfeld/Susman references as
`
`
`4 Joe Meltzer also served as a Special Assistant AG for multiple State AGs and Linda
`Nussbaum has worked with the State AGs in Generic Pharmaceuticals.
`5 For example, the Hausfeld and Hagens Berman firms both were part of multi-firm
`groups that litigated the O’Bannon and Keller antitrust cases concerning the NCAA’s
`treatment of student athletes. And, just as Susman represents an opt-out plaintiff in the
`Broiler Chickens antitrust case, Chris Seeger is co-counsel to one of the largest opt-out
`in that case, as well as in the Turkey, Cattle and Beef, and Pork cases (with more than
`$20 billion in purchases), Hagens Berman is lead for the Indirect Purchasers in Broiler
`Chickens (more than $400 million in recoveries to date), and Gustafson Gluek is in
`leadership in Broiler Chickens, Beef, and Pork.
`6 In re NFL’s “Sunday Ticket” Antitrust Litig., Case No. 2:15-ml-02668 (C.D. Cal.), ECF
`1513 (Order Granting Def’s. Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law) at 3 n.2, 12, 13
`(vacating damages verdict and “excluding experts’ damages opinions as unreliable”).
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-md-03113-JXN-LDW Document 22 Filed 08/22/24 Page 10 of 20 PageID: 914
`
`
`
`the “biggest class action in history” [ECF 19-1, p. 22]—the Qualcomm Antitrust
`
`Litigation—and was decertified on appeal 7 and dismissed on summary judgment. 8
`
`When choosing leaders, experience matters, but candor even more so.
`
`The Majority Group Is the Right Size to Litigate This Case
`B.
`As we demonstrated, the 16-member structure proposed by the Majority Group is
`
`wholly in line with similar—or much larger—structures appointed in other complex
`
`matters, such as Opioids (MDL No. 2804, N.D. Ohio), where the Court appointed a 22-
`
`firm leadership structure. ECF 17 at 36-37. Indeed, Hausfeld and Hagens Berman were
`
`part of a 33-firm group that litigated the O’Bannon antitrust case, where they defeated
`
`arguments that the structure resulted in inefficiencies. O’Bannon v. NCAA, 2016 WL
`
`1255454, at *11 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2016), aff’d, 739 F. App’x 890 (9th Cir. 2018).
`
`
`7 Stromberg v. Qualcomm Inc., 14 F.4th 1059, 1063 (9th Cir. 2021) (vacating class
`certification and remanding).
`8 In re Qualcomm Antitrust Litig., 2023 WL 6301063, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2023)
`(granting summary judgment on all claims, finding “[l]itigation often involves strategic
`choices. This MDL proceeding is no different. Plaintiffs made a strategic choice when
`they chose to litigate liability solely on the ‘no license, no chips’ theory of antitrust
`injury, rather than also offering expert testimony establishing antitrust injury under an
`exclusive dealing theory alone. They made another strategic choice when they chose to
`oppose summary judgment on the basis of a new expert report, even though the Court
`had expressly declined to reopen expert discovery. To relieve Plaintiffs of their choices
`under the circumstances of this case would violate Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 1,
`and would open the flood gates to prolonged do-over litigation. The Court, in its
`discretion, chooses not to do so.”)
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-md-03113-JXN-LDW Document 22 Filed 08/22/24 Page 11 of 20 PageID: 915
`
`
`
`Although this is a single Defendant case, the extent of the work is formidable. It
`
`demands multiple groups moving ahead simultaneously under clear, organized
`
`leadership.9 As in other significant MDLs, a multi-firm structure drawing on different
`
`lawyers’ unique strengths is best positioned to work on coordinated, parallel projects
`
`without risk that any one or two firms becomes overwhelmed.
`
`The Hausfeld/Susman group cannot contest that the Majority Group is “right
`
`sized” for this case given that Hausfeld/Susman proposes a group of 19 lawyers,
`
`including New Jersey liaison counsel. See ECF 19-1, Signature Block. In any event,
`
`the efficiency of any leadership structure, whether four, sixteen, or more firms, is best
`
`addressed through effective, trusted, top-down leadership—exactly what the Majority
`
`Group possesses and will bring to bear. The Majority Group’s proposed Co-Lead and
`
`Executive and Steering Committee members have all successfully organized and led
`
`complex litigations efficiently and without rancor or division. That is one reason that
`
`the proposed Co-Leads enjoy such broad support—they are trusted to lead this litigation
`
`to a successful conclusion.
`
`
`9 For example, leadership will need to appoint committees responsible for an Amended
`Master Complaint, ESI Protocols, Law & Briefing, Offensive Fact Discovery, Defensive
`Fact Discovery, Third Party Discovery, Economic Experts, Technical Experts,
`Settlement Negotiations, Coordination with Indirect Purchasers, and Coordination with
`the Federal and State parties.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-md-03113-JXN-LDW Document 22 Filed 08/22/24 Page 12 of 20 PageID: 916
`
`
`
`C. The Majority Group Has a Proven Track Record of Litigating and
`Resolving Private Cases Side by Side with Government Enforcers
`The Majority Group’s proposed Co-Leads also have a proven track record of
`
`working effectively and collaboratively with government enforcers. For example, Chris
`
`Seeger and James Cecchi worked extensively with the DOJ and State AGs in Opioids,
`
`MDL No. 2804 (N.D. Ohio) and Chris Seeger works with several State AGs in the Social
`
`Media Addiction MDL, MDL No. 3047 (N.D. Cal.). Messrs. Seeger, Berman, and
`
`Cecchi also coordinated successfully with both the DOJ and California Air Resources
`
`Board in Volkswagen “Clean Diesel,” MDL No. 2672 (N.D. Cal.). In the similar
`
`Mercedes-Benz Emissions Litigation, No. 16-cv-881 (D.N.J.), James Cecchi also
`
`coordinated successfully with the DOJ in prosecuting the plaintiffs’ claims.
`
`A particularly relevant example is Hagens Berman’s work prosecuting the
`
`groundbreaking eBooks Antitrust Litigation, 11-cv-2293 (S.D.N.Y.), which challenged
`
`Apple’s coordination of eBook pricing. After Hagens Berman sued Apple and was
`
`appointed lead counsel, the DOJ and multiple State AGs filed similar claims.
`
`Coordination across the private and government actions required intensive collaboration,
`
`and included allocating leadership responsibilities across issues, dividing witnesses and
`
`deposition time, and coordinating extensive expert work. Working intensively with the
`
`government plaintiffs, Hagens Berman developed a massive discovery record and
`
`collaborated on trial preparation. These efforts resulted in settlements against Apple and
`
`eBook publishers that collectively secured more than $600 million for eBook purchasers.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-md-03113-JXN-LDW Document 22 Filed 08/22/24 Page 13 of 20 PageID: 917
`
`
`
`Dena Sharp and Steve Berman likewise have successfully coordinated with
`
`several State AGs in Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, MDL 2724
`
`(E.D. Pa.). Ms. Sharp also effectively coordinated with multiple State AGs in JUUL
`
`Labs, Inc. Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, MDL 2913
`
`(N.D. Cal.), including sharing experts and discovery for trial purposes, and the firm is
`
`currently coordinating with State AGs and the DOJ in the Google Digital Advertising
`
`Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:21-md-03010-PKC (S.D.N.Y.).
`
`The Hausfeld/Susman submission does not highlight a comparable record of
`
`fruitful cooperation with federal and state enforcers. To the contrary, it tries to downplay
`
`the importance of the DOJ and State AGs’ investigative work and leadership in this
`
`matter by asserting that the Hausfeld/Susman group was already performing its own
`
`investigation. ECF 19-1 at 6 & 8. The facts, however, tell a different story.
`
`Hausfeld was not the only early filer. Hagens Berman similarly filed its Collins
`
`case the day after the DOJ/State AGs. And even a cursory review of the
`
`Hausfeld/Susman pleadings show they copied from the DOJ/State AG complaint.
`
`As evidence of their supposed independent investigation, Hausfeld/Susman cite
`
`just seven paragraphs in the Goldfus complaint. Id. at 8 (citing Goldfus Compl., ¶¶ 62-
`
`68). But those paragraphs add nothing of substance to the DOJ/State AG’s allegations.10
`
`
`10 For example, Goldfus Complaint ¶ 65 itself cites to the DOJ/State AGs Complaint and
`allegations in Goldfus paragraphs 63 and 65 concerning private APIs and obstacles posed
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-md-03113-JXN-LDW Document 22 Filed 08/22/24 Page 14 of 20 PageID: 918
`
`
`
`Moreover, most of the seven paragraphs merely consist of quotes from other sources—
`
`i.e., someone else’s investigation, including a congressional subcommittee investigative
`
`report and at least one complaint filed by a different law firm in an earlier case.11
`
`The Hausfeld/Susman group also trumpets its efforts “monitoring Apple’s
`
`conduct” with respect to the NFC chips that power digital wallets (ECF 19-1 at 10-11),
`
`without mentioning that members of the Majority Group (Hagens Berman and Sperling
`
`& Slater) have the only U.S. case challenging Apple’s monopoly of the digital wallets
`
`market (Affinity v. Apple (N.D. Cal.)). What the Hausfeld/Susman group is
`
`“monitoring” is the work of the Majority Group.
`
`Finally, it is worth noting that the Susman firm filed its only complaint on July
`
`18, 202412— weeks after the MDL was created. There is nothing wrong with a “follow
`
`on” complaint. But Susman’s belated filing was plainly made only to seek leadership.
`
`D. The Majority Group Has New Jersey-Based Leadership
`The Majority Group also proposes the two leading New Jersey MDL and class
`
`action firms—Carella Byrne and Seeger Weiss—for co-lead positions. In terms of
`
`
`by Apple’s WebKit essentially parallel what the DOJ/State AGs alleged at paragraphs 45
`and 121 of their Complaint.
`11 Goldfus ¶ 67 quotes from Blix Inc v. Apple Inc., 1:19-cv-01869-LPS (D. Del.), ECF
`13 (Am. Compl.), ¶ 13. Paragraph 66 recites a 1996 quote from Steve Jobs found all
`over the internet (e.g., https://www.seedworld.com/canada/2018/02/20/good-artists-
`copy-great-artists-steal-2/ and https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/467767-picasso-had-
`a-saying---good-artists-copy-great-artists) and reporting by the Washington Post.
`12 Polly v. Apple, Inc., 2:24-cv-07849-JXN-LDW (D.N.J.), ECF 1 (Compl.), filed July
`18, 2024.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-md-03113-JXN-LDW Document 22 Filed 08/22/24 Page 15 of 20 PageID: 919
`
`
`
`managing, organizing and prosecuting this case, having that New Jersey based team in
`
`positions of paramount authority is critically important. As important, the New Jersey
`
`based co-leads enjoy the support of every plaintiff and lawyer who initiated this MDL,
`
`other than Hausfeld. This reflects the trust and confidence the bar has in their
`
`qualifications and judgment.
`
`The Majority Group Co-Lead Firms Have a Deep Antitrust Bench
`E.
`Leadership applications typically focus on the qualifications and track records of
`
`the individual lawyers seeking appointment. That is what the Majority Group did in its
`
`submission. The Hausfeld/Susman group, however, chose to set forth the experience of
`
`some of the firm lawyers who would be serving under the proposed co-leads.13 In the
`
`interest of fairness and balance, we provide additional information demonstrating that
`
`the Majority Group’s proposed Co-Lead firms have an equally deep antitrust bench.
`
`Hagens Berman partner Ben Harrington brings experience in all aspects of
`
`antitrust class actions, from case development to appeals. His practice focuses on digital
`
`markets and “big tech,” and he has played a key role in monopolization litigation against
`
`Apple. Notable matters include Cameron v. Apple, 19-cv-3074 (N.D. Cal.), which
`
`challenged Apple’s dominance of the app distribution and earned Mr. Harrington’s team
`
`
`13 The Hausfeld/Susman group emphasizes the European competition law of certain firm
`members. Such experience is not readily transferable to a U.S. antitrust case, which
`involves markedly different legal and economic standards—and virtually none of the
`discovery practice that will be critical here.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-md-03113-JXN-LDW Document 22 Filed 08/22/24 Page 16 of 20 PageID: 920
`
`
`
`the American Antitrust Institute’s 2022 award for Outstanding Antitrust Litigation
`
`Achievement. Mr. Harrington also plays a lead role in antitrust cases challenging
`
`Apple’s (1) restraints on the distribution of iPhones and iPads (Floyd v. Amazon & Apple,
`
`22-cv-1599 (W.D. Wash)), (2) monopolization of the digital wallets market (Affinity v.
`
`Apple, 22-cv-4174 (N.D. Cal.)), and (3) monopolization of cloud storage services
`
`(Gamboa v. Apple, 24-cv-1270 (N.D. Cal.)). Prior to joining Hagens Berman, Mr.
`
`Harrington clerked for Judge Hartz, U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, and Judge
`
`Gershon, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
`
`Scott Grzenczyk, a partner at Girard Sharp, is a seasoned attorney with deep
`
`antitrust and MDL experience. Mr. Grzenczyk focuses his practice on resolving the most
`
`complex issues his cases present, with a particular emphasis on certifying classes in
`
`pharmaceutical antitrust cases. Mr. Grzenczyk’s work has led to numerous precedent-
`
`setting decisions, resulting in billions in recoveries across multiple matters, including In
`
`re JUUL Labs., Inc., Mkt’g, Sales Pracs., and Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL 2913, 19-md-
`
`2913 (N.D. Cal.) (total recoveries of approximately $2 billion, including mid-trial
`
`settlement) and In re Lidoderm Antitrust Litig., MDL 2521, 14-md-2521 (N.D. Cal.)
`
`($104.75 million settlement on the eve of trial). He currently serves on the leadership
`
`teams in notable antitrust class actions including In re Generic Pharmaceuticals
`
`Antitrust Litig., MDL 2724, 16-md-2724 (E.D. Pa.) (member of expert and class
`
`certification committee) and In re Google Digital Advertising Antitrust Litig., MDL
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-md-03113-JXN-LDW Document 22 Filed 08/22/24 Page 17 of 20 PageID: 921
`
`
`
`3010, 21-md-3010 (S.D.N.Y) (oversight of litigation on behalf of advertiser plaintiffs),
`
`both of which involve coordinated litigation with the Department of Justice and States
`
`Attorneys General. Mr. Grzenczyk’s excellence earned him a nod as among the “Top
`
`Antitrust Lawyers in California” by the Daily Journal in 2023, and in 2020 he received
`
`the American Antitrust Institute’s Outstanding Litigation Achievement by a Young
`
`Lawyer. Mr. Grzenczyk also serves as Vice-Chair of the Civil Procedure and Practice
`
`Committee of the American Bar Association’s Antitrust Section.
`
`Caroline Bartlett is a partner at Carella Byrne with a practice in class actions and
`
`mass torts on behalf of plaintiffs. She has been appointed Interim Co-Lead Class
`
`Counsel in Ponzio v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, (D.N.J.), Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel in
`
`In re: Elmiron Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL 2973 (D.N.J.), and chair of the Plaintiffs’
`
`Discovery Committee in In re: Samsung Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., MDL 3055,
`
`(D.N.J.). Ms. Bartlett’s trial experience includes representing plaintiffs in the 2009 trial
`
`in Assemblyman Reed Gusciora v. McGreevy, No. MER-L-2691-04 concerning the
`
`security and accuracy of the State’s voting machines. The New Jersey Legislature cited
`
`Ms. Bartlett for “outstanding leadership in the pursuit of verified voting” for her work
`
`in this matter. Ms. Bartlett’s antitrust experience includes In re: Liquid Aluminum
`
`Sulfate Antitrust Litig., MDL 2687 (D.N.J.) and In re: Fragrance Direct Purchaser
`
`Antitrust Litig., 23-cv-2174 (D.N.J.). Ms. Bartlett served as a law clerk to Chief Judge
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-md-03113-JXN-LDW Document 22 Filed 08/22/24 Page 18 of 20 PageID: 922
`
`
`
`Michael A. Chagares of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and District
`
`Judges Madeline Cox Arleo and John C. Lifland (ret.) in the District of New Jersey.
`
`Seeger Weiss partner Jennifer Scullion has more than twenty-five years of
`
`experience in antitrust matters (on both the plaintiff and defense side), including in the
`
`Copaxone, Fragrance, Liquid Aluminum Sulfate, Broiler Chicken, Turkey, Cattle and
`
`Beef, and Pork, Garber v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, and Deutscher Tennis
`
`Bund v. ATP Tour, Inc. antitrust cases (in which she was co-counsel that successfully
`
`tried federal antitrust claims to jury verdict). Ms. Scullion has been an invited speaker
`
`by the American Antitrust Institute, the American Bar Association, the American
`
`Association for Justice, the Bolch Judicial Institute of Duke University, and the Antonin
`
`Scalia Law School. She also serves as Co-Chair of the State Attorney General Liaison
`
`Committee of COSAL, the nation’s premier antitrust lawyer advocacy organization.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, we respectfully ask Your Honor to appoint the Majority
`
`Group as interim leadership on behalf of the iPhone Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs.
`
`
`
` Respectfully Submitted,
`
`DATED: August 22, 2024
`
`
`
`
`Steven W. Berman
`HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL
`SHAPIRO, LLP
`1301 Second Avenue
`Suite 2000
`Seattle, WA 98101
`
`
`
`
`
`By: James E. Cecchi
`James E. Cecchi
`CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI
`BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
`5 Becker Farm Road
`Roseland, NJ 07068
`Tel: 973-994-1700
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-md-03113-JXN-LDW Document 22 Filed 08/22/24 Page 19 of 20 PageID: 923
`
`
`
`Tel: 206-623-7292
`Email: steve@hbsslaw.com
`
`Dena Sharp
`GIRARD SHARP LLP
`601 California Street, Suite 1400
`San Francisco, CA 94108
`Tel: 415-981-4800
`Email: dsharp@girardsharp.com
`
`
`
`Linda P. Nussbaum
`NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, PC
`1133 Avenue of the Americas,
`31st Floor
`New York, NY 10036
`Tel: 917-438-9189
`Email: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
`
`
`Joseph H. Meltzer
`KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER
`& CHECK, LLP
`280 King of Prussia Road
`Radnor, PA 19087
`Tel: 610-667-7706
`Email: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
`
`Peter A. Barile III
`LOWEY DANNENBERG, PC
`44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
`White Plains, NY 10601
`Tel: 914-997-0500
`Email: pbarile@lowey.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
`
`
`Christopher A. Seeger
`SEEGER WEISS, LLP
`55 Challenger Road
`Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
`Tel: 973-639-9100
`Email: cseeger@seegerweiss.com
`
`Proposed Co-Lead Interim Counsel
`
`Karin B. Swope
`COTCHETT, PITRE &
`MCCARTHY, LLP
`999 N. Northlake Way, Suite 215
`Seattle, WA 98103
`Tel: 206 802-1272
`Email: kswope@cpmlegal.com
`
`Hae Sung Nam
`KAPLAN FOX
`& KILSHEIMER LLP
`800 Third Avenue
`38th Floor
`New York, NY 10022
`Tel: 212-687-1980
`Email: hnam@kaplanfox.com
`
`Daniel J. Nordin
`GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
`Canadian Pacific Plaza
`120 S. Sixth Street, Suite 2600
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Tel: 612-333-8844
`dnordin@gustafsongluek.com
`
`Mark J. Dearman
`ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-md-03113-JXN-LDW Document 22 Filed 08/22/24 Page 20 of 20 PageID: 924
`
`
`
`
`
`Jeff Ostrow
`KOPELOWITZ OSTROW PA
`One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
`Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
`Tel: 954-332-4200
`Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com
`
`Joseph M. Vanek
`SPERLING & SLATER, LLC
`55 W. Monroe Street, 32nd Floor
`Chicago, IL 60603
`Tel: 312-641-3200
`Email: jvanek@sperling-law.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`& DOWD LLP
`225 NE Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720
`Boca Raton, FL 33432
`Telephone: 561-750-3000
`Email: mdearman@rgrdlaw.com
`
`Pro