Case 2:24-md-03113-JXN-LDW Document 4 Filed 06/25/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 26
`THREE GATEWAY CENTER
`100 Mulberry Street, 15th Floor
`Newark, NJ 07102
`T: 973.757.1100
`F: 973.757.1090
`WALSH.LAW
`
`
`
`Liza M. Walsh
`Direct Dial: (973) 757-1100
`lwalsh@walsh.law
`
`VIA ECF
`Honorable Julien Xavier Neals, U.S.D.J.
`United States District Court
`Martin Luther King Federal Building
`50 Walnut Street
`Newark, New Jersey 07102
`
`June 25, 2024
`
`Re:
`
`In re: Apple Inc. Smartphone Antitrust Litigation,
`Civil Action No. 2:24-md-03113-JXN-LDW (MDL 3113)
`
`
`Dear Judge Neals:
`
`This firm, together with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, represents Defendant Apple Inc.
`(“Apple”) in the above-referenced multidistrict litigation (“MDL”). I write in response to the letter
`and proposed Case Management Order (“CMO”) submitted by James E. Cecchi on June 20, 2024.
`See Dkt. 2. Mr. Cecchi purports to represent plaintiffs in six of 36 direct purchaser actions that,
`along with an additional eight1 indirect purchaser actions, have recently been ordered consolidated
`before the Court in this MDL. Apple submits that Mr. Cecchi’s letter and proposed CMO—which
`he sent without first meeting and conferring with Apple—are premature and that case management
`should be addressed at a later date, after coordination counsel has been appointed and the parties
`have had an opportunity to meet and confer about a proposed schedule and case management
`structure.
`
`Litigation Background
`
`On March 21, 2024, the United States and sixteen states filed a complaint in the District of
`New Jersey against Apple. See United States v. Apple Inc., 2:24-cv-04055 (D.N.J.), Dkt. 1. On
`June 11, 2024, plaintiffs amended their complaint to reflect that four additional states joined the
`lawsuit and to add a cause of action. Dkt. 51. Apple vigorously disputes the complaint’s
`allegations that Apple unlawfully monopolized or attempted to monopolize a smartphone (or, in
`the alternative, “performance” smartphone) market under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.
`§ 2, and certain state antitrust laws.
`
`Since the Government filed suit, 41 putative class actions, alleging claims on behalf of both
`direct and indirect iPhone and/or Apple Watch purchasers, have been filed by private plaintiffs in
`several federal district courts across the country (collectively, the “Related Actions”). The
`
`1 33 actions allege a putative class of exclusively direct purchasers, five actions allege a putative class of exclusively
`indirect purchasers, and three actions allege a putative class of both indirect and direct purchasers.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-md-03113-JXN-LDW Document 4 Filed 06/25/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 27
`
`Honorable Julien Xavier Neals, U.S.D.J.
`June 25, 2024
`Page 2
`
`majority (26 complaints) were filed in this District, and 15 additional cases were filed across the
`Northern District of California, the Northern District of Illinois, the District of Minnesota, and the
`Western District of Pennsylvania.
`
`On June 7, 2024, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered that all 41 Related
`Actions be consolidated before this Court. See Dkt. 1 at 1. The Related Actions are still in the
`process of being transferred and consolidated, in part pending resolution of an objection filed on
`June 20, 2024, by Plaintiff Whiteside. See In Re: Apple Inc. Smartphone Antitrust Litigation,
`MDL No. 3113, Dkt. 120.
`
`Mr. Cecchi’s June 20, 2024 Letter
`
`On June 20, 2024, without first meeting and conferring with Apple, Mr. Cecchi sent a letter
`to Your Honor purporting to “provide the Court with an abbreviated background of the litigation
`and to propose the entry of an initial Case Management Order regarding the organization and
`conduct of this MDL for the direct purchaser cases.” Dkt. 2 at 1. It was only after Mr. Cecchi
`filed the letter that he shared a copy with Apple’s counsel to ask if Apple had “any questions”
`about the proposed CMO. Apple submits that Mr. Cecchi’s letter and proposed CMO are
`premature. Any discussion of case management should follow the complete transfer of all lawsuits
`in the MDL and include input from all parties in the Related Actions. In light of that, and in order
`to proceed fairly and efficiently, Apple respectfully recommends the following sequencing prior
`to entry of any CMO:
`
`1. The process of transferring the Related Actions is completed, including resolution
`of the objection filed by Plaintiff Whiteside;
`2. The Court appoint class coordination counsel for the direct and indirect plaintiffs’
`groups, or at least interim class coordination counsel, to speak on behalf of plaintiffs
`in the Related Actions regarding scheduling and case management matters; and
`3. Coordination counsel (once appointed) and Apple meet and confer regarding a
`proposed case schedule and case management structure, and submit a proposed
`CMO for the Court’s consideration.
`
`Apple submits that this process will allow all parties to provide input regarding case
`management in an efficient and orderly fashion, and will help facilitate coordination, as
`appropriate, of the schedule in this MDL with the schedule in the United States’ lawsuit. In the
`meantime, Apple does not object to the entry of an order scheduling briefing on the appointment
`of class coordination counsel. Apple thanks the Court for its consideration.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`s/Liza M. Walsh
`
`Liza M. Walsh
`
`cc:
`
`Hon. Leda Dunn Wettre
`All Counsel of Record (via ECF)
`
`
`
`