Case 2:24-md-03113-JXN-LDW Document 75 Filed 02/14/25 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 1087
`
`CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
`COUNSELLORS AT LAW
`
`_____________
`
`5 BECKER FARM ROAD
`ROSELAND, N.J. 07068-1739
`PHONE (973) 994- 1700
`FAX (973) 994- 1744
`www.carellabyrne.com
`
`February 7, 2025
`
`RAYMOND J. LILLIE
`GREGORY G. MAROTTA
`MARYSSA P. GEIST
`JORDAN M. STEELE**
`ROBERT J. VASQUEZ
`BRITTNEY M. MASTRANGELO
`GRANT Y. LEE***
`MAYBOL HALL
`WILLIAM J. MANORY
`
` PETER G. STEWART
` FRANCIS C. HAND
` JAMES A. O’BRIEN, III
` JOHN G. ESMERADO
` STEVEN G. TYSON
` MATTHEW J. CERES
` ZACHARY A. JACOBS***
` JASON H. ALPERSTEIN+ +
`
`OF COUNSEL
`
`*CERTIFIED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF
`NEW JERSEY AS A CIVIL TRIAL ATTORNEY
`**MEMBER NY BAR ONLY
`***MEMBER IL BAR ONLY
`+MEMBER FL BAR ONLY
`+ + MEMBER NY & FL BAR ONLY
`
`JAN ALAN BRODY
`JOHN M. AGNELLO
`CHARLES M. CARELLA
`JAMES E. CECCHI
`
`
`
`
`CHARLES C. CARELLA
`1933 – 2023
`
`
`
`DONALD F. MICELI
`CARL R. WOODWARD, III
`MELISSA E. FLAX
`DAVID G. GILFILLAN
`G. GLENNON TROUBLEFIELD
`BRIAN H. FENLON
`CAROLINE F. BARTLETT
`ZACHARY S. BOWER+
`DONALD A. ECKLUND
`CHRISTOPHER H. WESTRICK*
`STEPHEN R. DANEK
`MICHAEL A. INNES
`MEGAN A. NATALE
`KEVIN G. COOPER
`
`By ECF
`
`Hon. Leda Dunn Wettre, U.S.M.J.
`Martin Luther King Bldg.
`& U.S. Courthouse
`50 Walnut Street
`Newark, New Jersey 07102
`
`Re:
`
`In re: Apple Inc. Smartphone Antitrust Litigation,
`Civil Action No. 2:24-md-03113
`
`Dear Judge Wettre:
`
`We write on behalf of Co-Lead Interim Class Counsel representing the direct purchasers
`of iPhones (“DPP Plaintiffs”), direct purchasers of Apple Watches (“DAWP Plaintiffs) and the
`indirect purchasers of iPhones (“IIP Plaintiffs”) in this litigation (collectively, “Private Plaintiffs”).
`We write to update the Court on the status of our ongoing efforts to further this litigation and to
`request permission for the Private Plaintiff tracks to attend the Court’s upcoming Rule 16
`Conference in the parallel action brought by the Department of Justice, Antitrust Division (“DOJ”).
`
`Regarding our progress, counsel for the DPP Plaintiffs are actively negotiating a protective
`order with Apple and have initiated the meet-and-confer process pursuant to Local Rule 26.1. 1
`Additionally, all parties—including the DOJ—agree that close and effective coordination between
`the DOJ and Private Plaintiffs is essential to ensure efficiency, minimize the duplication of
`discovery, and expedite all proceedings. Further, our request for the production of documents and
`materials previously provided by Apple to the DOJ remains pending before the Court.
`
`As such, considering the paramount importance of maintaining parallel cooperation, we
`respectfully request that counsel for the Private Plaintiffs be permitted to attend the Rule 16
`Conference in the DOJ action on February 27.
`
`1 The Private Plaintiffs are willing to abide by the terms of Apple’s protective order with the DOJ
`as an interim arrangement so as to avoid delaying discovery while the parties negotiate a permanent
`protective order in this matter. ECF 66 at 2.
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-md-03113-JXN-LDW Document 75 Filed 02/14/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 1088
`
`February 7, 2025
`Page 2 of 2
`
`We appreciate the Court’s time and attention to this important matter and we thank Your
`Honor for considering our request. Please let us know if the Court requires any additional
`information.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI,
`OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
`
`/s/ James E. Cecchi
`JAMES E. CECCHI
`
`cc: Counsel of Record (via ECF)
`
`** Application denied in accordance with the Court's February 14, 2025 Order in Civil Action
`No. 24-4055 (JXN) (LDW).
`
`2/14/2025
`
` CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO
`A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
`
`

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.

We are unable to display this document.

PTO Denying Access

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket