`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN RE APPLE INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 4:19-cv-2033-YGR
`
`ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
`AMEND
`
`Re: Dkt. No. 249, 250, 266, 278
`
`
`
`Before the Court is plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a second amended class action
`
`complaint.1 Plaintiffs seek to amend their complaint “to plead new facts in support of a previously
`
`alleged misrepresentation that was dismissed because the Court concluded it appeared to be
`
`“‘accurate.’” (Dkt. No. 250 at 1.) As will be addressed, defendants oppose amendment.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`At issue in this motion is the alleged misrepresentation by defendant Tim Cook that he had
`
`“very, very little data” (hereinafter, for the purposes of this order, “the Data Misrepresentation”)
`
`regarding demand for the iPhone XR. (Id. at 2.) The Court incorporates the background section of its
`
`order on defendants’ second motion to dismiss regarding the general facts of the call during which
`
`this statement was made. (Dkt. No. 123 at 1-4.)
`
`In its order granting in part and denying in part defendants’ motion to dismiss, the Court held
`
`that the Data Misrepresentation was “the type of vague, hedging, hyper-specific statement[] that [is]
`
`not likely to give investors an impression of a state of affairs one way of the other.” (Dkt. No. 123 at
`
`11: 15-16.) The Court found that “because [the Data Misrepresentation is] puffery and [does] not
`
`
`1 The Court has reviewed the papers submitted by the parties in connection with this motion
`and has determined that the motion is appropriate for decision without oral argument, as permitted by
`Civil Local Rule 7-1(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78. See Lake at Las Vegas Investors
`Group, Inc. v. Pacific Malibu Dev. Corp., 933 F.2d 724, 729 (9th Cir. 1991). Additionally, the Court
`notes that plaintiffs chose not to schedule a hearing when they filed their motion and have not
`subsequently requested a hearing.
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`
`
`address the specific areas that defendants allegedly knew to be doing poorly,” that plaintiffs “fail[ed]
`
`to allege that the [Data Misrepresentation was] false or misleading.” (Id. at 11: 17-19) (emphasis in
`
`original.)
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`“Where, as here, a party seeks leave to amend after the deadline set in the scheduling order
`
`has passed, the party's request is judged under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (‘FRCP’) 16's ‘good
`
`cause’ standard rather than the ‘liberal amendment policy’ of FRCP 15(a).” In re W. States
`
`Wholesale Nat. Gas Antitrust Litig., 715 F.3d 716, 737 (9th Cir. 2013). The central inquiry
`
`under Rule 16(b)(4) is whether the requesting party was diligent in seeking the amendment. Id.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`
`11
`
`Defendants oppose this motion on several grounds. The Court addresses the two arguments it
`
`12
`
`finds dispositive here: (1) that the Court found the Data Misrepresentation was puffery and (2) that
`
`13
`
`plaintiffs have not shown good cause for waiting to request leave to amend.
`
`14
`
`15
`
`A.
`
`Puffery
`
`This Court found as a matter of law that the Data Misrepresentation is puffery and therefore
`
`16
`
`non-actionable, regardless of its truth or falsity. (Dkt. No. 123 at 11.) Additional facts going to the
`
`17
`
`falsity of the misrepresentation will not make the misrepresentation actionable. The proposed
`
`18
`
`amendments are therefore futile.
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`19
`
`In their reply, plaintiffs briefly appear to argue that the Court should find that the
`
`20
`
`misrepresentation is “capable of objective verification” and therefore not puffery. (Dkt. No. 279 at
`
`21
`
`15.) To the extent plaintiffs disagree with the Court’s legal conclusions, the proper motion would
`
`22
`
`have been one for reconsideration. That said, sufficient grounds do not exist to reconsider.
`
`23
`
`24
`
`B.
`
`Timeliness
`
`Plaintiffs’ briefing details the contentious discovery process in this case. However, plaintiffs
`
`25
`
`fail to allege with specificity how delays in access to discovery directly impacted their ability to move
`
`26
`
`for leave to amend. Apple’s withholding of certain discovery may have made it impossible for
`
`27
`
`plaintiffs to meet the amendment deadline of May 5, 2001, but plaintiffs have not indicated that it was
`
`28
`
`reasonable for them to wait until July 5, 2022 to seek to amend. The Court finds particularly
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`compelling defendants’ statements that 70% of the documents produced by Apple upon which the
`
`proposed second amended complaint relies were produced more than a year ago, that all documents
`
`were produced before February of 2022, and that plaintiffs relied on these documents in
`
`interrogatories to defendants in March of 2022, indicating that their awareness of these documents and
`
`their significance. (Dkt. No. 267 at 2.) Beyond describing the large amount of discovery plaintiffs
`
`needed to analyze in this case, plaintiffs do not directly refute or address these claims. Plaintiffs have
`
`not met their burden to show good cause for waiting until July of this year to file their motion for
`
`leave to amend.
`
`Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED.2
`
`This terminates docket numbers 249, 250, 266, and 278.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`September 19, 2022
`Dated:
`
`____________________________________
`YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
`
`2 The Court GRANTS the parties requests to file portions of their briefing for this motion under
`seal on the basis that these documents contain non-public information and/or information that the
`parties have designated confidential or highly confidential. (Dkt. Nos. 249, 266, 278.) The Court
`reserves the ability to deny requests to seal such documents in a different procedural context which
`would carry a higher burden for sealing.
`
`3
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`