Case 2:22-cv-01599-KKE Document 90 Filed 03/26/24 Page 1 of 82
`
`Honorable Kymberly K. Evanson
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`AT SEATTLE
`
`STEVEN FLOYD, individually and on behalf
`of all other similarly situated,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`AMAZON.COM INC., a Delaware
`corporation, and APPLE INC., a California
`corporation,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 2:22-cv-01599 KKE
`JOINT STATEMENT OF DISCOVERY
`DISPUTES
`
`The parties have met-and-conferred on issues regarding Defendants’ propounded
`
`discovery and have narrowed their disputes to the matters outlined in this joint statement
`
`submitted in accordance with this Court’s Procedures for Civil Cases.
`
`JOINT STATEMENT OF DISCOVERY DISPUTES
`Case No. 2:22-cv-01599 KKE
`
`1
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01599-KKE Document 90 Filed 03/26/24 Page 2 of 82
`
`I.
`
`Apple’s Statement
`
`Floyd’s continued objections to Apple’s1 reasonable discovery requests illustrate the one-
`
`sided nature of discovery in this case—a condition worsened considerably by the fact that there is
`
`currently no active plaintiff. While Apple’s counsel have spent significant time working with their
`
`client to substantively respond to interrogatory requests and to collect and prepare tens of thousands
`
`of documents for production, Floyd has refused to agree to provide relevant materials on household
`
`purchasing practices and failed to substantively respond to any interrogatories.
`
`Household Purchasing Practices. Defendants’ Request for Production No. 5 asks Floyd to
`
`provide documents showing basic information about each smartphone or tablet purchased or
`
`obtained by Floyd or any member of his household. Floyd categorically objects to discovery into
`
`purchases by other members of his household.2 This basic evidence is relevant to issues of market
`
`definition, typicality, and adequacy—particularly when, as explained further below, Apple’s
`
`records show the iPad at issue in the complaint was never registered to Floyd.
`
`Floyd’s proposed market definitions are drawn to exclude competition from brick-and-
`
`mortar stores (e.g., Best Buy), from specialty online retailers (e.g., Apple.com), and from cellular
`
`carriers (e.g., Verizon), even though all these retailers sell large volumes of smartphones and
`
`tablets. Floyd attempts to justify this exclusion of “online marketplaces” and “online one-stop
`
`shops” on the ground that consumers will confine their smartphone and tablet shopping to these
`
`types of retailers regardless of price because these retailers offer an “incomparable array of
`
`products” and “seamless shopping.” Am. Compl. ¶¶ 91, 100, 134. Where, as here, a plaintiff alleges
`
`a market of superstores defined by their “broad selection” and “one-stop shopping,” evidence as to
`
`customers’ “purchasing proclivity” is highly relevant. Thurman Industries, Inc. v. Pay ‘N Pak
`
`Stores, Inc., 875 F.2d 1369, 1374, 1376–77 (9th Cir. 1989). This includes the purchasing practices
`
`1 To the extent that counsel regains contact with Floyd and he continues with this case, Amazon concurs that he
`should be compelled to respond.
`2 Defendants met and conferred with Floyd’s counsel regarding Floyd’s potential household members to see if this
`was a moot issue, but Floyd’s counsel has been unable to confirm.
`
`JOINT STATEMENT OF DISCOVERY DISPUTES
`Case No. 2:22-cv-01599 KKE
`
`2
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01599-KKE Document 90 Filed 03/26/24 Page 3 of 82
`
`of both Floyd and his household members. See Stearns v. Ticketmaster Corp., 655 F.3d 1013,
`
`1019–20 (9th Cir. 2011) (actions of family members are relevant to typicality of class
`
`representative). Plaintiff relies on Does 1-10 v. Univ. of Wash., 2018 WL 3417017, at *2 (W.D.
`
`Wash. July 13, 2018), to say Apple is seeking “disfavored” absent class member discovery, but this
`
`is not so. Does 1-10 regards discovery requests “extend[ed] to all absent class members” (id.) –
`
`not, as here, limited requests regarding the relevant purchases of Plaintiff’s household members
`
`where the iPad at issue in the complaint was not even registered to the named Plaintiff and thus
`
`appears to have been purchased for one of his household members.
`
`Further, it is critical to determine what links Floyd and his household members have to the
`
`iPad at issue – including, for example, whether the iPad was purchased on Amazon for a reason
`
`other than price, such as quick shipping. In effect, Floyd is refusing discovery into the very iPad
`
`he put at issue in the complaint. See infra at 4 (referencing agreement to produce discovery on
`
`smartphone and tablet purchases from proposed “new Plaintiffs”– not Floyd or respective
`
`household members). This information is plainly relevant. If Floyd’s own household was not
`
`purchasing exclusively from online marketplaces or online one stop shops, it suggests that the
`
`market is not well defined. And there is no question that the purchasing patterns of his household
`
`are highly relevant to adequacy and typicality. See, e.g., Stearns, 655 F.3d at 1019–20; Haghayeghi
`
`v. Guess?, Inc., 2016 WL 9526465, at *3–*4 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2016) (denying discovery for a
`
`broad request to identify “all[ ] closely associated persons,” including “any firm [or] corporation,”
`
`but noting that where plaintiff’s sister was associated with a phone number on defendant’s mailing
`
`list, such discovery “may be relevant to the determination of whether Plaintiff is atypical of the
`
`class”). In other words, Floyd need demonstrate, among other things, that he and many other
`
`consumers choose to buy smartphones, tablets, or other goods from online marketplaces and/or
`
`online one-stop shops even if the price is higher because they can simultaneously buy an
`
`“incomparable array” of other products. See, e.g., Lucas Auto. Eng’g, Inc. v. Bridgestone/Firestone,
`
`JOINT STATEMENT OF DISCOVERY DISPUTES
`Case No. 2:22-cv-01599 KKE
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01599-KKE Document 90 Filed 03/26/24 Page 4 of 82
`
`Inc., 275 F.3d 762, 767–68 (9th Cir. 2001); FTC v. Whole Foods Mkt., 548 F.3d 1028, 1039–40
`
`(D.C. Cir. 2008). This dispute, however, is not limited to Floyd’s objections to producing these
`
`documents – his interrogatory responses also refuse to provide actual information, including
`
`regarding household members.
`
`Interrogatory Responses. Apple served Floyd with reasonable, targeted interrogatories to
`
`obtain information about his purchasing behavior. Rather than provide good faith responses, Floyd
`
`provided boilerplate objections. See Exhibits A and B. In fact, there is no indication that Floyd was
`
`involved in these responses at all. Apple’s counsel have requested full responses, but Floyd’s
`
`counsel cannot provide a date by which the only current plaintiff in the case will respond.
`
`Additionally, Apple’s counsel was forced to confer with Floyd’s counsel for months, while they
`
`stood on plainly improper objections, like claiming as “protected work product” the documents and
`
`data on which the charts, graphs, and infographics in the Amended Complaint are based or rely.
`
`See Plaintiff’s Objections and Responses to Defendants’ First Set of Requests for Production, at 22
`
`(RFP No. 26). Floyd’s failure to participate in discovery prejudices Apple’s right to build its
`
`defense because Floyd has failed to provide information about his purchasing behavior. The Court
`
`should compel responses by a date certain and, if Floyd fails to respond, consider sanctions,
`
`including dismissal with prejudice or a stay of the litigation until Floyd provides the information.
`
`See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(iv)-(v).
`
`II.
`
`Plaintiff’s Position
`
`Defendants have issued 56 exceptionally broad document requests probing, among other
`
`things, Mr. Floyd’s purchasing patterns. The requests seek documents related to every retail
`
`purchase Mr. Floyd has made—online or in-person—in the last five-plus years, including receipts,
`
`correspondence, reviews, credit card and banking statements, returns, and exchanges. See Ex. C at
`
`RFPs 1-9, 14-16. Despite the breadth of these requests, Plaintiff’s counsel has agreed to produce
`
`responsive documents (Ex. D) and, for the new Plaintiffs in the proposed SAC (see ECF No. 80),
`
`JOINT STATEMENT OF DISCOVERY DISPUTES
`Case No. 2:22-cv-01599 KKE
`
`4
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01599-KKE Document 90 Filed 03/26/24 Page 5 of 82
`
`substantially complete productions should be ready by the April 3 deadline.3 Defendants, by
`
`contrast, have not produced a single responsive document, nor committed to make any production
`
`in accordance with the Court’s schedule. Defendants’ suggestion that they dutifully abided by their
`
`discovery obligations while their own requests went unheeded is thus not accurate. In reality,
`
`Defendants ignored their requests for months while resisting all discovery from Plaintiff. The
`
`complaints Defendants now raise with respect to Plaintiff productions are baseless.
`
`Household Member Discovery: Defendants seek detailed information regarding all
`
`cellular plans and smartphone and tablet purchases for not just Mr. Floyd, but any of his household
`
`members. See RFP 5; Apple Rogs 1, 4, and 6; Amazon Rog 4. These requests are improper and any
`
`relevance is grossly outweighed by the burden and confidentiality interests at stake.
`
`Household members are not parties to this litigation. At most—if they made a qualifying
`
`iPhone or iPad purchase—they are absent class members. Defendants know “discovery of absent
`
`class members is disfavored.” Does 1-10 v. Univ. of Wash., 2018 WL 3417017, at *2 (W.D. Wash.
`
`July 13, 2018). Defendants are not permitted to backdoor absent-class-member discovery by calling
`
`it discovery of “household members.” See id. (requiring named plaintiffs to respond to discovery
`
`requests only “on their own behalf”). Tellingly, the only case Apple cites involving household
`
`member discovery rejected far narrower requests than Apple pursues here. See Haghayeghi v.
`
`Guess?, Inc., 2016 WL 9526465, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2016) (“Defendant’s request for Plaintiff
`
`to identify all of her immediate family members and anyone she lived with during the putative class
`
`period is overbroad and seeks irrelevant information.”).
`
`According to Apple, household discovery is “critical” because Mr. Floyd may have
`
`purchased an iPad for a household member and, by opposing household discovery, he is somehow
`
`“refusing discovery into the very iPad” at issue here. Apple is misstating Plaintiff’s responses.
`
`3 Plaintiff’s counsel has unfortunately not been able to regain contact with Mr. Floyd. As Plaintiffs stated in moving
`to amend, to the extent Mr. Floyd is unable to fulfil his obligations as a class representative, the additional Plaintiffs in
`the proposed SAC are ready to serve. See ECF No. 80.
`
`JOINT STATEMENT OF DISCOVERY DISPUTES
`Case No. 2:22-cv-01599 KKE
`
`5
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01599-KKE Document 90 Filed 03/26/24 Page 6 of 82
`
`Plaintiff’s counsel has agreed to produce documents relating to all of any named Plaintiff’s
`
`smartphone and tablet purchases, irrespective of whether the products were for their own use or for
`
`someone else. See RFP 5; ECF 80 at 1-2 (confirming that new Plaintiffs will adopt Floyd’s
`
`responses). Thus, if a Plaintiff purchased an iPad for a household member, documents relating to
`
`that purchase will be produced. Apple is wrong that gifting a tablet would make a plaintiff
`
`“atypical” of the class, but regardless, documents on this topic are not being withheld.
`
`Apple also severely overstates the relevance of the household member purchases (or a
`
`named Plaintiff’s for that matter). Markets are defined with proof of “aggregate demand . . . rather
`
`than the purchasing decision of an individual consumer.” See, e.g., In re Live Concert Antitrust
`
`Litig., 247 F.R.D. 98, 127 (C.D. Cal. 2007). An individual consumer’s purchasing habits are indeed
`
`“the least reliable evidence” to assess a relevant market. See Frame-Wilson v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`
`2023 WL 4492365, at *2 (W.D. Wash. July 12, 2023) (denying discovery of class representative
`
`physical receipts). Household purchasing habits are thus of marginal relevance, at best, and any
`
`relevance is substantially outweighed by the obvious burden and invasiveness of probing non-party
`
`transaction histories. See Hernandez v. Lynch, 2018 WL 10561972, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2018)
`
`(holding that while financial circumstances of named plaintiffs were relevant, requests for
`
`“financial information” of “members of their household” were disproportionate and unwarranted).
`
`Interrogatory Responses: Class counsel served objections (where appropriate) to
`
`Defendants’ Interrogatories, while noting Mr. Floyd’s non-responsiveness and reserving his right
`
`to supplement with answers. See Exs. A and B (“Preliminary Statement”). Apple implies something
`
`untoward in this, but it was the appropriate procedure given Mr. Floyd’s status. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`33(b)(5) (“The person who makes the answers must sign them, and the attorney who objects must
`
`sign any objections.”).
`
`If interrogatory responses were actually what Apple wanted, it could have consented to
`
`amendment so the new representatives could provide them. Instead, Apple is opposing amendment
`
`JOINT STATEMENT OF DISCOVERY DISPUTES
`Case No. 2:22-cv-01599 KKE
`
`6
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01599-KKE Document 90 Filed 03/26/24 Page 7 of 82
`
`and, paradoxically, demanding sanctions. As set forth in Plaintiff’s motion to amend, when a class
`
`representative stops responding to counsel, the standard procedure is not to punish the party and
`
`class, as Apple opportunistically requests, but to substitute or add additional representatives who
`
`can move the case forward. ECF No. 80; Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.
`
`Dated March 26, 2024.
`
` ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`By: /s/ Mark S. Parris
`
`Mark S. Parris (WSBA No. 18370)
`mparris@orrick.com
`401 Union Street, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98101
`Telephone: +1 206 839 4300
`Facsimile: +1 206 839 4301
`WEIL GOTSHAL & MANGES, LLP
`
`By: /s/ Mark A. Perry
`
`Mark A. Perry (Pro Hac Vice)
`2001 M. Street NW, Suite 600
`Washington, DC 20036
`Telephone: +1 202 682 7000
`mark.perry@weil.com
`
`By: /s/ Eric S. Hochstadt
`Eric S. Hochstadt (Pro Hac Vice)
`767 Fifth Ave.
`New York, NY 10153-0119
`Telephone: +1 212 310 8000
`eric.hochstadt@weil.com
`By: /s/ Brian G. Liegel
`Brian G. Liegel (Pro Hac Vice)
`brian.liegel@weil.com
`1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1200
`Miami, FL 33131
`Telephone: +1 305 577 3180
`Attorneys for Apple Inc.
`
`JOINT STATEMENT OF DISCOVERY DISPUTES
`Case No. 2:22-cv-01599 KKE
`
`7
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01599-KKE Document 90 Filed 03/26/24 Page 8 of 82
`
`HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
`
`By /s/ Steve W. Berman
`Steve W. Berman (WSBA No. 12536)
`
`By /s/ Barbara A. Mahoney
`Barbara A. Mahoney (WSBA No. 31845)
`1301 Second Avenue Suite 2000
`Seattle, WA 98101
`Telephone: (206) 623-7292
`Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
`steve@hbsslaw.com
`barbaram@hbsslaw.com
`
`Ben M. Harrington (pro hac vice)
`Benjamin J. Siegel (pro hac vice)
`715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 300
`Berkeley, CA 94710
`Telephone: (510) 725-3000
`Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
`benh@hbsslaw.com
`bens@hbsslaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class.
`
`JOINT STATEMENT OF DISCOVERY DISPUTES
`Case No. 2:22-cv-01599 KKE
`
`8
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01599-KKE Document 90 Filed 03/26/24 Page 9 of 82
`Case 2:22-cv-01599-KKE
`Document90_
`Filed 03/26/24
`Page 9 of 82
`
`EXHIBIT A
`EXHIBIT A
`
`9
`
`

`

`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
`
`Case 2:22-cv-01599-KKE Document 90 Filed 03/26/24 Page 10 of 82
`
`The Honorable Kymberly K. Evanson
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`STEVEN FLOYD, individually and on
`behalf of all others similarly situated,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`AMAZON.COM INC. and APPLE INC.,
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 2:22-cv-01599 KKE
`APPLE INC.’S FIRST SET OF
`INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 33, and the Local Civil Rules of
`
`the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Defendant Apple Inc.,
`by and through its undersigned attorneys, requests that Plaintiff Steven Floyd, (“Plaintiff”),
`answer the following Interrogatories (“Interrogatories”), separately and fully, in writing, under
`oath, and in accordance with the Definitions and Instructions set forth herein, and serve a copy
`of such answers upon the undersigned counsel within thirty (30) days of service hereof, at the
`offices of Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, located at 767 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10153,
`or at such other locations and times as counsel for the parties may agree.
`DEFINITIONS
`1. “You,” “Your,” or “Plaintiff” means Steven Floyd or any other person acting or
`purporting to act, exercising discretion, and/or making decisions on his behalf.
`2. “Amazon” means Amazon.com Inc.
`
`APPLE INC.’S FIRST SET OF
`INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF:
`2:22-cv-01599 KKE
`
`
`
`
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`
`401 Union Street, Suite 3300
`Seattle, Washington 98101
`+1 206 839 4300
`
`10
`
`

`

`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
`
`Case 2:22-cv-01599-KKE Document 90 Filed 03/26/24 Page 11 of 82
`
`
`
`3. “Apple” means Apple Inc.
`4. “Complaint” refers to Plaintiff’s First Amended Class Action Complaint filed on
`February 27, 2023.
`5. “Communication” is used in the broadest possible sense and means every conceivable
`manner or means of disclosure, transfer, or exchange of oral or written information between
`one or more persons, entities, devices, platforms, or systems, whether in the form of an
`original, a draft, or a copy, whether stored in hard copy, on tape, electronically or digitally,
`either orally, visually, or in writing, and includes but is not limited to conversations,
`correspondence, electronic mails or emails, telexes, facsimile transmissions, telecopies,
`recordings in any medium of oral, written, or typed communications, telephone or message
`logs, notes or memoranda relating to written or oral communications; and any translation
`thereof.
`6. “Concerning,” “Reflecting,” “Regarding,” and “Relating to” are used in the broadest
`possible sense and mean, in whole or in part, addressing, analyzing, constituting, containing,
`commenting, in connection with, dealing with, discussing, describing, embodying, evidencing,
`identifying, pertaining, referring, reporting, stating, or summarizing.
`7. “Document” is used in the broadest possible sense consistent with the meaning given in
`Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and includes without limitation any written,
`printed, typed, photocopied, photographed, recorded or otherwise reproduced or stored
`communication or representation, whether comprised of letters, words, numbers, data, pictures,
`sounds or symbols, or any combination thereof. “Document” includes without limitation,
`correspondence, memoranda, notes, records, letters, envelopes, telegrams, messages, studies,
`analyses, contracts, agreements, working papers, accounts, analytical records, reports and/or
`summaries of investigations, press releases, comparisons, books, calendars, diaries, articles,
`magazines, newspapers, booklets, brochures, pamphlets, circulars, bulletins, notices, drawings,
`diagrams, instructions, notes of minutes of meetings or communications, electronic
`mail/messages and/or “e-mail,” text messages, social media communications, voice mail
`
`APPLE INC.’S FIRST SET OF
`INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF:
`2:22-cv-01599 KKE
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5600
` Seattle, Washington 98104-7097
`+1 206 839 4300
`
`11
`
`

`

`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
`
`Case 2:22-cv-01599-KKE Document 90 Filed 03/26/24 Page 12 of 82
`
`
`
`messages, instant messaging, any other electronically transmitted messages, questionnaires,
`surveys, charts, graphs, photographs, films, tapes, disks, data cells, print-outs of information
`stored or maintained by electronic data processing or word processing equipment, all other
`data compilations from which information can be obtained (by translation, if necessary, by
`You through detection devices into usable form), including, without limitation,
`electromagnetically sensitive storage media such as CDs, DVDs, memory sticks, floppy disks,
`hard disks and magnetic tapes, and any preliminary versions, as well as drafts or revisions of
`any of the foregoing, regardless of who authored the Document.
`8. The term “including” is used to provide examples of certain types of Information and
`should not be construed as limiting a request in any way. The term “including” shall be
`construed as if followed by the phrase “but not limited to.”
`9. “Information” means Information in any form, including but not limited to
`documentary, electronic, graphical, or tabular, and communicated by any means, including but
`not limited to oral, written, or electronic Communications.
`10. “Member of Your Household” means any natural person who resides or resided at the
`same residence as you.
`11. “Person” means any natural person or any business, proprietorship, firm, partnership,
`corporation, association, organization, or other legal entity. The “acts” of a Person are defined
`to include acts of the directors, officers, owners, members, employees, agents, attorneys, or
`other representatives acting on a Person’s behalf.
`12. “Relevant Period” means January 1, 2016 through and including the date of the
`Plaintiff’s Complaint, November 9, 2022, unless otherwise specified.
`INSTRUCTIONS
`1. Each Interrogatory shall be answered separately and fully, and shall be signed under
`oath by an authorize representative who has knowledge thereof.
`2. Each of these Interrogatories shall be construed independently and not with reference
`to any other Interrogatory or subpart thereof for purposes of limitation.
`
`APPLE INC.’S FIRST SET OF
`INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF:
`2:22-cv-01599 KKE
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5600
` Seattle, Washington 98104-7097
`+1 206 839 4300
`
`12
`
`

`

`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
`
`Case 2:22-cv-01599-KKE Document 90 Filed 03/26/24 Page 13 of 82
`
`
`
`3. Unless otherwise specified, each of these Interrogatories calls for Information created
`during, in effect at any time during, or relating to the Relevant Period, or such other period as
`may subsequently be agreed to by the parties to this action.
`4. All Documents identified in response to these Interrogatories shall designate the
`Interrogatory to which it is responsive and identify the Bates number of the page(s) on which
`the portion of the Document that is responsive to the Interrogatory may be found.
`5. If You object to any part of an Interrogatory, set forth the basis for your objection and
`respond to all parts of the Interrogatory to which you do not object. Any ground not stated in
`an objection within the time provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or any
`extensions thereof, shall be waived. All objections must be made with particularity and must
`set forth all Information upon which You intend to rely in response to any motion to compel.
`6. All objections must state with particularity whether and in what manner the objection is
`being relied upon as a basis for limiting the scope of response or the identification of any
`Documents. If You are withholding responsive Information pursuant to any general objection,
`you must so expressly indicate in Your particular response to each Interrogatory in which You
`have withheld responsive Information. If, in answering any Interrogatory, You claim any
`ambiguity in interpreting either the Interrogatory or a Definition or Instruction applicable
`thereto, such claim shall not be used by You as a basis for refusing to respond; rather, You
`shall set forth as part of your response the language deemed to be ambiguous and the
`interpretation used in responding to the Interrogatory.
`7. In answering these Interrogatories, furnish all Information, however obtained,
`including hearsay, that is available to You, including Information in Your actual or
`constructive possession, or in the actual or constructive possession of Your attorneys, experts,
`officers, directors, employees, accountants, consultants, and anyone else acting on Your behalf
`or subject to Your control. If any Interrogatory seeks information about a topic for which You
`lack direct knowledge, You must provide all Information containing any estimate or
`approximation, whether internally generated or provided to You by a third party.
`
`APPLE INC.’S FIRST SET OF
`INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF:
`2:22-cv-01599 KKE
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5600
` Seattle, Washington 98104-7097
`+1 206 839 4300
`
`13
`
`

`

`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
`
`Case 2:22-cv-01599-KKE Document 90 Filed 03/26/24 Page 14 of 82
`
`
`
`8. If You cannot answer all or part of any Interrogatory after exercising due diligence to
`secure the full Information that would enable You to do so, you shall state and answer to the
`extent possible, specifying the reasons for Your inability to answer the remainder; stating
`whatever information or knowledge You have concerning the unanswered portion; and
`detailing what You did in attempting to secure the unknown Information.
`9. If any privilege is claimed as a basis for not providing any Information responsive to
`these Interrogatories, (i) state the specific grounds for the claim of privilege; (ii) identify the
`date of the privileged Communication or Information and the parties participating in the
`privileged Communication or privy to the privileged Information (denoting all attorneys with
`an asterisk “*”); and (iii) describe the nature of the Communication or Information with
`sufficient detail to assess the claim of privilege. Additionally, for any Information withheld
`under a claim of attorney work-product protection, identify with particularity the specific
`litigation or regulatory proceeding that was anticipated or pending to which such Information
`relates. For any Document withheld on the basis of privilege, you shall comply with the
`privilege log requirement, as specified in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5).
`10. The following constructions should be applied whenever they would bring within the
`scope of a Request any Document or thing that might otherwise be construed to be outside its
`scope:
`
`a. Construing the terms “and” and “or” either disjunctively or conjunctively;
`b. Construing “any” and “each” to include and encompass “all”;
`c. Construing the singular form of any word to include the plural and the plural
`form to include the singular;
`d. Construing the masculine form to include the feminine form, and the feminine
`form to include the masculine form; and
`e. Construing negative terms to include the positive and vice versa.
`11. Your obligation to respond to these Interrogatories is continuing as provided by Rule
`26(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. If, after answering these Interrogatories, You or
`
`APPLE INC.’S FIRST SET OF
`INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF:
`2:22-cv-01599 KKE
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5600
` Seattle, Washington 98104-7097
`+1 206 839 4300
`
`14
`
`

`

`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
`
`Case 2:22-cv-01599-KKE Document 90 Filed 03/26/24 Page 15 of 82
`
`
`
`any Person acting on Your behalf obtains or becomes aware of any further Information
`responsive to these Interrogatories, You shall promptly produce such additional Information in
`accordance with the Instructions set forth herein.
`12. Information sought by these Interrogatories that Plaintiff obtains after he serves his
`answers must be disclosed promptly to counsel for Defendants by supplemental answer or
`answers.
`
`INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF
`INTERROGATORY NO. 1
`Identify every Apple ID and associated email address(es) You or any Member of Your
`Household had or used during the Relevant Period.
`INTERROGATORY NO. 2
`
`Identify each and every iPhone, iPad, smartphone, or tablet that You purchased during
`the Relevant Period, including:
`
`(a) the type of product by name, model, generation and serial number;
`
`(b) whether You purchased the product new, used, refurbished, or renewed;
`
`(c) the date of purchase;
`
`(d) the purchase price;
`
`(e) any promotions, credits, or other discounts applied to the purchase price;
`
`(f) the entity (whether an individual or corporate entity) from which You purchased it;
`
`(g) how You purchased it (e.g. through an online store or from a brick-and-mortar
`location);
`
`(h) the primary user of the product;
`
`(i) whether You still possess the product; and
`
`(j) if You do not still possess the product, how it was disposed of (e.g. whether you
`sold, traded-in, or gifted the product).
`
`APPLE INC.’S FIRST SET OF
`INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF:
`2:22-cv-01599 KKE
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5600
` Seattle, Washington 98104-7097
`+1 206 839 4300
`
`15
`
`

`

`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
`
`Case 2:22-cv-01599-KKE Document 90 Filed 03/26/24 Page 16 of 82
`
`
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 3
`
`Identify all stores, whether online or in-person, that You visited or searched to shop or
`comparison shop before purchasing the iPad referenced in Paragraph 23 of Your Complaint.
`INTERROGATORY NO. 4
`
`For each and every Member of your Household, identify each and every iPhone, iPad,
`smartphone, or tablet that he or she purchased during the Relevant Period, including:
`
`(a) the type of product by name, model, generation and serial number;
`
`(b) whether he or she purchased the product new, used, refurbished, or renewed;
`
`(c) the date of purchase;
`
`(d) the purchase price;
`
`(e) any promotions, credits, or other discounts applied to the purchase price;
`
`(f) the entity (whether an individual or corporate entity) from which he or she
`purchased it;
`
`(g) how he or she purchased it (e.g. through an online store or from a brick-and-mortar
`location);
`
`(h) the primary user of the product;
`
`(i) whether he or she still possess the product; and
`
`(j) if he or she does not still possess the product, how it was disposed of (e.g. whether
`he or she sold, traded-in, or gifted the product).
`INTERROGATORY NO. 5
`
`Identify all users of the iPad referenced in Paragraph 23 of Your Complaint, including
`Your relation to the users.
`INTERROGATORY NO. 6
`
`For each cellular service provider (e.g. Cox Mobile, MetroPCS, Verizon, T-Mobile,
`Sprint, AT&T) You or any Member of Your Household have had a service plan with during
`the Relevant Period, identify:
`
`(a) the name of the cellular service provider;
`
`APPLE INC.’S FIRST SET OF
`INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF:
`2:22-cv-01599 KKE
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5600
` Seattle, Washington 98104-7097
`+1 206 839 4300
`
`16
`
`

`

`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
`
`Case 2:22-cv-01599-KKE Document 90 Filed 03/26/24 Page 17 of 82
`
`
`
`(b) the type of service plan You purchased;
`
`(c) the time period for which you had a service plan;
`
`(d) all phone numbers including area code associated wi