Subpoena To Valve Corporation

Case 2:24-mc-00026-TL Document 1 Filed 04/12/24 Page 1 of 18
5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
7
8
IN RE: SUBPOENA TO VALVE
9 CORPORATION
10 _________________________________________
Misc. Case No. 2:24-mc-00026-TL
11 Underlying Litigation:
MOTION TO COMPEL
12
In re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litigation,
13 No. 4:11-cv-6714 NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR:
May 3, 2024
14 U.S. District Court for the Northern District Of
California
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO COMPEL MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY

444 WEST LAKE STREET, SUITE 4000
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60606-0029
TELEPHONE: 312.372.2000
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
3 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ................................................................................................... 1
4 BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................... 1
5
JURISDICTION ........................................................................................................................... 5
6
ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................ 6
7
I. Apple’s Motion to Compel Should Be Granted ................................................................... 6
8
A. The Northern District of California Has Already Found Apple Has A Substantial Need
9 for Documents Responsive to Request 2. ................................................................................ 6
10 B. Apple Has a Substantial Need to Depose Valve About PC Game Store Competition. ... 8
C. Apple’s Requests Do Not Pose Any Undue Burden on Valve ...................................... 10
11
D. Apple’s Motion to Compel is Timely ............................................................................ 11
12
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
i
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY
APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO COMPEL 444 WEST LAKE STREET, SUITE 4000
TELEPHONE: 312.372.2000
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
1
Cases Page(s)
2
3 Aguayo-Becerra v. Goodman Conveyor Co.,

No. C15-1516, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164830 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 4, 2017) ............................9
4
In re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litig.,
5 No. 11-cv-06714 (N.D. Cal.) ........................................................................................... passim
6 Chevron Corp. v. Donziger,
No. 12-mc-80237, 2013 WL 4536808 (N.D.Cal. Aug. 22, 2013) .............................................5
7
8 Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,

559 F. Supp. 3d 898 (N.D. Cal. 2021) ...................................................................................2, 7
9
Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.,
10 67 F.4th 946 (9th Cir. 2023), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 681 (2024), cert. denied,
144 S. Ct. 682 (2024) .........................................................................................................2, 3, 7
11
Garner Const., Inc. v. Int’l Union of Operating Engineers,
12 No. C077-775, 2007 WL 4287292 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 4, 2007)................................................5
13
In re Suzuki,
14 No. CIV. 14-00516, 2014 WL 6908384 (D. Haw. Dec. 5, 2014)..............................................5
15 In re Valve Antitrust Litigation,

21-cv-00563 (W.D. Wash.) ......................................................................................................10
16
Other Authorities
17
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)....................................................................................................................6
18
Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(c) ........................................................................................................................1
19
20 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1) ....................................................................................................................1
21 Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 ...................................................................................................................1, 5, 11
22
23
24
25
26
27
ii
TELEPHONE: 312.372.2000
1 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
2 This proceeding arises out of class action antitrust litigation brought against Apple Inc.
3 (“Apple”) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. See In re Apple iPhone
4 Antitrust Litig., No. 11-cv-06714 (N.D. Cal.). In that case, Apple stands accused of monopolizing
5
apps and in-app purchases by requiring distribution of apps through its App Store. Absent these
6
restraints, Plaintiffs say, competition among app stores would flourish on Apple’s devices—just
7
as it does between the many digital stores that currently distribute video games to PC and Mac
8
9 users.
10 Valve Corporation (“Valve”) operates Steam, the largest digital game store on PC and Mac.
11 As the Magistrate Judge overseeing the underlying litigation has found, how Steam and other PC
12
game stores compete on price, quality, and selection to attract game developers and users is directly
13
relevant to the “effects” of Apple’s App Store conduct “on competition”—and has previously
14
compelled Valve to produce documents about Steam for that very reason. Yet despite this prior
15
ruling and Steam’s undoubted relevance to this case, Valve refuses to provide additional
16
17 documents and deposition testimony concerning the very same issues of markets, pricing, and
18 competitive effects that motivated the court’s prior ruling. Accordingly, Apple submits this
19 Motion to Compel for an Order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(c), 37(a)(1), and 45(d)(2)(B)(i) to:
20
(1) compel the production of certain documents from Valve and (2) compel the appearance and
21
30(b)(6) testimony of Valve at deposition.
22
BACKGROUND
23
24 The underlying litigation has been pending since 2011 before U.S. District Judge Yvonne
25 Gonzalez Rogers and U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson in the Northern District of
26 California. This class action alleges that Apple has unlawfully monopolized alleged markets for
27
1
TELEPHONE: 312.372.2000
iOS apps by requiring that all such apps be distributed through Apple’s App Store, allegedly
1
2 causing developers to pay Apple a higher-than-competitive commission rate for app distribution,
3 which they purportedly pass on to consumers in the form of higher app and in-app purchase prices.
4 See In re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litig., No. 4:11-cv-6714, Third Amended Compl., ECF No. 229
5
¶¶ 4-5 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2020) (Castle Decl. Exhibit 11). These claims mirror those brought by
6
the developer Epic Games, Inc. (“Epic”), which were largely rejected following a three-week
7
bench trial in 2021, and later affirmed on appeal. See Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 67 F.4th
8
946, 966 (9th Cir. 2023), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 681 (2024), and cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 682
9
10 (2024). Judge Gonzalez Rogers and Magistrate Judge Hixson are intimately familiar with the facts
11 of these complex antitrust cases, and Magistrate Judge Hixson has issued at least eighteen orders
12 deciding at least 25 discovery disputes that arose in the coordinated discovery proceedings required
13
of these three actions, including disputes involving third party subpoenas.
14
Relevant here, Valve operates a digital game store, Steam. Steam is the most popular
15
digital game store on PC platforms,1 where it competes against other stores including Epic’s Epic
16
17 Games Store, the Microsoft Store, and Apple’s Mac App Store. See generally Epic Games, Inc.
18 v. Apple Inc., 559 F. Supp. 3d 898, 978-79 (N.D. Cal. 2021) (providing overview of PC game
19 stores). On December 9, 2020, Apple served Valve with a Rule 45 subpoena (the “Document
20 Subpoena”) (Castle Decl. Exhibit 1).2 Valve interposed objections, see Castle Decl. Exhibit 3, and
21
the parties met and conferred numerous times regarding the scope of the Document Subpoena.
22
Despite agreeing to produce certain information in response to the Document Subpoena, Valve
23
24
1
See, e.g., Anurag Chawake, What is Steam? Everything you need to know about Valve’s PC gaming platform,
25 THE INDIAN EXPRESS (Dec. 20, 2023), https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/techook/what-is-steam-
everything-you-need-to-know-about-valves-pc-gaming-platform-9062555/; Nick Statt, Epic vs. Steam: The
26 Console War Reimagined on the PC, THE VERGE (Apr. 16, 2019), https://bit.ly/3oM9uhT.
2
Details relating to the factual background of the parties’ dispute is cited from exhibits attached to the Declaration of
27 Nicole L. Castle (“Castle Decl.”)
2
TELEPHONE: 312.372.2000
refused to produce certain information responsive to Requests 2 and 32. Relevant to the instant
1
2 Motion, Request 2 sought information sufficient to show Valve’s revenues by game on Steam,
3 including the commissions that game developers paid to Valve.
4 In an effort to narrow the request and compromise, Apple agreed to limit this game-level
5
data from all games on Steam to a list of 436 games. Apple and Valve submitted a joint letter brief
6
to U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson regarding the dispute over Request 2 on February 18,
7
2021. See In re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litig., 4:11-cv-6714, Discovery Letter Brief, ECF No. 413
8
(N.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2021) (Castle Decl. Exhibit 5). On February 24, 2021, Judge Hixson held a
9
10 hearing on the motion to compel and that same day issued an order compelling Valve to produce
11 the requested information. See In re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litig., 4:11-cv-6714, Order, ECF No.
12 418 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2021) (Castle Decl. Exhibit 6). Judge Hixson held that “Apple has shown
13
that it has a substantial need for this information to obtain evidence in support of its arguments
14
concerning market definition and the effects of competition, and it cannot obtain this information
15
elsewhere without undue burden.” See id. at 4. Subsequently, Valve produced information
16
17 responsive to among other requests, Request 2.
18 Since that order, Valve and Steam have only become more relevant to the underlying
19 litigation. In Epic, the Court found Steam’s commission rates to be “a vivid illustration” of the
20 effects of competition on prices. Epic, 67 F.4th at 985. And Plaintiffs sought and obtained class
21
certification based on an expert report that explicitly identifies the “Windows PC game[s]”
22
environment as “a benchmark” for the world “but-for” Apple’s alleged anticompetitive conduct.
23
See In re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litig., 4:11-cv-6714, Order, ECF No. 789 at 21 (N.D. Cal. Feb.
24
25 2, 2024) (Castle Decl. Exhibit 12). On February 2, 2024, Judge Gonzalez Rogers granted
26 plaintiffs’ second motion for class certification, denied Apple’s Daubert motion to exclude the
27
3
TELEPHONE: 312.372.2000
Plaintiffs’ expert testimony, and requested that the parties file a joint statement with a proposed
1
2 schedule for the balance of the litigation. See Castle Decl. Exhibit 12.
3 Discovery remains open, and so on March 27, 2024, Apple met and conferred again with
4 counsel for Valve requesting that Valve produce updated data for certain requests in the Document
5
Subpoena. In particular, rather than pull and produce the game-level revenue data that Valve had
6
previously produced in response to Request 2, Apple requested that Valve provide it with
7
aggregated information identifying Steam’s effective commission rate by year for 2021, 2022, and
8
2023, and provide the total number of games for 2023 that were subject to each of Steam’s three
9
10 commission tiers (e.g., 30%, 25%, and 20%). The parties have met and conferred, but despite the
11 fact that this information is significantly less burdensome for Valve to produce than the granular
12 data it provided previously and less commercially sensitive, Valve has not agreed to comply with
13
this narrow request.
14
Separately, on July 6, 2021, Apple served Valve with a Rule 45 subpoena (the “Deposition
15
Subpoena”) seeking a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. See Castle Decl. Exhibit 2. The parties met and
16
17 conferred regarding the scope of the 30(b)(6) deposition and Valve offered that it would be
18 available “for deposition on August 6.” See Castle Decl. Exhibit 7. Ultimately, the parties
19 mutually agreed on July 29, 2021 to postpone the deposition with the understanding that Apple
20 was not withdrawing the Deposition Subpoena. See Castle Decl. Exhibit 8. As Apple’s attorney
21
stated: “Although there is no immediate need for Valve to comply with the subpoena, we still do
22
expect that Valve will comply with the subpoena and provide testimony on the topics at a later
23
date.” Id. Counsel for Valve agreed stating: “We understand the subpoena isn’t withdrawn, but
24
25 that the parties agree to take any deposition off calendar for now.” Id. On March 27, 2024, after
26 the Court granted class certification, Apple met and conferred with counsel for Valve and
27
4
TELEPHONE: 312.372.2000
requested a new date for the 30(b)(6) deposition to take place before the end of fact discovery on
1
3
2 May 13, 2024. See Castle Decl. Exhibit 9. Since then, the parties have engaged in meet and
3 confers, during which time Apple has agreed to limit the scope of the Deposition Subpoena from
4 ten topics to only two (specifically, Apple now seeks testimony relating to only Topics 1 and 2 in
5
the Deposition Subpoena). See id.; Castle Decl. ¶ 3. These topics generally cover: (1) the
6
competitive landscape for PC game stores including information on the different business models
7
and commission rates and fees charged by Steam and its competitors, as well as competition that
8
Steam faces from specialty stores and direct distribution; and (2) Steam’s relationships with game
9
10 developers and policies for game distribution. Despite Apple’s good faith efforts to limit the scope,
11 Valve has not agreed to provide Apple with dates for the deposition. See Castle Decl. Exhibit 10.
12 For the reasons stated in Apple’s accompanying Motion to Transfer the Motion to Compel,
13
this Court should transfer this motion to the Northern District of California. The Document and
14
Deposition Subpoenas (and Valve’s objections) implicate issues of relevance best suited for
15
adjudication by the issuing court familiar with this case. In the event this Court chooses not to
16
17 transfer, this Court should grant Apple’s motion to compel and order Valve to: (1) produce updated
18 information responsive to Request 2; and (2) make a witness available for the 30(b)(6) deposition
19 before May 13, 2024.
20 JURISDICTION
21
This Court has jurisdiction over this matter because the place for compliance with the
22
Subpoenas is the Western District of Washington. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(i). Venue is proper in this
23
24
3
Pursuant to Judge Gonzalez Rogers’ order granting class certification, the parties filed a proposed joint schedule
25 (the “Joint Schedule”) on February 16, 2024 which sets a discovery deadline of May 13, 2024. See In re Apple iPhone
Antitrust Litig., 4:11-cv-6714, Joint Proposed Schedule, ECF No. 791 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2024) (Castle Decl. Exhibit
26 15). Although the court has not yet ruled on the Joint Schedule, the parties have been operating under this schedule
since it was filed with the Court.
27
5
TELEPHONE: 312.372.2000
District because Valve’s principal place of business is Bellevue, Washington, and because this is
1
2 the District where the Subpoenas require compliance.
3 ARGUMENT
4 I. Apple’s Motion to Compel Should Be Granted

5
This Court should transfer Apple’s Motion to Compel to the Northern District of
6
California. But, to the extent this Court denies Apple’s Motion to Transfer, this Court should grant
7
Apple’s Motion to Compel. Federal Rule 45, which governs subpoenas, provides that where a
8
party has objected to the subpoena, the party seeking documents may move to compel production
9
10 of the documents. Garner Const., Inc. v. Int’l Union of Operating Engineers, No. C077-775, 2007
11 WL 4287292, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 4, 2007) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(2)(B)). Upon a
12 showing by the party seeking to enforce the subpoena that they have a substantial need for the
13
discovery sought, any person seeking to escape the requirements of “a subpoena bears the burden
14
of showing why a discovery request should be denied.” In re Suzuki, No. CIV. 14-00516, 2014
15
WL 6908384, at *2 (D. Haw. Dec. 5, 2014); see also Chevron Corp. v. Donziger, No. 12-mc-
16
17 80237, 2013 WL 4536808, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2013). Here Apple has a substantial need
18 for the documents and testimony from Valve for the exact same reasons that Judge Hixson
19 previously found. The Court should overrule Valve’s burden and timeliness objections and grant
20 Apple’s requests.
21
A. The Northern District of California Has Already Found Apple Has A
22 Substantial Need for Documents Responsive to Request 2.
23 Request 2 seeks documents sufficient to show Valve’s yearly sales, revenue, and profits
24
from games sold on Steam. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) provides in relevant part: “Parties may obtain
25
discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and
26
proportional to the needs of the case.” Apple’s discovery requests fall well within Rule 26’s scope.
27
6
TELEPHONE: 312.372.2000
Nonetheless, as explained above, Apple significantly narrowed the request to seek only aggregated
1
2 information relating to the commission rates charged by Valve rather than the detailed game level
3 data that the Northern District of California previously ordered Valve to produce in this action.
4 See Castle Decl. Exhibit 6.
5
This information from Valve is relevant for at least two reasons. First, the requested data
6
is relevant in order to rebut Plaintiffs’ claims about the effect of Apple’s alleged conduct on
7
commission rates. Plaintiffs’ economic expert, Dr. Rosa Abrantes-Metz, has described the
8
“Windows PC game” environment in which Steam operates as a competitive “benchmark” for iOS
9
10 app distribution if multiple app stores existed on Apple’s devices. See In re Apple iPhone Antitrust
11 Litig., 4:11-cv-6714, Renewed Mot. for Class Certification, ECF No. 683 at 7 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 1,
12 2023) (Castle Decl. Exhibit 13); see also Castle Decl. Exhibit 12 at 21-23. As Judge Hixson
13
explained in his prior order, Steam’s data—and in particular data sufficient to show the
14
commission rate it charges—is therefore “relevant to the effects of competition” including
15
“whether the availability of other stores does in fact affect commissions in the way Plaintiffs
16
17 allege”:
18 Plaintiffs allege that Apple’s 30% commission on sales through its App Store is
anti-competitive and that allowing iOS apps to be sold through other stores would
19 force Apple to reduce its commission to a more competitive level. Well, Steam is
one of the largest video game stores for PCs, and it too charges a 30% commission.
20 Epic Games opened its video game store for PCs in December 2018, and Epic
21 charges a commission that is lower than 30%. … Apple [therefore] seeks to take
discovery into whether the availability of other stores does in fact affect
22 commissions in the way Plaintiffs allege.
23 Castle Decl. Exhibit 6 at 3. Judge Gonzalez Rogers’ opinion in Epic only underscores the
24 relevance of Steam and other PC game stores to this litigation, noting that Steam’s decision to
25
partly reduce its 30% commission rate after the entry of the Epic Games Store with a (unprofitable
26
27
7
TELEPHONE: 312.372.2000
and litigation-driven) 12% rate was a “vivid illustration” of the effects of app store competition on
1
2 prices. Epic, 559 F. Supp. 3d at 996.
3 Second, the information is relevant to support Apple’s arguments that the App Store
4 competes with other platforms, particularly for game transactions. Valve’s digital distribution
5
service, Steam, is the most popular digital game distributor on the PC platform. See supra n. 1.
6
Game developers can distribute apps on Apple’s App Store, the Epic Games Store, Valve’s Steam,
7
or through various other digital distribution channels, including Android and Google Play. As
8
Judge Hixson previously recognized, “the aggregate financial information sought by RFP 2 is
9
10 relevant to market definition, which is a major issue in dispute in this litigation,” particularly given
11 that “Apple is pushing for a broadly defined … market that includes distribution on other
12 platforms” and that includes Steam, whereas “plaintiffs are pushing for a narrowly defined market
13
that consists only of apps distributed on the iOS platform.” Castle Decl. Exhibit 6 at 2–3.
14
In sum, the sales and commission data Apple requests through Request 2 is relevant to
15
“hotly disputed” and “core” issues in this litigation. Id. at 3. Valve has not claimed it is available
16
17 from any source other than itself. See id. at 5. Just as before, then, “Apple has shown that it has
18 a substantial need for this information to obtain evidence in support of its arguments concerning
19 market definition and the effects of competition, and it cannot obtain this information elsewhere
20 without undue burden.” Id. at 4.
21
B. Apple Has a Substantial Need to Depose Valve About PC Game Store
22 Competition.
23 For similar reasons, Apple has also shown a substantial need for Valve’s testimony about
24
competition in the PC game store environment. Apple issued a Deposition Subpoena to Valve in
25
July of 2021, but shortly thereafter, the parties mutually agreed to postpone the deposition until
26
after the class certification decision was ordered. In agreeing to postpone the deposition, Apple
27
8
TELEPHONE: 312.372.2000
made clear that it was not lifting Valve’s obligation to comply with the Deposition Subpoena at a
1
2 later date should it become necessary. Valve however has now refused to schedule the deposition.
3 The Court should compel Valve to make a witness available for deposition before May 13.
4 Since issuing its Deposition Subpoena, Apple has agreed to limit Valve’s testimony to
5
certain subsections of Topics 1 and 2 relating to: (1) the competitive landscape for PC game stores
6
including information on the different business models and commission rates and fees charged by
7
Steam and its competitors, as well as competition that Steam faces from specialty stores and direct
8
distribution (Topics 1.B–G); and (2) Steam’s relationships and agreements with game developers
9
4
10 and policies for game distribution (Topics 2.A–C). This information again goes primarily to “the
11 effects of” Apple’s alleged App Store restraints on “competition.” Castle Decl. Exhibit 6 at 3.
12 Notably, plaintiffs have put forth an expert model that purports to calculate the commission rate
13
that would prevail on iOS stores absent Apple’s alleged conduct. But it makes crucial simplifying
14
assumptions, including that there would be only two stores, selling the exact same products,
15
offering homogeneous services, and charging only a “single” and “identical” commission rate. See
16
17 Castle Decl. Exhibit 12 at 18-19. Valve’s first-hand testimony about the real-world effects of
18 competition from multiple stores in the PC game environment—which, as noted above, Plaintiffs’
19 expert has described as a competitive “benchmark” for iOS app distribution absent Apple’s
20 conduct—would help the jury assess whether Plaintiffs’ expert’s assumptions bear any relation to
21
reality and whether her opinions about Apple’s but-for commission rate should be accepted.
22
Moreover, Valve’s deposition testimony would also help the jury assess whether the rates
23
that prevail in the PC game environment are truly caused by competition (as Plaintiffs and their
24
25
26 4
Apple has told Valve that it is not seeking testimony on topics 1.I., 1.J., 1.L, 1.M, 1.N, and 2.D. Apple would also
forego testimony on topic 1.A (regarding Valve’s financial information) if Valve agreed or were ordered to comply
27 with Apple’s Request 2.
9
TELEPHONE: 312.372.2000
expert claim) or are instead just the by-product of Epic Games’ multi-front campaign to alter
1
2 Apple’s and Google’s App Store policies. Judge Gonzalez Rogers has previously held that
3 commission rates influenced by “litigation strategy” are not appropriate benchmarks. See In re
4 Apple iPhone Antitrust Litig., 4:11-cv-6714, Order, ECF No. 630 at 5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2022)
5
(Castle Decl. Exhibit 14) (rejecting Epic Games Store’s unprofitable 12% rate as a benchmark for
6
competitive commission rates). Documents published recently as part of Valve’s own antitrust
7
lawsuit, for instance, show that Epic’s CEO Tim Sweeney encouraged Valve to lower Steam’s
8
commission rate in order to pressure Apple to open up iOS to App Store competition and reduce
9
10 its headline 30% rate. See Court Docs Reveal Epic CEO’s Anger at Steam’s 30%, Ars Technica
11 (March 14, 2024), https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2024/03/you-a-holes-court-docs-reveal-epic-
12 ceos-anger-at-steams-30-fees/. Because information about Valve’s decision-making with respect
13
to Steam’s own commission rates and other business model decisions is only available from Valve,
14
Apple has established a substantial need for this testimony. See In re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litig.,
15
No. 11-cv-06714, 2020 WL 5993223, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2020) (“[S]ubstantial need’ and
16
17 ‘undue hardship’ requirements [are] met where documents [are] relevant and [party] could not
18 reasonably obtain them elsewhere.”) (internal citations and quotations omitted).
19 C. Apple’s Requests Do Not Pose Any Undue Burden on Valve

20 In deciding Rule 45 motions, courts also consider “relevance, the need of the party for the
21
discovery, the breadth of the discovery request, the time period covered by it, the particularity with
22
which the information requested is described and the burden imposed.” Aguayo-Becerra v.
23
Goodman Conveyor Co., No. C15-1516, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164830, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Oct.
24
25 4, 2017). Given that Apple has requested highly relevant and narrow requests, Valve cannot
26 establish undue burden.
27
10
TELEPHONE: 312.372.2000
First, any purported administrative burden to Valve is not “undue.” As described above,
1
2 Apple’s requests are tailored to seek necessary information that it can only obtain from Valve.
3 Moreover, Apple’s efforts to meet and confer have significantly minimized any burden on Valve.
4 With respect to the requested data, Apple has agreed to accept aggregated data that should be less
5
burdensome to produce than the game-level data that Judge Hixson previously ordered and that
6
Valve previously produced. As for the deposition, Valve protests that it will be unduly
7
burdensome to prepare a witness on narrowed topics Apple is seeking. But the topics on which
8
Apple seeks testimony—in general terms, competition among PC game stores like Steam, the Epic
9
10 Games Store, and others, and Steam’s business model as it relates to that competitive landscape—
11 overlaps closely with the subject of antitrust litigation alleging Valve has monopolized PC game
12 stores, in which Valve has just completed extensive fact discovery in which multiple witnesses
13
were no doubt deposed on these exact same topics (and undoubtedly more). See, e.g., In re Valve
14
Antitrust Litigation, 21-cv-00563, Order, ECF No. 172 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 11, 2023) (explaining
15
that over 30 individuals have been deposed in this case).
16
17 Second, any purported concern regarding confidentiality does not justify Valve’s refusal
18 to comply with the Subpoenas. Indeed, Judge Hixson has already rejected this argument,
19 compelling Valve to produce documents because “the protective order in this action is sufficient
20 to protect this information even if it were confidential to the third party.” See Castle Decl. at 5.
21
D. Apple’s Motion to Compel is Timely
22
The Court should also reject any objection based on the timeliness of Apple’s motion or
23
requests. Discovery in the underlying case has not yet closed, so compelling documents and
24
25 testimony from Valve will not disrupt the court schedule issued by the Northern District of
26 California. As explained above, in the Court’s class certification order, Judge Gonzalez Rogers
27
11
TELEPHONE: 312.372.2000
ordered the parties to “meet and confer on a schedule for the balance of the action.” See Castle
1
2 Decl. Exhibit 12 at 27. The Joint Schedule sets a discovery deadline of May 13, 2024. See In re
3 Apple iPhone Antitrust Litig., 4:11-cv-6714, Joint Proposed Schedule, ECF No. 791 (N.D. Cal.
4 Feb. 16, 2024) (Castle Decl. Exhibit 15). To the extent there is any question as to whether fact
5
discovery remains open, this decision should be determined by the court in the underlying litigation
6
and is yet another reason that the instant motion should be transferred to the Northern District of
7
California.
8
Moreover, any contention from Valve that Apple unduly delayed in seeking this
9
10 information ignores the posture of the underlying litigation. To avoid burdening a third party
11 unnecessarily, Apple waited for the outcome of the renewed class certification motion and related
12 Daubert motions before reengaging with Valve on the Subpoenas—precisely as required by Rule
13
45. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(1) (“A party or attorney responsible for issuing and serving a
14
subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person
15
subject to the subpoena.”) Had Judge Gonzalez Rogers granted Apple’s Daubert motion against
16
17 Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Abrantes-Metz, or had she denied class certification, Apple likely would not
18 have had to seek these documents and deposition testimony from Valve. It only became necessary
19 for Apple to restart its negotiations with Valve regarding the Subpoenas after the February 2, 2024
20 class certification decision.
21
CONCLUSION
22
For the reasons stated herein, Apple respectfully requests that the Court grant its Motion to
23
Transfer or, in the alternative, grant Apple’s Motion to Compel.
24
25
26
27
12
TELEPHONE: 312.372.2000
1
Dated: April 12, 2024 MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
2
I certify that this memorandum contains 3,907
3 words, in compliance with the Local Civil Rules.
4 By: _/s/ Daniel-Charles V. Wolf_____________
5 Daniel-Charles V. Wolf, WBSA #48211
444 W. Lake St., Ste. #4000
6 Chicago, IL 60606-0029
(312)372-2000
7 dcwolf@mwe.com
8 John J. Calandra (motion for
9 admission pro hac vice forthcoming)
Nicole L. Castle (motion for
1 Vanderbilt Avenue
11 New York, New York 10017
Tel: 212-547-5400
12
Fax: 212-547-5444
13 jcalandra@mwe.com
ncastle@mwe.com
14
Elizabeth A. Rodd (motion for
200 Clarendon Street, Floor 58
16
Boston, MA 02116
17 Tel: 617-535-4040
Fax: 617-535-3800
18 erodd@mwe.com
19
Attorneys for Apple Inc.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
13
TELEPHONE: 312.372.2000
CERTIFICATION
1
2 I certify that prior to making this submission the parties conferred to attempt to resolve this
3 discovery dispute in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P 37(a) and Local Rule 37(1).
6 /s/ Daniel-Charles V. Wolf______________

Daniel-Charles Wolf
7 Attorney for Apple Inc.
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO COMPEL CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60606-0029
TELEPHONE: 312.372.2000
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
1
2 I, Daniel-Charles Wolf, an attorney, hereby certify that on April 12, 2024, I filed this
3 document with the Clerk of the Court through electronic mail, and served the foregoing Motion
4
via electronic mail to the following parties, through counsel:
5
Nathan M. Buchter
6 FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
2000 Market Street, 20th Floor
7 Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: 215.299.2000
8
Facsimile: 215.299.2150
9 nbuchter@foxrothschild.com
10 Attorney for Valve Corporation

11
12
/s/ Daniel-Charles V. Wolf______________
13 Daniel-Charles Wolf
14 Attorney for Apple Inc.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO COMPEL CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60606-0029
TELEPHONE: 312.372.2000
Case 2:24-mc-00026-TL Document 1-1 Filed 04/12/24 Page 1 of 26
EXHIBIT 1
AO 88B (Rev. 02/14) Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the
Northern District of California
EPIC GAMES, INC. v. APPLE INC. ) Civil Action Nos. 4:20-CV-05640-YGR

CAMERON ET AL v. APPLE INC. ) 4:19-CV-03074-YGR
IN RE APPLE IPHONE ANTITRUST LITIGATION ) 4:11-CV-06714-YGR
)
)
)
SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, INFORMATION, OR OBJECTS
OR TO PERMIT INSPECTION OF PREMISES IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: Valve Corporation
(c/o Corpserve, Inc. 1001 4th Ave, Suite 4500, Seattle, WA 98154)
(Name of person to whom this subpoena is directed)
 Production: YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce at the time, date, and place set forth below the following
documents, electronically stored information, or objects, and to permit inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of the
material:
See Schedule A
Place: McDermott Will & Emery LLP Date and Time:

2049 Century Park East December 23, 2020, 5:00 PM PT
Suite 3200
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206
Or as otherwise agreed.
 Inspection of Premises: YOU ARE COMMANDED to permit entry onto the designated premises, land, or other
property possessed or controlled by you at the time, date, and location set forth below, so that the requesting party may
inspect, measure, survey, photograph, test, or sample the property or any designated object or operation on it.
Place: Date and Time:
The following provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 are attached – Rule 45(c), relating to the place of compliance;
Rule 45(d), relating to your protection as a person subject to a subpoena; and Rule 45(e) and (g), relating to your duty to
respond to this subpoena and the potential consequences of not doing so.
Date: December 9, 2020
CLERK OF COURT
OR
/s/ Michelle Lowery
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk Attorney’s signature
Michelle Lowery
The name, address, e-mail address, and telephone number of the attorney representing (name of party) Apple Inc.
, who issues or requests this subpoena, are:
Michelle Lowery, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 3200, Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206, mslowery@mwe.com, (310) 551-9309
American LegalNet, Inc.
www.FormsWorkFlow.com
AO 88B (Rev. 02/14) Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action
Notice to the person who issues or requests this subpoena

If this subpoena commands the production of documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things or the
inspection of premises before trial, a notice and a copy of the subpoena must be served on each party in this case before
it is served on the person to whom it is directed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(4).

AO 88B (Rev. 02/14) Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action Nos. 4:11-CV-06714-YGR, 4:19-CV-03074-YGR, 4:20-CV-05640-YGR
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.)
I received this subpoena for (name of individual and title, if any)

on (date)
 I served the subpoena by delivering a copy to the named person as follows:
on (date) on (date)
 I returned the subpoena unexecuted because:
Unless the subpoena was issued on behalf of the United States, or one of its officers or agents, I have also
tendered to the witness the fees for one day’s attendance, and the mileage allowed by law, in the amount of
$
My fees are $ My fees are $ My fees are $
I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
Date: Date:
Server’s signature
Printed name and title
Server’s address
Additional information regarding attempted service, etc.:

AO 88B (Rev. 02/14) Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action (Page 3)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (c), (d), (e), and (g) (Effective 12/1/13)
(c) Place of Compliance. (ii) disclosing an unretained expert’s opinion or information that does
not describe specific occurrences in dispute and results from the expert’s
(1) For a Trial, Hearing, or Deposition. A subpoena may command a study that was not requested by a party.
person to attend a trial, hearing, or deposition only as follows: (C) Specifying Conditions as an Alternative. In the circumstances
(A) within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or described in Rule 45(d)(3)(B), the court may, instead of quashing or
regularly transacts business in person; or modifying a subpoena, order appearance or production under specified
(B) within the state where the person resides, is employed, or regularly conditions if the serving party:
transacts business in person, if the person (i) shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be
(i) is a party or a party’s officer; or otherwise met without undue hardship; and
(ii) is commanded to attend a trial and would not incur substantial (ii) ensures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably compensated.
expense.
(e) Duties in Responding to a Subpoena.
(2) For Other Discovery. A subpoena may command:
(A) production of documents, electronically stored information, or (1) Producing Documents or Electronically Stored Information. These
tangible things at a place within 100 miles of where the person resides, is procedures apply to producing documents or electronically stored
employed, or regularly transacts business in person; and information:
(B) inspection of premises at the premises to be inspected. (A) Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents
must produce them as they are kept in the ordinary course of business or
(d) Protecting a Person Subject to a Subpoena; Enforcement. must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the demand.
(B) Form for Producing Electronically Stored Information Not Specified.
(1) Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions. A party or attorney If a subpoena does not specify a form for producing electronically stored
responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps information, the person responding must produce it in a form or forms in
to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms.
subpoena. The court for the district where compliance is required must (C) Electronically Stored Information Produced in Only One Form. The
enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanction—which may include person responding need not produce the same electronically stored
lost earnings and reasonable attorney’s fees—on a party or attorney who information in more than one form.
fails to comply. (D) Inaccessible Electronically Stored Information. The person
responding need not provide discovery of electronically stored information
(2) Command to Produce Materials or Permit Inspection. from sources that the person identifies as not reasonably accessible because
(A) Appearance Not Required. A person commanded to produce of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or for a protective
documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things, or to order, the person responding must show that the information is not
permit the inspection of premises, need not appear in person at the place of reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is
production or inspection unless also commanded to appear for a deposition, made, the court may nonetheless order discovery from such sources if the
hearing, or trial. requesting party shows good cause, considering the limitations of Rule
(B) Objections. A person commanded to produce documents or tangible 26(b)(2)(C). The court may specify conditions for the discovery.
things or to permit inspection may serve on the party or attorney designated
in the subpoena a written objection to inspecting, copying, testing, or (2) Claiming Privilege or Protection.
sampling any or all of the materials or to inspecting the premises—or to (A) Information Withheld. A person withholding subpoenaed information
producing electronically stored information in the form or forms requested. under a claim that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation
The objection must be served before the earlier of the time specified for material must:
compliance or 14 days after the subpoena is served. If an objection is made, (i) expressly make the claim; and
the following rules apply: (ii) describe the nature of the withheld documents, communications, or
(i) At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving party tangible things in a manner that, without revealing information itself
may move the court for the district where compliance is required for an privileged or protected, will enable the parties to assess the claim.
order compelling production or inspection. (B) Information Produced. If information produced in response to a
(ii) These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and the subpoena is subject to a claim of privilege or of protection as
order must protect a person who is neither a party nor a party’s officer from trial-preparation material, the person making the claim may notify any party
significant expense resulting from compliance. that received the information of the claim and the basis for it. After being
notified, a party must promptly return, sequester, or destroy the specified
(3) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena. information and any copies it has; must not use or disclose the information
(A) When Required. On timely motion, the court for the district where until the claim is resolved; must take reasonable steps to retrieve the
compliance is required must quash or modify a subpoena that: information if the party disclosed it before being notified; and may promptly
(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply; present the information under seal to the court for the district where
(ii) requires a person to comply beyond the geographical limits compliance is required for a determination of the claim. The person who
specified in Rule 45(c); produced the information must preserve the information until the claim is
(iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no resolved.
exception or waiver applies; or
(iv) subjects a person to undue burden. (g) Contempt.
(B) When Permitted. To protect a person subject to or affected by a The court for the district where compliance is required—and also, after a
subpoena, the court for the district where compliance is required may, on motion is transferred, the issuing court—may hold in contempt a person
motion, quash or modify the subpoena if it requires: who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the
(i) disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research, subpoena or an order related to it.
development, or commercial information; or
For access to subpoena materials, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a) Committee Note (2013).

SCHEDULE A
Notwithstanding any definition set forth below, each word, term, or phrase used in this
Subpoena is intended to have the broadest meaning permitted under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and the Local Rules of the Northern District of California.
DEFINITIONS
1. The following rules of construction shall apply to all discovery requests:
a. the connectives “and” and “or” shall be construed either disjunctively or
conjunctively as necessary to bring within the scope of the discovery request
all responses that might otherwise be construed to be outside of its scope;
b. the use of the present or past tense shall be construed to include both the present
and past tenses as necessary to bring within the scope of the discovery request
c. “any” and “each” shall be construed to include and encompass “all”; and
d. the use of the singular form of any word includes the plural and vice versa.
2. “ADVERTISING” shall mean the in-APP presentation of third-party promotional
content in exchange for payment.
3. “ANDROID” shall mean Google’s mobile operating system.
4. “APP” shall mean a software application for a HANDHELD DEVICE or NON-
HANDHELD DEVICE. For the avoidance of doubt, the phrase “EPIC APP” shall mean any APP
developed and/or published by EPIC, INCLUDING Fortnite, Battlebreakers, and Spyjinx, as well
as any APP developed and/or published by EPIC (such as the Epic Games App) that facilitates the
download of those or other APPS.
5. “APP DEVELOPER” shall mean any PERSON who developed one or more
APPS.
6. “APP MARKETPLACE” shall mean any online storefront where APPS are
offered for download and/or purchase. This term shall include, without limitation, Google Play,
the Samsung Galaxy Store, Android Market, DEFENDANT’S iOS and Mac App Stores, the
1
Amazon Appstore, Amazon Underground, the Microsoft Store for Xbox, Windows Store, and
Windows Phone Store, the Epic Games Store, Steam, Origin, and online storefronts distributing
games and digital content for Xbox, PlayStation, and Nintendo. For the avoidance of doubt, the
phrase “YOUR APP MARKETPLACE” shall refer to STEAM.
7. “COMMUNICATION” shall include, without limitation, any transmission or
transfer of information of any kind, whether orally, electronically, in writing, or in any other
manner, at any time or place, and under any circumstances whatsoever.
8. “CONCERNING” a given subject shall mean: directly or indirectly comprising,
concerning, constituting, containing, discussing, embodying, evidencing, exhibiting, identifying,
mentioning, negating, pertaining to, recording, regarding, reflecting, relating to, showing, or
supporting a given subject matter.
9. “DEFENDANT” shall mean Apple Inc.
10. “DEVICE” shall mean any HANDHELD DEVICE or NON-HANDHELD
DEVICE.
11. “DOCUMENT” and “DOCUMENTS” shall have the full meaning ascribed to
those terms under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and shall include, without
limitation, any and all drafts; COMMUNICATIONS; memoranda; records; REPORTS; books;
records, REPORTS, and/or summaries of personal conversations or interviews; diaries;
presentations; slide decks; graphs; charts; spreadsheets; diagrams; tables; photographs; recordings;
tapes; microfilms; minutes; records, REPORTS, and/or summaries of meetings or conferences;
press releases; blog posts; stenographic handwritten or any other notes; work papers; checks, front
and back; check vouchers, check stubs, or receipts; tape data sheets or data processing cards or
discs or any other written, recorded, transcribed, punched, taped, filmed, or graphic matter,
however produced or reproduced; and any paper or writing of whatever description, INCLUDING
information contained in any computer although not yet printed out. Any production of
electronically stored information shall include the information needed to understand such
2
information. The term “DOCUMENT” or “DOCUMENTS” further includes all copies where the
copy is not identical to the original.
12. “EPIC” shall mean Epic Games, Inc., its officers, directors, employees,
representatives, consultants, agents, servants, attorneys, accountants, or any other person or entity
acting on its behalf, or any PERSON or entity that served in any such role at any time, as well as
its predecessors, successors, subsidiaries, departments, divisions, joint ventures, and/or affiliates,
(including but not limited to Epic Games International S.à r.l and Life on Air, Inc.), and any
PERSON that Epic Games, Inc., manages or controls.
13. “EXTERNAL PRODUCTS” shall mean digital products and services purchased
outside of an APP (such as through an APP DEVELOPER’s website) that one may use within an
APP.
14. “GAME KEY” shall mean any product code that can be redeemed for an APP
through STEAM.
15. “HANDHELD DEVICE” shall mean any smartphone, tablet, or portable MP3
music player.
16. “INCLUDING” shall not be construed as limiting any request, and shall mean the
same as “including, but not limited to.”
17. “IN-APP PRODUCT” shall mean any feature, service, or functionality that can be
enabled or unlocked within an APP in exchange for a fee, INCLUDING subscriptions, in-game
currencies, game levels, access to premium content, or unlocking a full version of an APP.
18. “MALWARE” shall mean APPS and other software that could put users, user
data, or devices at risk, INCLUDING computer viruses, worms, trojans, ransomware, scareware,
spyware, phishing apps, backdoors, hostile downloaders, mobile billing fraud apps (including
SMS fraud, call fraud, and toll fraud), and click fraud apps.
19. “NAMED CONSUMER PLAINTIFF” shall mean a named plaintiff in Pepper v.
Apple Inc., Case No. 4:11-cv-06714-YGR (N.D. Cal.), and Lawrence v. Apple Inc., Case No. 4:19-
cv-02852-YGR (N.D. Cal.), INCLUDING:
3
a. Edward W. Hayter, of Brooklyn, NY;
b. Edward Lawrence, of California;
c. Robert Pepper, of Chicago, IL; and
d. Stephen H. Schwartz, of Ardsley, NY.
20. “NAMED DEVELOPER PLAINTIFF” shall mean a named plaintiff in Cameron
v. Apple Inc., Case No. 419-cv-03074-YGR (N.D. Cal.), and Sermons v. Apple Inc., Case No. 4:19-
cv-03796-YGR (N.D. Cal.), INCLUDING:
a. Donald R. Cameron, of California;
b. Barry Sermons, of Georgia; and
c. Pure Sweat Basketball, Inc., an Illinois corporation.
21. “NON-HANDHELD DEVICE” shall mean laptop computers, desktop computers,
or video game consoles.
22. “PERSON” shall include, without limitation, natural persons, corporations,
partnerships, business trusts, associations, and business or other entities, and any officer, director,
employee, partner, corporate parent, subsidiary, affiliate, agent, representative, attorney, or
principal thereof.
23. “REPORTS” shall mean any final reports, research, papers, memoranda,
presentations, reviews, statistical compilations, or other analyses.
24. “REVIEW” and “REVIEWING” shall mean, with respect to APPS, any process
of screening, evaluating, analyzing, approving, or monitoring APPS, regardless of whether such
process takes place before or after the publication of APPS in an APP MARKETPLACE or before
or after the installation of APPS onto a HANDHELD DEVICE or NON-HANDHELD DEVICE.
25. “STEAM” shall mean any APP MARKETPLACE operated by YOU available on
DEVICES.
26. “STEAM LINK” shall mean YOUR APP for any DEVICE.
27. “STEAMOS” shall mean any operating system offered by YOU for any DEVICE.
28. “THE” shall not be construed as limiting the scope of any topic.
4
29. “YOU” or “YOUR” shall refer to Valve Corporation or any of its predecessor or
successor companies, subsidiaries (INCLUDING Turtle Rock Studios, Campo Santo,
Impulsonic, Inc., Star Filled Studios Inc., Campo Santo Productions LLC), corporate affiliates,
officers, directors, employees, representatives, consultants, agents, servants, attorneys,
accountants, and any other PERSON or entity acting on its behalf, or any PERSON or entity that
served in any such role at any time.
INSTRUCTIONS
1. All DOCUMENTS requested herein must be produced in their entirety, with all
attachments and enclosures, regardless of whether YOU consider the attachments and enclosures
to be relevant or responsive to the Request.
2. In responding to these Requests, YOU shall produce all DOCUMENTS and
information in YOUR possession, custody, or control, and all DOCUMENTS reasonably available
to YOU, INCLUDING those in the possession, custody, or control of YOUR present and former
attorneys, investigators, accountants, agents, representatives, or other PERSONS acting on YOUR
behalf.
3. These Requests shall not be deemed to call for identical copies of DOCUMENTS.
“Identical” means precisely the same in all respects; for example, a DOCUMENT with
handwritten notes or editing marks shall not be deemed identical to one without such notes or
marks.
4. In the event YOU are able to produce only some of the DOCUMENTS called for
in a particular Request, YOU shall produce all the DOCUMENTS available and state the reason(s)
for YOUR inability to produce the remainder.
5. If there are no DOCUMENTS responsive to a category in these Requests, YOU
shall so state in writing. If a DOCUMENT requested is no longer existing or available, YOU shall
so state in writing.
6. If YOU object to a portion of any Request, YOU shall produce all DOCUMENTS
called for by that portion of the Request to which YOU do not object.
5
7. In producing DOCUMENTS responsive to these requests, YOU must Bates stamp
them in a manner that clearly identifies the party that is producing each such DOCUMENT, and
in whose possession the DOCUMENT was found.
8. If any requested DOCUMENT is withheld on the basis of any claim of privilege,
YOU must set forth the information necessary for DEFENDANT to ascertain whether the privilege
properly applies, INCLUDING describing the DOCUMENT withheld, stating the privilege being
relied upon, identifying all PERSONS (by name) who have had access to such DOCUMENT
(INCLUDING all the identity(ies) of the author(s) or maker(s), recipient(s), carbon copy
recipient(s), blind carbon copy recipient(s)), the number of attachments (if any), the Bates or
production number of any attachments not withheld on the basis of privilege, the applicable
date(s), and the subject matter(s) in a privilege log.
9. If any portion of any DOCUMENT responsive to these Requests is withheld under
claim of privilege, all non-privileged portions must be produced with the portion(s) claimed to be
privileged redacted and logged in a privilege log pursuant to the preceding instructions.
10. If YOU cannot answer all parts of a Request, but can answer some parts, YOU must
answer those parts to which YOU can reply, and specify “unknown,” or some other response, as
appropriate, for any part to which YOU cannot reply.
11. Unless otherwise stated, the time period for which the Requests seek
DOCUMENTS is 2008 to the present.
12. References to any natural PERSON shall include, in addition to the natural
PERSON, any agent, employee, representative, attorney, superior, or principal thereof.
13. Specified date ranges are inclusive. Unless otherwise stated, a year includes all days
of that year from January 1 to December 31.
14. These Requests are to be regarded as continuing pursuant to Rule 26(e) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. YOU are required to provide, by way of supplementary
responses hereto, such additional information as may be obtained by YOU or any PERSON acting
on YOUR behalf that will augment or modify YOUR answers initially given to the following
6
Requests. Pursuant to Rule 26(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, YOU are required to
supplement these responses and provide additional DOCUMENTS without a specific request from
DEFENDANT.
15. DEFENDANT serves these Requests without prejudice to its right to serve
additional requests for production of DOCUMENTS.
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:
REPORTS comparing the distribution of APPS through any APP MARKETPLACE,
INCLUDING Google Play, the Samsung Galaxy Store, Android Market, DEFENDANT’S iOS
and Mac App Stores, the Amazon Appstore, Amazon Underground, the Microsoft Store for Xbox,
Windows Store, and Windows Phone Store, the Epic Games Store, Origin, and online storefronts
distributing games and digital content for Xbox, PlayStation, and Nintendo, and YOUR APP
MARKETPLACE(S), INCLUDING:
a. the past or present benefits or costs of distribution in each APP MARKETPLACE;
b. past or present fees and commission rates charged by each APP MARKETPLACE,
INCLUDING how such fees and commission rates affect the attractiveness of any APP
MARKETPLACE to APP DEVELOPERS;
c. past or present security or privacy protections offered in each APP
MARKETPLACE;
d. past or present APP REVIEW and approval procedures and practices in each APP
MARKETPLACE;
e. past or present tools for APP DEVELOPERS in each APP MARKETPLACE;
f. past or present relative ease or difficulty of updating APPS in each APP
MARKETPLACE;
g. past or present market share calculations or estimates for APP MARKETPLACES,
INCLUDING the definitions used to perform those calculations;
7
h. past or present decision to distribute YOUR APPS on a particular APP
MARKETPLACE;
i. contemplated, planned, or actual distribution of YOUR APPS directly (i.e., not
through an APP MARKETPLACE); and
j. past or present APP maintenance activities in each APP MARKETPLACE.
DOCUMENTS sufficient to show with respect to YOUR APP MARKETPLACE(S):
a. the total yearly amount remitted to YOU from sales of APPS and IN-APP
PRODUCTS (by APP and method of monetization, if available);
b. any estimates of or accounting for annual ADVERTISING revenue attributable to
YOUR APP MARKETPLACE (by APP, if available);
c. any estimates of or accounting for YOUR annual revenues from sales of
EXTERNAL PRODUCTS attributable to YOUR APP MARKETPLACE (by APP and method of
monetization, if available);
d. any estimates of or accounting for annual revenues (other than the foregoing)
attributable to YOUR APP MARKETPLACE (by APP and method of monetization, if available);
and
e. any estimates of or accounting for annual earnings, income, or profit (whether gross
or net) attributable to YOUR APP MARKETPLACE (by APP and method of monetization, if
available).
REPORTS CONCERNING YOUR contemplated, planned, or actual development and/or
operation of YOUR APP MARKETPLACE(S), INCLUDING:
a. YOUR decision to build each such APP MARKETPLACE;
b. YOUR decision to use a particular revenue model in each such APP
MARKETPLACE; and
8
c. YOUR decision to develop each such APP MARKETPLACE for specific operating
systems.
REPORTS CONCERNING comparisons of the number, identity, genre, quality, and/or
popularity of APPS available for download from YOUR APP MARKETPLACE(S) and APPS
available for download from other APP MARKETPLACE(S) or available on different DEVICES.
REPORTS sufficient to show the percentage of APPS purchased directly from YOUR APP
MARKETPLACE(S) versus the percentage of APPS purchased from third parties, INCLUDING
from GAME KEYS.

DOCUMENTS CONCERNING STEAMOS INCLUDING the development of
STEAMOS, COMMUNICATIONS about and with DEVICE manufacturers CONCERNING
STEAMOS, and REPORTS sufficient to show STEAMOS utilization.
DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS CONCERNING the availability and usage of
YOUR APP MARKETPLACE(S), INCLUDING STEAM, and YOUR APP(S), INCLUDING
STEAM LINK, on DEFENDANT’S iOS operating system, DEFENDANT’S DEVICES, and
DEFENDANT’S APP MARKETPLACE, INCLUDING DOCUMENTS and
COMMUNICATIONS CONCERNING the publication of STEAM LINK on DEFENDANT’S
APP MARKETPLACE as summarized in a June 4, 2018 article, available at
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-steam/apple-issues-new-app-store-rules-aimed-at-
streaming-pc-based-games-idUSKCN1J034K.
DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS CONCERNING the development,
distribution, and utilization of YOUR APP(S), INCLUDING STEAM LINK, and REPORTS
sufficient to show any tendency for consumers to download YOUR APP(S) on any DEVICES.
9
COMMUNICATIONS CONCERNING whether consumers are willing to purchase a
DEVICE with a different operating system or from a different DEVICE manufacturer than they
already own and any switching costs they many consider, INCLUDING the value of any APPS
previously purchased that the consumer cannot operate on the new DEVICE.
DOCUMENTS sufficient to show any efforts undertaken by YOU to attract or incentivize
APP DEVELOPERS to develop APPS for distribution to YOUR APP MARKETPLACE.

DOCUMENTS created by YOU CONCERNING competition between or among APP
MARKETPLACES, INCLUDING any DOCUMENTS describing competition regarding
STEAM, YOUR strategy related to actual or potential competitors to STEAM, and YOUR
assessment of the market share for STEAM, INCLUDING any analysis performed of any actual
or potential competitor to STEAM, such as analysis of any actual or potential competitor’s market
share, APP pricing, commissions, product design, product functionality, APP promotion, privacy
or security policies, and/or APP REVIEW policies or procedures.
DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS CONCERNING any security breaches or
privacy concerns relating to YOUR APP MARKETPLACE(S), INCLUDING those reported in an
November 11, 2011 BBC News article, available at https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-
15690187, an May 31, 2018 Vice article available at,
https://www.vice.com/en/article/9k8qv5/steam-exploit-left-users-vulnerable-for-10-years, and an
August 9, 2019 Forbes article, available at
https://www.forbes.com/sites/daveywinder/2019/08/09/critical-steam-security-warning-issued-
for-72-million-windows-10-gamers/?sh=56130b6e35e1.
10
DOCUMENTS sufficient to show YOUR agreements or contracts with APP
DEVELOPERS, INCLUDING any agreements or contracts with EPIC, effective during the period
that YOU have operated any APP MARKETPLACE, INCLUDING any contracts, guidelines, or
rules setting forth the terms and conditions under which APP DEVELOPERS may distribute APPS
through YOUR APP MARKETPLACE(S).
DOCUMENTS sufficient to show any annual fee(s) or registration fee(s) paid by APP
DEVELOPERS in order to develop and publish APPS in YOUR APP MARKETPLACE(S).

DOCUMENTS sufficient to show any commissions and/or transaction fees charged by
YOU when a user makes a purchase from YOUR APP MARKETPLACE(S) or from an APP
downloaded from the same, INCLUDING:
a. any commissions and/or transaction fees charged on the sale of APPS or IN-APP
PRODUCTS and any exemptions from or limitations on such commissions or fees; and
b. the impact on any commission rates and/or transaction fees charged by YOU when
a user makes a purchase through the use of any discount, virtual currency, or particular payment
method, INCLUDING any particular credit card.
REPORTS CONCERNING YOUR decision to change any commission rates on APPS or
IN-APP PRODUCTS distributed through YOUR APP MARKETPLACE(S).
DOCUMENTS sufficient to show any rules or policies CONCERNING the price at which
APPS or IN-APP PRODUCTS may be offered for sale in YOUR APP MARKETPLACE(S),
INCLUDING:
a. any requirements that prices end in a specific number (e.g., “.99”);
11
b. any variations in pricing based on the use of payment methods by consumers
(e.g., discounts); and
c. any requirements that prices for APPS in YOUR APP MARKETPLACE(S)
be linked to prices charged for the same APPS in other APP MARKETPLACES other than
YOURS (e.g., “most favored nation” requirements).
All DOCUMENTS and REPORTS CONCERNING YOUR decision that “Starting from
October 1, 2018 (i.e. revenues prior to that date are not included), when a game makes over $10
million on Steam, the revenue share for that application will adjust to 75 percent/25 percent on
earnings beyond $10M. At $50 million, the revenue share will adjust to 80 percent/20 percent on
earnings beyond $50M,” as described in a December 18, 2018 blog post, available at,
https://www.vice.com/en/article/vbaxkb/fortnite-is-so-popular-it-could-end-steams-decade-long-
dominance.
DOCUMENTS CONCERNING the amount and value of services provided by STEAM to
APP consumers, INCLUDING APP REVIEW, store curation and social networking.
DOCUMENTS sufficient to show any marketing, services, assistance, or support YOU
provide for APP DEVELOPERS, INCLUDING APP development tools, application
programming interfaces (“APIs”), programming tools, technical support, opportunities for testing
APPS before they are released to the consumers, marketing, payment processing, refund
processing, and security measures.
DOCUMENTS sufficient to show, for each year since 2010, any costs YOU incurred to
process payments for purchases of APPS and IN-APP PRODUCTS in YOUR APP
MARKETPLACE(S).
12
DOCUMENTS sufficient to show YOUR policies, practices, and/or procedures for
handling and processing payments for the sale of IN-APP PRODUCTS in APPS distributed
through YOUR APP MARKETPLACE, INCLUDING DOCUMENTS sufficient to show whether
YOU require APPS distributed through YOUR APP MARKETPLACE to use a payment and
purchase functionality provided by YOU to facilitate purchases of IN-APP PRODUCTS, and if
so, whether YOU have ever departed from such requirement with respect to EPIC APPS or any
other APP DEVELOPER’S APPS.

DOCUMENTS, INCLUDING COMMUNICATIONS with EPIC, CONCERNING
EPIC’s submission of Fortnite for distribution through YOUR APP MARKETPLACE.
DOCUMENTS sufficient to show, for STEAM and any other services that offer access to
APPS that YOU offer to U.S. users on any DEVICE:
a. the dates during which the service was available to U.S. consumers;
b. for each year that the service was available, the number U.S. consumers who
subscribed to or otherwise used it;
c. the method(s) used to monetize the service, INCLUDING, but not limited to,
ADVERTISING and subscriptions;
d. YOUR decision to monetize the service, INCLUDING why YOU chose the
monetization strategy YOU did, and whether that strategy changed over time; and
e. YOUR annual revenues from the service (by type of monetization, if available).
DOCUMENTS sufficient to describe YOUR efforts to REVIEW APPS made available
through YOUR APP MARKETPLACE(S) or any other source, INCLUDING:
a. guidelines, policies, and/or procedures for REVIEWING APPS;
13
b. separately by year and operating system, any costs YOU incurred or resources YOU
expended in REVIEWING APPS;
c. the efficacy of any such REVIEW of APPS, INCLUDING the number of instances
of MALWARE YOU detected, the number of instances of MALWARE YOUR REVIEW failed
to detect, and consumer and APP DEVELOPER COMMUNICATIONS regarding any such
REVIEW; and
d. actual or intended efforts to communicate to users that YOU have REVIEWED
such APPS.
DOCUMENTS describing the organizational structure of, and/or listing personnel working
within, any division or unit of YOUR business that is responsible for APP distribution and/or
YOUR APP MARKETPLACE(S) (INCLUDING APP REVIEW), INCLUDING any
organizational charts or employee directories pertaining to such business unit(s) or division(s).
DOCUMENTS sufficient to show the following per-user averages for consumers
associated with YOUR APP MARKETPLACE separately for each year since 2010:
a. annual spending on APPS and IN-APP PRODUCTS;
b. annual amounts received by YOU due to ADVERTISING shown to the user;
c. the portion of annual spending that is attributable to credits, discounts, or virtual
currencies, INCLUDING gift cards, promotional codes, or the use of any particular credit card.
REPORTS CONCERNING the existence of MALWARE, INCLUDING any efforts to
measure or quantify the number of APPS that contained MALWARE, the number of downloads
of APPS that contained MALWARE and the impact of such MALWARE in:
a. APPS offered by YOUR APP MARKETPLACE(S); and
b. APPS offered by APP MARKETPLACES other than YOUR APP
MARKETPLACE(S).
14
DOCUMENTS sufficient to show, for each NAMED CONSUMER PLAINTIFF:
a. the number of APPS downloaded by the NAMED CONSUMER PLAINTIFF from
YOUR APP MARKETPLACE(S);
b. for each APP downloaded by the NAMED CONSUMER PLAINTIFF from YOUR
APP MARKETPLACE(S):
i. the identity of the APP;
ii. the date of download;
iii. the price paid for the download;
iv. the date that any IN-APP PRODUCT associated with the APP was
purchased and the price paid for the IN-APP PRODUCT;
v. whether the APP uses a third party services for ADVERTISING; and
vi. to the extent the APP is available for use on a time-of-use basis, the number
of minutes of usage of such APP.

DOCUMENTS sufficient to show, for each NAMED DEVELOPER PLAINTIFF:
a. whether the NAMED DEVELOPER PLAINTIFF has published APPS on YOUR
APP MARKETPLACE(S);
b. any identification or account number associated with the NAMED DEVELOPER
PLAINTIFF; and
c. for each APP published by the NAMED DEVELOPER PLAINTIFF on YOUR
APP MARKETPLACE(S):
i. the name of the APP;
ii. the date range during which the APP was available for download on YOUR
APP MARKETPLACE(S);
iii. the number of times the APP has been downloaded from YOUR APP
MARKETPLACE(S) each year;
15
iv. the price of the APP and any IN-APP PRODUCT associated with the APP
on YOUR APP MARKETPLACE(S), INCLUDING any changes to such
pricing over time;
v. the total amount of money remitted by YOU to the NAMED DEVELOPER
PLAINTIFF for purchases of such APP or associated IN-APP
PRODUCT(S);
vi. whether the APP uses any third party service for ADVERTISING; and
vii. to the extent the APP is available for use on a time-of-use basis, the number

DOCUMENTS (INCLUDING data) sufficient to show, for each month since 2010:
a. whether EPIC has published APPS on YOUR APP MARKETPLACE(S);
b. any identification or account number associated with EPIC;
c. for each APP published by EPIC on YOUR APP MARKETPLACE(S):
i. the name of the APP;
ii. the date range during which the APP was available for download on YOUR
APP MARKETPLACE(S);
iii. the number of times the APP has been downloaded from YOUR APP
MARKETPLACE(S) each year;
iv. the price of the APP and any IN-APP PRODUCT associated with the APP
on YOUR APP MARKETPLACE(S), INCLUDING any changes to such
pricing over time;
v. the total value in U.S. dollars of IN-APP PRODUCTS sold through EPIC
APPS downloaded from YOUR APP MARKETPLACE;
vi. the total value in U.S. dollars of EPIC APPS downloaded from YOUR APP
MARKETPLACE;
vii. the amount that YOU earned in commissions from each download of any
16
EPIC APP, and the effective commission rate on each such transaction;
viii. the amount that YOU earned in commissions from each sale of any IN-APP
PRODUCT through EPIC APPS, and the effective commission rate on each
such transaction;
ix. whether the APP uses any third party service for ADVERTISING; and
x. to the extent the APP is available for use on a time-of-use basis, the number

DOCUMENTS (INCLUDING data) sufficient to show, for each month since 2010 for each
APP published on YOUR APP MARKETPLACE(S):
a. the name of the APP;
b. the date range during which the APP was available for download on YOUR APP
MARKETPLACE(S); and
c. the price of the APP and any IN-APP PRODUCT associated with the APP on
YOUR APP MARKETPLACE(S), INCLUDING any changes to such pricing over time.
DOCUMENTS sufficient to show the name of each APP, INCLUDING Counter-Strike,
Day of Defeat, Dota, Half-Life, Left 4 Dead, Portal, and Team Fortress, that YOU have published
in any APP MARKETPLACE, INCLUDING Google Play, the Samsung Galaxy Store, Android
Market, DEFENDANT’S iOS and Mac App Stores, the Amazon Appstore, Amazon Underground,
the Microsoft Store for Xbox, Windows Store, and Windows Phone Store, the Epic Games Store,
Origin, and other online storefronts distributing games and digital content, and YOUR APP
MARKETPLACE(S), and for each such APP:
a. the dates during which the APP was available for download by U.S. consumers
from each APP MARKETPLACE;
b. for each year that the APP was available, the number of times that the APP was
downloaded by U.S. consumers from each APP MARKETPLACE;
17
c. the method(s) used (if any) to monetize the APP, INCLUDING, but not limited to,
whether the APP charges for APP downloads, sells IN-APP PRODUCTS, permits use of
EXTERNAL PRODUCTS, features ADVERTISING, or uses any other method(s) or some
combination of the above;
d. YOUR decision to monetize the APP, INCLUDING why YOU chose the
monetization strategy YOU did, and whether that strategy changed over time;
e. YOUR annual revenues from APP downloads and IN-APP PRODUCTS
attributable to such distribution (by APP and by type of monetization, if available); and
f. the number of minutes of usage of such APP that took place via a time-based APP
MARKETPLACE.
DOCUMENTS sufficient to show the name of each APP (if any) that YOU have made
available for direct distribution (i.e., not through an APP MARKETPLACE) to HANDHELD
DEVICE users, and for each such APP:
a. the dates during which the APP was available for direct download to such.
consumers;
downloaded by consumers;
d. YOUR decision to monetize the APP, INCLUDING why YOU chose the revenue
model YOU did, and whether that strategy changed over time; and
attributable to such distribution (by APP and by type of monetization, if available).
18
DOCUMENTS sufficient to show the name of each APP (if any) that YOU have made
available for direct distribution (i.e., not through an APP MARKETPLACE) to NON-
HANDHELD DEVICE users, and for each such APP:
a. the dates during which the APP was available for direct download to such.
consumers;
downloaded by consumers;
d. YOUR decision to monetize the APP, INCLUDING why YOU chose the revenue
model YOU did, and whether that strategy changed over time; and
attributable to such distribution (by APP and by type of monetization, if available).

DOCUMENTS sufficient to describe YOUR decision to prohibit or allow:
a. “cross-play” (i.e., the extent to which users of an APP can interact with or play
against other users of the APP while on different DEVICES), for any particular
APP; and/or
b. IN-APP PRODUCTS or EXTERNAL PRODUCTS purchased on one DEVICE to
be applied to the same APP on another DEVICE.
For each of YOUR APPS, DOCUMENTS sufficient to show the extent to which game
progress achieved on one DEVICE can be applied to the same game on another DEVICE.
19
ALL COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and any NAMED CONSUMER PLAINTIFF.
ALL COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and any NAMED DEVELOPER PLAINTIFF.
ALL COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and any APP DEVELOPER, INCLUDING
EPIC CONCERNING:
a. the DEFENDANT’S iOS App Store, INCLUDING any guidelines, policies, and
procedures for the DEFENDANT’S iOS App Store;
b. policies, practices, and/or procedures for handling and processing payments for the
sale of IN-APP PRODUCTS; and
c. the following ongoing litigation, INCLUDING declarations, anticipated oral
testimony, or documentary evidence relating to the same:
i. Pepper v. Apple Inc., Case No. 4:11-cv-06714-YGR (N.D. Cal.);
ii. Lawrence v. Apple Inc., Case No. 4:19-cv-02852-YGR (N.D. Cal.);
iii. Cameron v. Apple Inc., Case No. 419-cv-03074-YGR (N.D. Cal.);
iv. Sermons v. Apple Inc., Case No. 4:19-cv-03796-YGR (N.D. Cal.); and
v. Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 4:20-cv-05640-YGR (N.D. Cal.).
ALL COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and any DEVICE manufacturer or
telecommunications provider (INCLUDING Verizon Wireless, AT&T Mobility, T-Mobile U.S.,
or Sprint Corporation) CONCERNING:
a. the presence or risk of any APPS with MALWARE in any APP MARKETPLACE;
b. any APPS rejected, removed, or hidden from any APP MARKETPLACE;
c. any APP DEVELOPER for whom YOU have in any way restricted their/its ability
to publish APPS in YOUR APP MARKETPLACE;
20
d. any discussion or agreement regarding pre-installation of APPS or APP
MARKETPLACES on DEVICES; and
e. any relationship between the ability to install or use a given APP MARKETPLACE
on a DEVICE and the attractiveness to consumers of such DEVICE.
ALL COMMUNICATIONS or DOCUMENTS exchanged between YOU and any federal,
state, or local governmental entity, either foreign or domestic, INCLUDING any U.S. or state
agency, attorney general’s office, or congressional committee, CONCERNING any APP
MARKETPLACE(S) or the DEFENDANT.

Any rulings, judgments, or findings of fact or law made by any federal, state, or local
governmental entity, either foreign or domestic, INCLUDING any U.S. or state agency, attorney
general’s office, or congressional committee, CONCERNING YOUR APP MARKETPLACE(S)
and any allegations or suspicion of any anti-competitive conduct or behavior.
21
EXHIBIT 2
AO 88A (Rev. 12/20) Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the
Northern District of California
. ) Civil Action Nos.

CAMERON ET AL v. APPLE INC. ) 4:19-CV-03074-YGR
IN RE APPLE IPHONE ANTITRUST LITIGATION ) 4:11-CV-06714-YGR
)
)
)
SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY AT A DEPOSITION IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: Valve Corporation
(c/o Corpserve, Inc. 1001 4th Ave, Suite 4500, Seattle, WA 98154)
(Name of person to whom this subpoena is directed)
 Testimony: YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear at the time, date, and place set forth below to testify at a
deposition to be taken in this civil action. The deposition will be recorded by a stenographer or court reporter, will be
recorded by video and audio means, and may also be recorded by instant display of the stenographic record. If you are
an organization, you must promptly confer in good faith with the party serving this subpoena about the following matters,
or those set forth in an attachment, and you must designate one or more officers, directors, or managing agents, or
designate other persons who consent to testify on your behalf about these matters:
See Attachment A
Place: By remote audio-video conference OR as otherwise Date and Time:

agreed.
July 26, 2021 at 9am PT
OR as otherwise agreed.
The following provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 are attached – Rule 45(c), relating to the place of compliance;
Rule 45(d), relating to your protection as a person subject to a subpoena; and Rule 45(e) and (g), relating to your duty to
respond to this subpoena and the potential consequences of not doing so.
Date: July 6, 2021
CLERK OF COURT
OR
/s/ Nicole Castle
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk Attorney’s signature
The name, address, e-mail address, and telephone number of the attorney representing (name of party) Apple Inc.
, who issues or requests this subpoena, are:
Nicole Castle, 340 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10173, ncastle@mwe.com, (212) 547-5480
Notice to the person who issues or requests this subpoena
If this subpoena commands the production of documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things or the
inspection of premises before trial, a notice and a copy of the subpoena must be served on each party in this case before
it is served on the person to whom it is directed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(4).

AO 88A (Rev. 12/20) Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action Nos. 4:11-CV-06714-YGR, 4:19-CV-03074-YGR
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.)
I received this subpoena for (name of individual and title, if any)

on (date)
 I served the subpoena by delivering a copy to the named person as follows:
on (date) on (date)
 I returned the subpoena unexecuted because:
Unless the subpoena was issued on behalf of the United States, or one of its officers or agents, I have also
tendered to the witness the fees for one day’s attendance, and the mileage allowed by law, in the amount of
$
My fees are $ My fees are $ My fees are $
I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
Date: Date:
Server’s signature
Printed name and title
Server’s address
Additional information regarding attempted service, etc.:

AO 88A (Rev. 12/20) Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition in a Civil Action (Page 3)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (c), (d), (e), and (g) (Effective 12/1/13)
(c) Place of Compliance. (ii) disclosing an unretained expert’s opinion or information that does
not describe specific occurrences in dispute and results from the expert’s
(1) For a Trial, Hearing, or Deposition. A subpoena may command a study that was not requested by a party.
person to attend a trial, hearing, or deposition only as follows: (C) Specifying Conditions as an Alternative. In the circumstances
(A) within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or described in Rule 45(d)(3)(B), the court may, instead of quashing or
regularly transacts business in person; or modifying a subpoena, order appearance or production under specified
(B) within the state where the person resides, is employed, or regularly conditions if the serving party:
transacts business in person, if the person (i) shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be
(i) is a party or a party’s officer; or otherwise met without undue hardship; and
(ii) is commanded to attend a trial and would not incur substantial (ii) ensures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably compensated.
expense.
(e) Duties in Responding to a Subpoena.
(2) For Other Discovery. A subpoena may command:
(A) production of documents, electronically stored information, or (1) Producing Documents or Electronically Stored Information. These
tangible things at a place within 100 miles of where the person resides, is procedures apply to producing documents or electronically stored
employed, or regularly transacts business in person; and information:
(B) inspection of premises at the premises to be inspected. (A) Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents
must produce them as they are kept in the ordinary course of business or
(d) Protecting a Person Subject to a Subpoena; Enforcement. must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the demand.
(B) Form for Producing Electronically Stored Information Not Specified.
(1) Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions. A party or attorney If a subpoena does not specify a form for producing electronically stored
responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps information, the person responding must produce it in a form or forms in
to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms.
subpoena. The court for the district where compliance is required must (C) Electronically Stored Information Produced in Only One Form. The
enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanction—which may include person responding need not produce the same electronically stored
lost earnings and reasonable attorney’s fees—on a party or attorney who information in more than one form.
fails to comply. (D) Inaccessible Electronically Stored Information. The person
responding need not provide discovery of electronically stored information
(2) Command to Produce Materials or Permit Inspection. from sources that the person identifies as not reasonably accessible because
(A) Appearance Not Required. A person commanded to produce of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or for a protective
documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things, or to order, the person responding must show that the information is not
permit the inspection of premises, need not appear in person at the place of reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is
production or inspection unless also commanded to appear for a deposition, made, the court may nonetheless order discovery from such sources if the
hearing, or trial. requesting party shows good cause, considering the limitations of Rule
(B) Objections. A person commanded to produce documents or tangible 26(b)(2)(C). The court may specify conditions for the discovery.
things or to permit inspection may serve on the party or attorney designated
in the subpoena a written objection to inspecting, copying, testing, or (2) Claiming Privilege or Protection.
sampling any or all of the materials or to inspecting the premises—or to (A) Information Withheld. A person withholding subpoenaed information
producing electronically stored information in the form or forms requested. under a claim that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation
The objection must be served before the earlier of the time specified for material must:
compliance or 14 days after the subpoena is served. If an objection is made, (i) expressly make the claim; and
the following rules apply: (ii) describe the nature of the withheld documents, communications, or
(i) At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving party tangible things in a manner that, without revealing information itself
may move the court for the district where compliance is required for an privileged or protected, will enable the parties to assess the claim.
order compelling production or inspection. (B) Information Produced. If information produced in response to a
(ii) These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and the subpoena is subject to a claim of privilege or of protection as
order must protect a person who is neither a party nor a party’s officer from trial-preparation material, the person making the claim may notify any party
significant expense resulting from compliance. that received the information of the claim and the basis for it. After being
notified, a party must promptly return, sequester, or destroy the specified
(3) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena. information and any copies it has; must not use or disclose the information
(A) When Required. On timely motion, the court for the district where until the claim is resolved; must take reasonable steps to retrieve the
compliance is required must quash or modify a subpoena that: information if the party disclosed it before being notified; and may promptly
(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply; present the information under seal to the court for the district where
(ii) requires a person to comply beyond the geographical limits compliance is required for a determination of the claim. The person who
specified in Rule 45(c); produced the information must preserve the information until the claim is
(iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no resolved.
exception or waiver applies; or
(iv) subjects a person to undue burden. (g) Contempt.
(B) When Permitted. To protect a person subject to or affected by a The court for the district where compliance is required—and also, after a
subpoena, the court for the district where compliance is required may, on motion is transferred, the issuing court—may hold in contempt a person
motion, quash or modify the subpoena if it requires: who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the
(i) disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research, subpoena or an order related to it.
development, or commercial information; or
For access to subpoena materials, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a) Committee Note (2013).

ATTACHMENT A
FRCP 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION NOTICE TO VALVE CORPORATION
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6),
Valve Corporation (“you” or “your”) shall designate one or more officers, directors, managing
agents or other persons who are most qualified to testify on its behalf with respect to the topics
identified below.
The deposition will be conducted before an officer qualified to administer oaths and take
depositions and will be recorded stenographically and videographically. All parties are invited to
attend and participate to the extent permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
DEFINITIONS
The following definitions apply to the deposition topics listed below.
1. The following rules of construction shall apply to all topics:
a. the connectives “and” and “or” shall be construed either disjunctively or
conjunctively as necessary to bring within the scope of the deposition topics all
topics that might otherwise be construed to be outside of its scope;
b. the use of the present or past tense shall be construed to include both the present
and past tenses as necessary to bring within the scope of the deposition topics
c. “any” and “each” shall be construed to include and encompass “all”; and
d. the use of the singular form of any word includes the plural and vice versa.
2. “ADVERTISING” shall mean the in-APP presentation of third-party promotional
content in exchange for payment.
3. “ANDROID” shall mean Google’s mobile operating system.
4. “APP” shall mean a software application for a HANDHELD DEVICE or NON-
HANDHELD DEVICE.
1
5. “APP DEVELOPER” shall mean any PERSON who developed one or more
APPS.
6. “APP MARKETPLACE” shall mean any online storefront where APPS are
offered for download and/or purchase. This term shall include, without limitation, Google Play,
the Samsung Galaxy Store, Android Market, DEFENDANT’S iOS and Mac App Stores, the
Amazon Appstore, Amazon Underground, the Microsoft Store for Xbox, Windows Store, and
Windows Phone Store, the Epic Games Store, Steam, Origin, and online storefronts distributing
games and digital content for Xbox, PlayStation, and Nintendo. For the avoidance of doubt, the
phrase “YOUR APP MARKETPLACE” shall refer to STEAM.
7. “COALITION FOR APP FAIRNESS” shall mean the Coalition for App Fairness
(INCLUDING Open Mobile Platforms Coalition), or any of its predecessor or successor
companies, members, subsidiaries, corporate affiliates, officers, directors, employees,
representatives, consultants, agents, servants, attorneys, accountants, and any other PERSON or
entity acting on its behalf, or any PERSON or entity that served in any such role at any time.
8. “COMMUNICATION” shall include, without limitation, any transmission or
transfer of information of any kind, whether orally, electronically, in writing, or in any other
manner, at any time or place, and under any circumstances whatsoever.
9. “CONCERNING” a given subject shall mean: directly or indirectly comprising,
concerning, constituting, containing, discussing, embodying, evidencing, exhibiting, identifying,
mentioning, negating, pertaining to, recording, regarding, reflecting, relating to, showing, or
supporting a given subject matter.
10. “DEFENDANT” shall mean Apple Inc.
11. “DEVICE” shall mean any HANDHELD DEVICE or NON-HANDHELD
DEVICE.
12. “DOCUMENT” and “DOCUMENTS” shall have the full meaning ascribed to
those terms under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and shall include, without
limitation, any and all drafts; COMMUNICATIONS; memoranda; records; REPORTS; books;
2
records, REPORTS, and/or summaries of personal conversations or interviews; diaries;
presentations; slide decks; graphs; charts; spreadsheets; diagrams; tables; photographs; recordings;
tapes; microfilms; minutes; records, REPORTS, and/or summaries of meetings or conferences;
press releases; blog posts; stenographic handwritten or any other notes; work papers; checks, front
and back; check vouchers, check stubs, or receipts; tape data sheets or data processing cards or
discs or any other written, recorded, transcribed, punched, taped, filmed, or graphic matter,
however produced or reproduced; and any paper or writing of whatever description, INCLUDING
information contained in any computer although not yet printed out. Any production of
electronically stored information shall include the information needed to understand such
information. The term “DOCUMENT” or “DOCUMENTS” further includes all copies where the
copy is not identical to the original.
13. “EXTERNAL PRODUCTS” shall mean digital products and services purchased
outside of an APP (such as through an APP DEVELOPER’s website or on another platform) that
one may use within an APP.
14. “HANDHELD DEVICE” shall mean any smartphone, tablet, or portable MP3
music player.
15. “INCLUDING” shall not be construed as limiting any request, and shall mean the
same as “including, but not limited to.”
16. “IN-APP PRODUCT” shall mean any feature, service, or functionality that can be
enabled or unlocked within an APP in exchange for a fee, INCLUDING subscriptions, in-game
currencies, game levels, access to premium content, or unlocking a full version of an APP.
17. “MALWARE” shall mean APPS and other software that could put users, user data,
or devices at risk, INCLUDING computer viruses, worms, trojans, ransomware, scareware,
spyware, phishing apps, backdoors, hostile downloaders, mobile billing fraud apps (including
SMS fraud, call fraud, and toll fraud), and click fraud apps.
18. “NAMED CONSUMER PLAINTIFF” shall mean a named plaintiff in Pepper v.
Apple Inc., Case No. 4:11-cv-06714-YGR (N.D. Cal.), and Lawrence v. Apple Inc., Case No. 4:19-
3
cv-02852-YGR (N.D. Cal.), INCLUDING: Edward W. Hayter, of Brooklyn, NY; Edward
Lawrence, of California; Robert Pepper, of Chicago, IL; Stephen H. Schwartz, of Ardsley, NY;
and Eric Terrell, of Oakland, CA, and any representatives, consultants, agents, servants, attorneys,
accountants, or any other person or entity acting on their behalf.
19. “NAMED DEVELOPER PLAINTIFF” shall mean a named plaintiff in Cameron
v. Apple Inc., Case No. 419-cv-03074-YGR (N.D. Cal.), and Sermons v. Apple Inc., Case No. 4:19-
cv-03796-YGR (N.D. Cal.), INCLUDING: Donald R. Cameron, of California; Barry Sermons, of
Georgia; and Pure Sweat Basketball, Inc., an Illinois corporation, and any representatives,
consultants, agents, servants, attorneys, accountants, or any other person or entity acting on their
behalf.
20. “NON-HANDHELD DEVICE” shall mean laptop computers, desktop computers,
or video game consoles.
21. “PERSON” shall include, without limitation, natural persons, corporations,
partnerships, business trusts, associations, and business or other entities, and any officer, director,
employee, partner, corporate parent, subsidiary, affiliate, agent, representative, attorney, or
principal thereof.
22. “REGULATOR” shall mean any U.S. federal or state entity charged with
supervision or regulation.
23. “RELEVANT PERIOD” means December 29, 2007 through the present.
24. “REPORTS” shall mean any final reports, research, papers, memoranda,
presentations, reviews, statistical compilations, or other analyses.
25. “REVIEW” and “REVIEWING” shall mean, with respect to APPS, any process
of screening, evaluating, analyzing, approving, or monitoring APPS, regardless of whether such
process takes place before or after the publication of APPS in an APP MARKETPLACE or before
or after the installation of APPS onto a HANDHELD DEVICE or NON-HANDHELD DEVICE.
26. “STEAM” shall mean any APP MARKETPLACE operated by YOU available on
DEVICES.
4
27. “THE” shall not be construed as limiting the scope of any topic.
28. “YOU” or “YOUR” shall refer to Valve Corporation or any of its predecessor or
successor companies, subsidiaries (INCLUDING Turtle Rock Studios, Campo Santo,
Impulsonic, Inc., Star Filled Studios Inc., Campo Santo Productions LLC), corporate affiliates,
officers, directors, employees, representatives, consultants, agents, servants, attorneys,
accountants, and any other PERSON or entity acting on its behalf, or any PERSON or entity that
served in any such role at any time.
TOPICS FOR TESTIMONY
TOPIC 1:
The following information about each of YOUR APP MARKETPLACE(S):
A. Financial information for YOUR APP MARKETPLACE, INCLUDING sales,
revenues, and number of downloads as measured on an annual and quarterly basis relating to the
sale of APPS, IN-APP PRODUCTS, and EXTERNAL PRODUCTS during the RELEVANT
PERIOD;
B. The dates during which the APP MARKETPLACE was available to U.S.
consumers during the RELEVANT PERIOD and for each year that the APP MARKETPLACE
was available, the number of U.S. consumers who subscribed to or otherwise used it;
C. The method(s) used to monetize YOUR APP MARKETPLACE, INCLUDING, but

not limited to, ADVERTISING, commissions, and subscriptions;
D. YOUR decisions relating to the development and/or operation of YOUR APP
MARKETPLACE, INCLUDING YOUR decision to build YOUR APP MARKETPLACE,
YOUR decision to use a particular revenue model or monetization strategy in each such APP
MARKETPLACE, and YOUR decision to develop each such APP MARKETPLACE for specific
operating systems;
E. Competition between YOUR APP MARKETPLACE and other APP
MARKETPLACES, INCLUDING YOUR assessment of the market share and any analysis
5
performed of any actual or potential competitors, INCLUDING analysis of any APP
MARKETPLACE’S APPS available for download, APP pricing, commissions, product design,
product functionality, APP promotion, privacy or security policies, and/or APP REVIEW policies
or procedures;
F. YOUR decision to charge or change any commission rates on APPS or IN-APP
PRODUCTS distributed through YOUR APP MARKETPLACE, and YOUR reasons for charging
such commissions;
G. YOUR efforts to REVIEW APPS made available through YOUR APP
MARKETPLACE, INCLUDING guidelines, policies, and/or procedures for REVIEWING APPS,
YOUR process for REVIEWING APPS, the efficacy of any such REVIEW of APPS, consumer
and APP DEVELOPER COMMUNICATIONS regarding any such REVIEW, and actual or
intended efforts to communicate to users that YOU have REVIEWED such APPS;
H. Whether YOU permit the distribution of other APP MARKETPLACES within your
APP MARKETPLACE and YOUR reasons for allowing or disallowing such distribution;
I. The pricing of APPS on YOUR APP MARKETPLACE and any restraints YOU
impose on the prices APP DEVELOPERS may charge for APPS or IN-APP PRODUCTS in other
APP MARKETPLACES;
J. The presence of zero-price APPS in YOUR APP MARKETPLACE and any efforts
or initiatives by YOU to promote the number and/or quantity of the same;
K. YOUR policies, practices, and procedures CONCERNING the ability of APP
DEVELOPERS to monetize their APPS through means other than sales of APPS and IN-APP
PRODUCTS, such as through advertising or sale of EXTERNAL PRODUCTS;
L. YOUR policies, practices, and procedures CONCERNING any prohibition or
limitation on APP DEVELOPERS’ freedom to direct, refer, link out, or “steer” consumers outside
of YOUR APP MARKETPLACE;
6
M. The extent to which YOUR APP MARKETPLACE allows cross-progression,
cross-wallet and/or cross-platform play functionality, including without limitation the use of
virtual currencies across platforms; and
N. The intellectual property YOU hold with respect to YOUR APP MARKETPLACE,
INCLUDING the extent YOU license such intellectual property to APP DEVELOPERS and the
license terms.
TOPIC 2:
The following information about YOUR relationships with APP DEVELOPERS:
A. Any efforts undertaken by YOU to attract or incentivize APP DEVELOPERS to
develop APPS for distribution to YOUR APP MARKETPLACE;
B. YOUR agreements or contracts with APP DEVELOPERS, INCLUDING any
contracts, guidelines, or rules setting forth the terms and conditions under which APP
DEVELOPERS may distribute APPS through YOUR APP MARKETPLACE(S), INCLUDING
any annual fee(s) or registration fee(s) paid by APP DEVELOPERS in order to develop and
publish APPS in YOUR APP MARKETPLACE, any exclusivity agreements or arrangements with
any APP DEVELOPERS, any minimum revenue guarantees provided to any APP
DEVELOPERS, and any rules or policies CONCERNING the price at which APPS or IN-APP
PRODUCTS may be offered for sale in YOUR APP MARKETPLACE;
C. Any marketing support, services, or assistance YOU provide for APP
DEVELOPERS;
D. Any technical support, services, assistance, or support YOU provide for APP
DEVELOPERS, including any intellectual property YOU provide to APP DEVELOPERS, APP
development tools, software development kits (“SDKs”), application programming interfaces
(“APIs”), APP engines, programming tools, technical support, opportunities for testing APPS
before they are released to the consumers, payment processing, refund processing, and security
measures;
7
E. Any other support, services, or assistance YOU provide for APP DEVELOPERS;
and
F. The services and tools provided to assist developers in making their APPS
discoverable to consumers.
TOPIC NO. 3:
The following information about YOUR handling and processing of payments:
A. YOUR policies, practices, and/or procedures for handling and processing payments
for the sale of IN-APP PRODUCTS in APPS distributed through YOUR APP MARKETPLACE,
INCLUDING whether (and in what circumstances) YOU require APPS distributed through YOUR
APP MARKETPLACE to use a payment and purchase functionality provided by YOU to facilitate
purchases of IN-APP PRODUCTS, and if so, whether YOU have ever departed from such
requirement with respect other APP DEVELOPER’S APPS;
B. YOUR rationale for any such policies, practices, and procedures for handling and
processing payments for the sale of IN-APP PRODUCTS in APPS distributed through YOUR
APP MARKETPLACE;
C. Any costs YOU incurred to process payments for purchases of APPS and IN-APP
PRODUCTS in YOUR APP MARKETPLACE(S);
D. The information that YOU share with APP DEVELOPERS when a user purchases
an IN-APP PRODUCT in an APP distributed through YOUR APP MARKETPLACE; and
E. YOUR policies, practices, and/or procedures concerning the processing and
handling of refunds in YOUR APP MARKETPLACE.
TOPIC NO. 4:
The following information about each of YOUR APPS:
A. The availability and usage of the APP on DEFENDANT’S iOS operating system,
DEFENDANT’S DEVICES, and DEFENDANT’S APP MARKETPLACE; and
B. For each of YOUR APPS:
8
i. the means by which YOU have made the APP available to consumers,
INCLUDING whether the APP is available on any APP MARKETPLACES, or through
direct distribution;
ii. why YOU made YOUR decision to distribute or make available the APP
through any APP MARKETPLACES or other means of distribution, INCLUDING any
alternatives YOU considered;
iii. the APPS that you believe or consider to be competitors of each of YOUR
APPS;
iv. the costs associated with the distribution and development of the APP,
including the relative costs and expenses of distributing on each APP MARKETPLACE;
v. the monthly active users of the APP on each APP MARKETPLACE the
APP is available;
vi. the revenue of the APP on each APP MARKETPLACE the APP is
available;
vii. the commission rate(s) paid on each APP MARKETPLACE the APP is
available;
viii. the effect that any technological improvements made to DEFENDANT’S
iOS operating system or DEFENDANT’S DEVICES have had, if any, on YOUR APPS;
ix. the method(s) used (if any) to monetize the APP, INCLUDING, but not
limited to, whether the APP charges for APP downloads, sells IN-APP PRODUCTS,
permits use of EXTERNAL PRODUCTS, features ADVERTISING, features in-app
virtual currency, are available as a subscription, or uses any other method(s) or some
x. YOUR decision to monetize the APP, INCLUDING why YOU chose the
monetization strategy YOU did, whether that strategy changed over time, and whether that
strategy differs across APP MARKETPLACES;
9
xi. YOUR ability or desire to handle and process payments for purchases of
APPS or IN-APP PRODUCTS on YOUR own and independent from the APP
MARKETPLACE on which the APP is being offered;
xii. YOUR decision to prohibit or allow “cross-play” (i.e., the extent to which
users of an APP can interact with or play against other users of the APP while on different
DEVICES) for each APP;
xiii. whether IN-APP PRODUCTS or EXTERNAL PRODUCTS purchased on
one DEVICE to be applied to the same APP on another DEVICE;
xiv. the extent to which game progress achieved on one DEVICE can be applied
to the same game on another DEVICE;
xv. YOUR understanding as to why users of YOUR APPS use them on multiple
platforms or switch among them; and
xvi. The importance of search functionality and APP discoverability tools in the
distribution of YOUR APPS, including your experience with such functionality and tools
on the APP MARKETPLACES in which you distribute YOUR APPS.

TOPIC NO. 5:
Security breaches, MALWARE incidents, or privacy concerns relating to YOUR APP
MARKETPLACE(S) or YOUR APPS.
TOPIC NO. 6:
The manner in which YOU account for YOUR different lines of businesses, INCLUDING how
YOU allocate shared costs and expenses.
TOPIC NO. 7:
The location of documents and data within your possession, custody, or control relevant to the
topics in this Notice, the accessibility of those documents, and YOUR production of documents in
response to subpoenas issued in connection with any of the following litigations:
A. In re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litigation., Case No. 4:11-cv-06714-YGR (N.D. Cal.);
B. Cameron v. Apple Inc., Case No. 419-cv-03074-YGR (N.D. Cal.); and
10
C. Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 4:20-cv-05640-YGR (N.D. Cal.).
TOPIC NO. 8:
YOUR organizational structure, including the identification and role of employees with
responsibility for and knowledge of the topics in this Notice.
TOPIC NO. 9:
COMMUNICATIONS between YOU (and/or YOUR counsel), INCLUDING
COMMUNICATIONS CONCERNING any joint or common defense agreement, and:
A. Any NAMED CONSUMER PLAINTIFF (and/or their counsel);
B. Any NAMED DEVELOPER PLAINTIFF (and/or their counsel);
C. The COALITION FOR APP FAIRNESS (and/or their counsel), or any member of
the COALITION FOR APP FAIRNESS (and/or their counsel) INCLUDING Basecamp, Blix Inc.,
Blockchain.com, Deezer, EPIC, Match Group Inc., News Media Europe, Prepear Inc., ProtonMail,
SkyDemon, Spotify, Tile and Yoga Buddhi.

TOPIC NO. 10:
COMMUNICATIONS between YOU (and/or YOUR counsel) and the United States Department
of Justice, the United States Federal Trade Commission, or any other domestic REGULATOR
regarding Apple’s App Store, any other APP MARKETPLACE, or the distribution of APPS.
11
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
2 AT SEATTLE
4 IN RE: SUBPOENA TO VALVE

CORPORATION
5
_________________________________________
6 Misc. Case No. 2:24-mc-00026-TL
Underlying Litigation:
7 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
In re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litigation, APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO
8 No. 4:11-cv-6714 COMPEL
9 U.S. District Court for the Northern District Of
10 California
11
12
13
THIS MATTER came before the Court on the Motion to Compel documents and
14
deposition testimony from Valve Corporation (“Valve”) brought by Apple Inc. (“Apple”) in
15
connection with an ongoing antitrust class action case brought against Apple by a class of app
16
consumers now pending in the Northern District of California entitled In re Apple iPhone
17
Antitrust Litigation, Civil Action No. 4:11-cv-6714.
18
The Court has considered Apple’s motion, the Declaration of Nicole L. Castle and the
19
exhibits attached thereto, any opposition or response filed by Valve or any other party, any
20
declarations or other exhibits filed in support of any opposition or response filed by Valve or any
21
other party, and the record and file herein. Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby orders,
22
adjudges, and declares, Apple’s Motion to Compel is GRANTED and Valve is ordered to
23
produce all responsive documents and produce a witness to testify at deposition by no later than
24
____________________[insert date].
25
26
27
1
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY
MOTION TO COMPEL 444 WEST LAKE STREET, SUITE 4000
TELEPHONE: 312.372.2000
1 DATED this ______ day of ______________, 2024

2
3 _______________________________________
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
6 Presented By:
8 MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
9 By: _/s/ Daniel-Charles V. Wolf_______________
10 Daniel-Charles V. Wolf, WBSA #48211

444 W. Lake St., Ste. #4000
11 Chicago, IL 60606-0029
12 (312)372-2000
dcwolf@mwe.com
13
14 John J. Calandra (motion for

admission pro hac vice forthcoming)
15 Nicole L. Castle (motion for
16 1 Vanderbilt Avenue
New York, New York 10017
17 Tel: 212-547-5400
18 Fax: 212-547-5444
jcalandra@mwe.com
19 ncastle@mwe.com
20 Elizabeth A. Rodd (motion for

21 200 Clarendon Street, Floor 58
22 Boston, MA 02116
Tel: 617-535-4040
23 Fax: 617-535-3800
erodd@mwe.com
24
Attorneys for Apple Inc.
25
26
27
2
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY
MOTION TO COMPEL 444 WEST LAKE STREET, SUITE 4000
TELEPHONE: 312.372.2000

Subpoena To Valve Corporation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Subpoena To Valve Corporation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:24-mc-00026-TL Document 1 Filed 04/12/24 Page 1 of 18

5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO COMPEL MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY

3 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ................................................................................................... 1

3 Aguayo-Becerra v. Goodman Conveyor Co.,

8 Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,

15 In re Valve Antitrust Litigation,

20 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1) ....................................................................................................................1

21 Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 ...................................................................................................................1, 5, 11

3 including the commissions that game developers paid to Valve.

17 responsive to among other requests, Request 2.

19 before May 13, 2024.

2 the District where the Subpoenas require compliance.

4 I. Apple’s Motion to Compel Should Be Granted

4 See Castle Decl. Exhibit 6.

2 prices. Epic, 559 F. Supp. 3d at 996.

20 without undue burden.” Id. at 4.

11 (March 14, 2024), https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2024/03/you-a-holes-court-docs-reveal-epic-

12 ceos-anger-at-steams-30-fees/. Because information about Valve’s decision-making with respect

18 reasonably obtain them elsewhere.”) (internal citations and quotations omitted).

19 C. Apple’s Requests Do Not Pose Any Undue Burden on Valve

26 establish undue burden.

20 class certification decision.

6 /s/ Daniel-Charles V. Wolf______________

MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY

10 Attorney for Valve Corporation

14 Attorney for Apple Inc.

MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EPIC GAMES, INC. v. APPLE INC. ) Civil Action Nos. 4:20-CV-05640-YGR

Place: McDermott Will & Emery LLP Date and Time:

Place: Date and Time:

Notice to the person who issues or requests this subpoena

American LegalNet, Inc.

Civil Action Nos. 4:11-CV-06714-YGR, 4:19-CV-03074-YGR, 4:20-CV-05640-YGR

I received this subpoena for (name of individual and title, if any)

 I served the subpoena by delivering a copy to the named person as follows:

 I returned the subpoena unexecuted because:

My fees are $ My fees are $ My fees are $

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Printed name and title

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc.:

American LegalNet, Inc.

American LegalNet, Inc.

Procedure and the Local Rules of the Northern District of California.

1. The following rules of construction shall apply to all discovery requests:

a. the connectives “and” and “or” shall be construed either disjunctively or

conjunctively as necessary to bring within the scope of the discovery request

all responses that might otherwise be construed to be outside of its scope;

all responses that might otherwise be construed to be outside of its scope;

2. “ADVERTISING” shall mean the in-APP presentation of third-party promotional

content in exchange for payment.

3. “ANDROID” shall mean Google’s mobile operating system.

4. “APP” shall mean a software application for a HANDHELD DEVICE or NON-

download of those or other APPS.

phrase “YOUR APP MARKETPLACE” shall refer to STEAM.

7. “COMMUNICATION” shall include, without limitation, any transmission or

manner, at any time or place, and under any circumstances whatsoever.

8. “CONCERNING” a given subject shall mean: directly or indirectly comprising,

concerning, constituting, containing, discussing, embodying, evidencing, exhibiting, identifying,

supporting a given subject matter.

9. “DEFENDANT” shall mean Apple Inc.

10. “DEVICE” shall mean any HANDHELD DEVICE or NON-HANDHELD