IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
THE COALITION FOR APP FAIRNESS; FORBES TATE PARTNERS LLC; AND MEGHAN DIMUZIO, Non-Party Movants, v. APPLE INC., Defendant. Misc. Case No. _______________ Underlying Litigation:
Cameron v. Apple, Inc.
, No. 4:19-cv-3074
In re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litigation
, No. 4:11-cv-6714 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
STATEMENT OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS
Case 1:21-mc-00098-JDB Document 1-1 Filed 07/08/21 Page 1 of 28
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... ii BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................... 3 A. The Coalition for App Fairness.................................................................................... 3 B. App Store Antitrust Litigation ..................................................................................... 5 C. The Document Requests .............................................................................................. 6 ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................. 8 I. LEGAL STANDARDS ........................................................................................................ 9 A. Third-Party Discovery ................................................................................................. 9 B. First Amendment Privilege ........................................................................................ 10 II. THE REQUESTED MATERIALS ARE SUBJECT TO A FIRST AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE AGAINST COMPELLED DISCLOSURE ................................................... 12 A. All of the Document Requests Implicate First Amendment Concerns ...................... 12 B. The Movants Have Made a
Prima Facie
Showing that the Materials Requested Are Subject to the First Amendment Privilege ........................................ 15 III. THE REQUESTED MATERIALS ARE NOT “HIGHLY RELEVANT” TO THE UNDERLYING ANTITRUST CASES .............................................................................. 19 IV. APPLE OTHERWISE SEEKS MATERIALS THAT ARE NOT RELEVANT, ARE DISPROPORTIONAL TO THE NEEDS OF THE CASE, AND ARE UNREASONABLY DUPLICATIVE ................................................................................ 22 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ 24
Case 1:21-mc-00098-JDB Document 1-1 Filed 07/08/21 Page 2 of 28
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
ii
C
ASES
*
AFL-CIO v. FEC
, 333 F.3d 168 (D.C. Cir. 2003) ...............................................................................10, 12, 13, 15
All. of Auto. Mfrs., Inc. v. Jones
, No. 08-cv-555, 2013 WL 4838764 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 11, 2013) .........................................13, 14
Apple Inc. v. Pepper
, 139 S. Ct. 1514 (2019) ...............................................................................................................6
Ass’n of Equip. Mfrs. v. Burgum
, 427 F. Supp. 3d 1082 (D.N.D. 2019) .......................................................................................13
Black Panther Party v. Smith
, 661 F.2d 1243 (D.C. Cir. 1981) ...............................................................................................11
Buckley v. Valeo
, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) .....................................................................................................................10
Calzone v. Summers
, 942 F.3d 415 (8th Cir. 2019) .............................................................................................13, 14
FEC v. Machinists Non-Partisan Pol. League
, 655 F.2d 380 (D.C. Cir. 1981) .................................................................................................14
Flynn v. Square One Distrib., Inc.
, No. 16-mc-25, 2016 WL 2997673 (M.D. Fla. May 25, 2016) ..........................................10, 11
FTC v. Superior Ct. Trial Laws. Ass’n
, 493 U.S. 411 (1990) .................................................................................................................13
Herbert v. Lando
, 441 U.S. 153 (1979) ...................................................................................................................9
Int’l Union v. Nat’l Right to Work Legal Def. & Educ. Found., Inc.
, 590 F.2d 1139 (D.C. Cir. 1978) ...........................................................................................2, 14
Johnston v. Hertz Loc. Edition Corp.
, 331 F.R.D. 140 (E.D. Cal. 2019) .............................................................................................21
Kusper v. Pontikes
, 414 U.S. 51 (1973) ...................................................................................................................10
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n
, 514 U.S. 334 (1995) .................................................................................................................10
Millennium TGA, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns LLC
, 286 F.R.D. 8 (D.D.C. 2012) .......................................................................................................9
N.C. Right to Life, Inc. v. Leake
, 231 F.R.D. 49 (D.D.C. 2005) ...................................................................................................21
Case 1:21-mc-00098-JDB Document 1-1 Filed 07/08/21 Page 3 of 28