Mikey Campbell
In yet another denial of Apple's attempts to halt an impending e-books damages trial, U.S. District Court Judge Denise Cote on Wednesday shot down two motions for a stay, making it clear she intends to kick off proceedings as soon as possible.
Judge Cote's order denying Apple's motions was filed alongside letters from state attorneys general and class plaintiffs, both of which are opposed to further delaying a trial start date.
The jurist noted that the upcoming trial, slated to begin on July 14, was already pushed back once from May 2014 to allow for class notice and pre-trial procedures. She points out that Apple itself asked for class certification to be conducted after the case's liability trial.
In July of 2013, Judge Cote found Apple guilty of colluding with five major book publishers to falsely inflate the prices of e-books sold through its iBookstore. The antitrust case was leveled by the U.S. Department of Justice and resulted in an injunction against Apple and the appointment of external antitrust monitor Michael Bromwich.Plaintiffs in the joint damages case are seeking $280 million in damages, an amount that could be trebled to $840 million if Apple loses.
Following the DOJ action, a joint damages trial was scheduled to commence with plaintiffs including a class of consumers and state attorneys general representing their constituency. Judge Cote granted class status to the group of consumers in March, while the 33 states and territories were allowed in on the suit after Apple lost a bid to prove lack of standing earlier in April.
As for Wednesday's denial, Apple entered its own letter, with attorney Theodore Boutrous formally requesting a ruling on the company's motion to stay as the case is being appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Barring an order, Apple asked for an administrative stay to seek relief before the court disseminated class notice, something Boutrous said would irreparably harm the company.
Eric Lipman, an assistant attorney general for the state of Texas, filed a letter on behalf of state attorneys general suing Apple in a parens patriae capacity. In it, he said the present litigation will proceed regardless of Apple's appeal.
"And Apple has utterly failed to identify the irreparable harm that will arise from the dissemination of notice," Lipman writes, concluding that "the Court should not countenance Apple's latest effort to further delay a jury's determination of the damages caused by Apple's illegal conduct."
The class plaintiffs echoed Lipman in its letter to Judge Cote, saying
From Class Plaintiffs' opposition:
A stay of class notice will almost assuredly delay the July 14 trial. This is simply anotherApple delay maneuver (which the Court rejected previously) - or effort to further balkanize these
proceedings.
Later in the day, Apple sent a separate request to the Second Circuit asking the appellate court to intervene in the damages trial, reports Reuters.
From Apple's filing with the Second Circuit:
The district court is [...] pressing forward with class notice and a trial in both cases in July, despite the irreparable harm to Apple's reputation among its consumers if class notice is disseminated.
In the end, Apple's efforts were for not. Judge Cote will further flesh out her ruling in an opinion to be filed sometime in the near future.
-m.jpg)
Wesley Hilliard
Malcolm Owen
Andrew Orr
William Gallagher
Sponsored Content
Christine McKee
Thomas Sibilly
25 Comments
Want some job security? Become a lawyer for Apple. They must spend double in legal fees whatever they throw at R&D these days.
I asked some of my lawyer friends about the intention of states asking for a damages trial before the appeal and how that would be a waste of taxpayer money. The state prosecutors want to make a name for themselves and get re-elected
This is going to be verrrry expensive. ????
There goes that terrible judge again, doing what they do best, ruling against Apple.
I don't claim to know much about the inner workings of the legal system, but if Apple loses the DOJ case, then they should take it to the next level and eventually all the way to the top, to the Supreme court, if that's even possible. This kind of case would probably get rejected, as it's probably not important enough for them to hear. E-books is not abortion or race or some other hot button issue. But what if it's government corruption?
At least there, Apple would have a better chance at being fairly judged, because there would be multiple judges, and not just get unlucky and get stuck with one particular biased judge, who might be terrible at their job. Not all judges are equally competent, and not all judges are honest or unbiased, just like in any other profession.
I think that the judge should be investigated for possible corruption and conflict of interest, due to their ties with the person who was appointed to monitor Apple. The whole thing strikes me as being shady.
I also question the technical competence of the Judge and would like to know what phone they use and how much they know about technology and the internet in general.
Too bad that Apple can't cross examine the judge. That should be allowed, in my opinion. Judges have too much power and they shouldn't be immune from having to answer for their actions.
I also believe that a probe should be carried out to find out who exactly is behind the whole decision to go after Apple, because there might very well be illegal activity taking place. There has been various incidents taking place in multiple government agencies, where they have shown biases towards certain groups and individuals. The DOJ has been involved in numerous scandals. I can't say that I trust their intentions or their motives.
And much what you suggested could have been avoided if Apple had used some of that wonga pile for lobbying.