Apple Inc. v. Basecamp, LLC
| Apple Inc |
| Basecamp, LLC |
| 3:2021mc80187 |
| August 9, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of California |
| Thomas S Hixson |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 3, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 27
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson granting #26 Stipulation withdrawing Motion to Compel.(rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/3/2021)
|
| Filing 26 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER TO WITHDRAW MOTION TO COMPEL filed by Basecamp, LLC. (Dixon, Douglas) (Filed on 9/3/2021) |
|
Filing 25
DISCOVERY ORDER: The Court orders the parties to review the August 19, 2021 discovery order in Apple, Inc. v. Match Group, Inc., 21-mc-80184, ECF No. 36, and to meet and confer. Within 14 days, the parties shall file a status report concerning Apple's pending motion to compel. Signed by Judge Thomas S. Hixson on 8/23/2021. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/23/2021)
|
| Filing 24 Case transferred in from District of Illinois Northern; Case Number 1:21-cv-03860. Original file certified copy of transfer order and docket sheet received. |
| Filing 23 TRANSFERRED to the Northern District of California the electronic record. (aee, ) |
|
Filing 22
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: Apple's motion to transfer (Dckt. No. #5 ) is hereby granted. Apple seeks documents from Basecamp, LLC, a third party, for use in several antitrust cases pending in the Northern District of California. Judge Gonzalez Rogers and Judge Hixson have presided over those cases for several years. Given their intimate familiarity with the facts, they are best positioned to decide the appropriate scope of discovery in that complex litigation. Apple served comparable subpoenas in other districts, and later filed comparable subpoena-enforcement actions against other third parties in the Northern District of Texas and the District of Columbia. Judge Starr (N.D. Tex.) and Judge McFadden (D.D.C.) recently granted comparable motions by Apple to transfer the discovery motions to the Northern District of California. After reviewing those orders, this Court agrees with their reasoning, and does the same thing for the same reasons. It does not make much sense for multiple judges to decide the same issue, if it can be avoided. And in light of the rulings by Judge Starr and Judge McFadden, the presiding judges in California are going to decide these issues anyway. They have much greater expertise and familiarity with cases on their docket, and they have a well-oiled process for efficiently resolving discovery disputes. If this Court reached the issue, it would either make the same decision (leading to a waste of judicial resources), or make a different decision (creating inconsistent rulings). So nothing could be gained, and something could be lost, by having another judge in a faraway district decide the same thing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f) advisory committee's note to 2013 amendment (noting that "transfer may be warranted in order to avoid disrupting the issuing court's management of the underlying litigation, as when that court has already ruled on issues presented by the motion or the same issues are likely to arise in discovery in many districts"). Litigating this dispute in California will pose no meaningful burden on Basecamp, LLC, as illustrated by the fact that it retained counsel in California to resist the subpoena in Illinois. Id. (noting that the "prime concern should be avoiding burdens on local nonparties subject to subpoenas"). Basecamp's California counsel can present arguments against the subpoena in the Northern District of California. The Court finds "exceptional circumstances" to transfer the motion to the Northern District of California. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f). The Clerk is directed to transfer this action to the Northern District of California forthwith. The case is closed. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice. (jjr, )
|
| Filing 21 REPLY by Apple Inc. to MOTION by Plaintiff Apple Inc. to transfer case MOTION by Plaintiff Apple Inc. to expedite #5 Apple Inc.'s Reply in Further Support of its Motion to Transfer (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1)(Campbell, Daniel) |
| Filing 20 RESPONSE by Basecamp, LLC to MOTION by Plaintiff Apple Inc. to transfer case MOTION by Plaintiff Apple Inc. to expedite #5 (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Brandon Kressin, #2 Exhibit A through F, #3 Proposed Order)(Larsen, William) |
| Filing 19 NOTICE by Apple Inc. re MOTION by Plaintiff Apple Inc. to transfer case MOTION by Plaintiff Apple Inc. to expedite #5 Supplemental Authority In Support of Motion to Transfer Case (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Order Granting Apple's Motion to Transfer in N.D. Texas)(Campbell, Daniel) |
| Filing 18 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: Plaintiff Apple Inc.'s motions to transfer and expedite proceedings (Dckt. No. #5 ) are hereby granted in part. On December 8, 2020, Apple served a third-party subpoena on Basecamp LLC, attempting to obtain information for use in two antitrust class actions pending against Apple in the Northern District of California. Basecamp objected, and did so before Christmas. For whatever reason, the dispute festered. Apple and Basecamp "met and conferred" several times, but it is unclear how often they discussed the issue, and how diligently Apple pursued it. See Mem., at 2 (Dckt. No. [5-3]). On July 20, 2021, seven months after serving the subpoena, Apple filed its motions to transfer and expedite. Apple basically asks this Court to transfer the subpoena-enforcement matter to the Northern District of California. And Apple wants this Court to do so right away, because its class certification filing is due on August 10, 2021. Id. at 9. It is unclear why Apple waited so long to enforce the subpoena. Apple let time run off the clock, and is now in hurry-up mode. By waiting until July 20, 2021 to file a motion in this forum to transfer the dispute to California, Apple all but assured that it would not obtain the documents in question (if at all) by the deadline to file its brief on August 10. Apple accuses Basecamp of trying to "run out the clock on Apple" (Dckt. No. #15 , at 3), but the fact remains that Apple is the one facing the August 10 deadline, so Apple needed to quicken the pace if it needed documents sooner rather than later. The deadline of August 10 was not a surprise, either, given that the Northern District of California set that deadline in January 2021. That said, the Court agrees that Basecamp needs to promptly respond to the motion to transfer, especially in light of the fact that Basecamp's counsel is participating in parallel litigation elsewhere. Basecamp presumably already knows what it plans to say, so it needs to say it. Basecamp's response to the motion to transfer is due by noon on August 5, 2021 (i.e., the same day that Basecamp requested in its preliminary response). (Dckt. No. #10 ) If there is a good reason why the Northern District of California should not decide the relevance of documents requested in complex litigation in the Northern District of California, then Basecamp must reveal what it is. Also, Basecamp must address the fact that Apple brought comparable subpoena-enforcement actions in other jurisdictions, too (specifically, the Northern District of Texas, and the District of Columbia). Having one court decide the issue presumably would save judicial resources and avoid the risk of inconsistent rulings. If there is a good reason why multiple courts should address the same underlying issues, then Basecamp must reveal what it is. Apple's reply, if necessary, is due by August 8, 2021. Mailed notice. (jjr, ) |
| Filing 17 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: The motions for leave to appear pro hac vice (Dckt. Nos. #6 , #7 , #8 , #9 , #12 and #13 ) are granted. Attorneys Nicole L. Castle, Michael R. Huttenlocher, and John Calandra are added as counsel for Apple Inc. Attorneys Joseph A. Reiter, Douglas J. Dixon, and William M. Larsen are added as counsel for Basecamp, LLC. Mailed notice (jjr, ) |
| Filing 16 NOTICE by Apple Inc. re MOTION by Plaintiff Apple Inc. to transfer case MOTION by Plaintiff Apple Inc. to expedite #5 , miscellaneous case, #1 Supplemental Authority In Support of Expediting Proceeding (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Order Granting Motion to Expedite in N.D. Texas)(Campbell, Daniel) |
| Filing 15 REPLY by Plaintiff Apple Inc. to response to motion, #10 Apple Inc.'s Reply in Further Support of its Motion to Expedite Proceedings (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibits 1 through 7)(Campbell, Daniel) |
| Filing 14 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Basecamp, LLC by Christopher T Grohman (Grohman, Christopher) |
| Filing 13 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 150, receipt number 0752-18491852. (Larsen, William) |
| Filing 12 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 150, receipt number 0752-18491606. (Reiter, Joseph) |
| Filing 11 NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Basecamp, LLC (Dixon, Douglas) |
| Filing 10 RESPONSE by Basecamp, LLC to MOTION by Plaintiff Apple Inc. to transfer case MOTION by Plaintiff Apple Inc. to expedite #5 OPPOSITION to Motion to Expedite (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order Denying Motion to Expedite)(Dixon, Douglas) |
| Filing 9 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 150, receipt number 0752-18484612. (Castle, Nicole) |
| Filing 8 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 150, receipt number 0752-18484567. (Calandra, John) |
| Filing 7 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 150, receipt number 0752-18484244. (Huttenlocher, Michael) |
| Filing 6 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 150, receipt number 0752-18483734. (Dixon, Douglas) |
| Filing 5 MOTION by Plaintiff Apple Inc. to transfer case , MOTION by Plaintiff Apple Inc. to expedite (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order to Transfer, #2 Proposed Order to Expedite, #3 Points & Authorities in Support of Motions to Transfer and Expedite)(Campbell, Daniel) |
| Filing 4 NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Apple Inc. (Campbell, Daniel) |
| Filing 3 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Apple Inc. by Daniel Ray Campbell (Campbell, Daniel) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet (Campbell, Daniel) |
| Filing 1 MISCELLANEOUS CASE by Apple Inc. Apple Inc.'s Motions to Compel and Expedite Proceedings Filing fee $ 49, receipt number 0752-18477417. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order to Compel, #2 Proposed Order to Expedite, #3 Memo of Law in Support of Motion to Compel and to Expedite, #4 Declaration Huttenlocher Declaration, #5 Exhibit Exhibits 1 through 20)(Campbell, Daniel) |
| CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Steven C. Seeger. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Sunil H. Harjani. Case assignment: Random assignment. (sxh, ) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
