Apple’s Motion to Stay Discovery in iCloud+ Case ‘Accomplishes Nothing,’ Says Plaintiff

Some motions “should never have been filed,” and a “prime example” is Apple’s Feb. 7 motion to stay discovery pending the resolution of its motion to dismiss Lisa Bodenburg’s first amended fraud complaint (see 2311220011), said her opposition Wednesday (docket 3:23-cv-04409) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco. Bodenburg alleges that Apple delivers iCloud+ subscribers 5 GB less monthly cloud-storage capacity than they buy. Apple’s motion to stay discovery “not only lacks merit, it also is superfluous given the procedural posture of the case,” said Bodenburg’s opposition. Apple concedes that no matter the outcome of its pending motion, the company will timely respond to Bodenburg’s outstanding discovery, it said. She has made “just three requests for production of a limited set of documents primarily dealing with Apple’s subscriber numbers and types of paid iCloud plans offered,” said the opposition. Apple noticed the hearing on its stay motion for the same March 12 date as the hearing on its motion to dismiss, “effectively mooting the motion to stay,” it said. By the time the court considers the motion to stay, “it will also already have considered the motion to dismiss,” it said. If the court denies the motion to dismiss, as it should, the motion to stay “would be denied by its terms,” the opposition said. If “by some stroke of fortune” Apple gets its motion to dismiss with prejudice granted, “that would end the case and there would be no discovery to undertake or stay,” it said. “Either way, Apple’s belated motion to stay accomplishes nothing,” it said.