Apple Presses for Discovery Stay in iCloud+ Fraud Case Over Plaintiff’s Opposition

Lisa Bodenburg’s opposition to Apple’s motion to stay discovery pending the resolution of Apple’s motion to dismiss her first amended fraud complaint (see 2402220044) “misstates the legal standard” for a motion to stay and makes “unfounded accusations” against the company, said Apple’s reply Tuesday (docket 3:23-cv-04409) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco in support of the stay. The plaintiff alleges that Apple delivers iCloud+ subscribers 5 GB less monthly cloud-storage capacity than they buy. Apple’s motion to stay discovery was timely filed and there’s no concern with that motion being heard alongside the motion to dismiss at the March 12 motion hearing, said the defendant’s reply. The request for a discovery stay would become moot if the court grants Apple’s motion to dismiss at the hearing, it said. A discovery stay otherwise “is likely to avoid unnecessary expense for the parties” and burden to the court before a decision on the motion to dismiss is issued, it said. Bodenburg also wrongly asserts that Apple misstated the legal standard for the motion to stay, it said. District courts routinely apply “a straightforward two-part test in determining whether to exercise their discretion to stay discovery,” it said. They consider whether a pending motion is potentially dispositive of the action and whether any discovery is necessary to decide the motion. Courts often take a “preliminary peek” at the pending motion to assess its potential merit before deciding whether to stay discovery, it said. Despite Bodenburg’s attempts to “complicate this analysis,” Apple’s pending motion to dismiss “clearly satisfies this two-part test,” it said. The motion to dismiss requires no discovery, and it’s “more than possible that it will be dispositive: it should end the case,” it said. Bodenburg also is incorrect that the requested discovery stay “will create havoc given the case schedule or that a discovery stay is unnecessary because of the scope of discovery sought to date,” said the reply. The plaintiff has made clear that she intends to seek “wide-ranging discovery,” including from third parties, “and posits that Apple can challenge such requests through motion practice” while the motion to dismiss is pending, it said. But Bodenburg’s position “is contrary to the fundamental purpose of a discovery stay,” the reply said. A stay is designed to avoid burdening the court with discovery-related motions “when a dispositive motion requiring no discovery is pending and forcing the parties to incur additional costs,” it said.