Case 2:24-cv-04055-JXN-LDW Document 320 Filed 09/10/25 Page 1 of 8 PageID:

2735

Liberty Square Building

450 5th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530

September 10, 2025

VIA ECF
Honorable Leda Dunn Wettre, U.S.M.J.
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
Martin Luther King Jr. Fed. Bldg. & U.S. Courthouse
50 Walnut Street
Newark, New Jersey 07102

Re: United States of America, et al. v. Apple Inc., No. 2:24-cv-04055 (JXN-LDW)
Plaintiffs’ Updated Status Letter

Dear Judge Wettre:

The United States and Plaintiff States (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) respectfully submit this
letter to update the Court on matters addressed in the Parties’ Joint Status Letter submitted August
18, 2025 (ECF No. 303), and the Parties’ further work to date. Apple declined Plaintiffs’ request
to submit a joint update. Plaintiffs informed Apple of the topics below before submitting this letter,
and Apple reserved its right to respond to this filing.

I. The Parties’ Work to Date

Investigation Materials. Plaintiffs substantially completed their production of

Investigation Materials in June 2025 and produced additional post-investigation materials sought
by Apple on September 5, 2025. In all, Plaintiffs produced more than 115,000 documents.

Discovery on Non-Parties. Apple has served 21 subpoenas on non-parties. Plaintiffs

served follow-on subpoenas to 20 of these non-parties and 4 subpoenas on additional non-parties.
The Parties are engaging with the relevant non-parties regarding these subpoenas and expect to
serve additional subpoenas in the coming weeks.

Written Discovery and Document Production. The Parties have met and conferred eleven
times for thirteen hours over Plaintiffs’ First Set of Requests for Production. Although Apple
produced more than 10,000 documents in response to these Requests, most Requests remain
Case 2:24-cv-04055-JXN-LDW Document 320 Filed 09/10/25 Page 2 of 8 PageID:
2736
September 10, 2025
Page 2

outstanding.1 Disputed matters identified in the Joint Status Letter and below will require the
Court’s attention. Plaintiffs would appreciate the Court’s instruction as to how these disputes
should be efficiently presented for adjudication, so the timeframe for production does not result in
delay to the overall discovery schedule.

II. Discovery Issues Raised in Joint Status Letter

Document Custodians. The Parties are at an impasse over Apple’s refusal to produce six
human resources (“HR”) spreadsheets disclosing the roles and responsibilities of employees over
a six-year period that would aid Plaintiffs in identifying custodians. These spreadsheets are a
necessary precursor to meaningful negotiations over document custodians.2 In other litigation,
Apple successfully demanded production of organizational structure and personnel information
from Samsung to conduct discovery and identify potential deponents and decisionmakers. See In
re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litig., No. 11-cv-06714, 2020 WL 5993223, at *11 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 9,
2020). Apple has never explained or quantified the burden of producing the spreadsheets.
Although Plaintiffs proposed ways to address Apple’s concerns over burden or privacy
(notwithstanding the Discovery Confidentiality Order, ECF No. 235), for example by excluding
business units or employee information (e.g., compensation) with no relevance to this case, Apple
has not proposed any compromise. Plaintiffs ask the Court to order Apple to produce the HR
spreadsheets promptly, so the Parties can agree on document custodians and meet the Court’s
December 15 deadline for substantial completion of production of documents.

The Parties also are at an impasse over specific custodians. Apple initially proposed 22
custodians which is inadequate to cover the array of facts at issue. On August 13, 2025, Plaintiffs
proposed 63 additional custodians based upon information gleaned during their investigation that
does not capture changes to Apple personnel that occurred in the last several years. On September
4, 2025, Apple agreed to add 12 custodians but has not identified any objections to the other
individuals that Plaintiffs proposed. Although Apple has now agreed to 34 custodians, that number
is far fewer than in other recent antitrust enforcement cases such as the Google Search litigation
(116 custodians) or the Google Ad Tech litigation (119 custodians). Plaintiffs ask the Court to set
prompt deadlines by which the Parties either agree or submit disputes over custodians.

The Scope of Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production. The Parties are at an impasse over
dozens of Requests for which Apple has indicated it will withhold responsive documents but
refused to explain to Plaintiffs what documents it intends to withhold and their relation to each of

1
Approximately two-thirds of the documents Apple produced are user guides for the iPhone and
Apple Watch and legal documents from other litigations. The remaining documents include news
articles, press releases, surveys, studies, reports, emails, and other materials.
2 When Apple refused to produce the HR spreadsheets informally as part of negotiations over

document custodians, Plaintiffs served their Second Request for Production of Documents to
obtain this material in formal discovery. Apple’s responses are due on September 11, 2025.
Case 2:24-cv-04055-JXN-LDW Document 320 Filed 09/10/25 Page 3 of 8 PageID:
2737
September 10, 2025
Page 3

Apple’s objections. This is especially challenging when Apple has rewritten the scope of Plaintiffs’
Requests rather than merely propose to control its search methodology. Apple’s refusal to identify
what is being withheld and how that specifically relates to its objections impedes an informed
discussion of each objection, prevents the Parties from resolving impasses, and violates Rule
34(b)(2)(C).3 Plaintiffs require Court intervention to avoid needlessly prolonged negotiations.

“Documents Sufficient to Show.” The Parties are at an impasse over Apple’s position that
it will restrict its production to documents “sufficient to show” in response to seventeen Requests
where Plaintiffs sought “all documents.”4 Apple uses the term “sufficient to show” in multiple,
inconsistent ways—(i) for “go-gets,” (ii) for targeted searches of custodian files, and (iii) for
producing “all” documents responsive to a Request that are within a collection of documents
obtained by a reasonable search. “All documents” ordinarily means a request for all non-privileged
documents responsive to a specified category that have been identified after a reasonable search.
In contrast, “documents sufficient to show” calls for production of documents of the responding
party’s choosing that demonstrate information specified in the request. By conflating these
meanings, Apple is creating unnecessary ambiguity over what it agrees to produce. In addition,
for six Requests, Apple has indicated it will produce “any documents” located through a reasonable
search that are responsive and not privileged, and for another nine Requests, Apple states it will
simply produce “documents.” Plaintiffs have asked Apple to clarify whether this language means
Apple will produce “all documents” as stated in the Requests, but Apple has not provided a
straightforward response. In the absence of clarity from Apple, Plaintiffs ask the Court to order
Apple to produce all non-privileged, responsive documents in response to Request Nos. 3, 7-8, 17-
19, 21, 23, 25, 27-30, 32, 36, 38-39, 41-47, 49-55, 58.5

3 “An objection must state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of
that objection.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(C) (emphasis added). “Rule 34(b)(2)(C) is amended to
provide that an objection to a Rule 34 request must state whether anything is being withheld on
the basis of the objection. This amendment should end the confusion that frequently arises when
a producing party states several objections and still produces information.” Adv. Cmte. Notes to
2015 Amendment to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(C).
4 Compare, e.g., Request No. 28 (“All documents related to the value of a user to Apple, including

customer lifetime value, entry point analyses, revenue per user, subsequent hardware purchases,
and any revenue or benefit that Apple has received or anticipates receiving from a customer or
third party due to a customer’s purchase or use of any Apple products, services, or subscriptions.”)
with Letter form T. Bryant dated Sept. 4, 2025 at 17 (“RFP No. 28. … Subject to and without
waiving its objections, Apple is willing to conduct a reasonable search for and produce studies,
analyses, and reports sufficient to show the value of an iPhone user to Apple, to the extent such
documents exist and can be located by a reasonable search.”) (emphasis added).
5 Apple indicates it will produce documents “sufficient to show” in response to Request Nos. 3,

18-19, 27-30, 32, 36, 38, 47, 49, 51, 53-55, 58; “any documents” in response to Request Nos. 7,
39, 44, 45, 46, 50; and “documents” in response to Request Nos. 8, 17, 21, 23, 25, 41, 42, 43, 52.
Case 2:24-cv-04055-JXN-LDW Document 320 Filed 09/10/25 Page 4 of 8 PageID:
2738
September 10, 2025
Page 4

Disputes Over Request Nos. 5 and 6. The Parties are at an impasse over Apple’s refusal
to produce all relevant documents shared with Apple’s board of directors (Request No. 5) and all
documents related to relevant changes Apple made to its conduct due to legal or regulatory
requirements (Request No. 6). In Plaintiffs’ experience, these documents are highly probative and
easy to collect, as they are often maintained in a company’s central files. Despite indicating in the
Joint Status Letter that it is willing to meet and confer over these Requests, Apple has not proposed
any compromise. Plaintiffs ask the Court to order Apple to produce all non-privileged, responsive
documents in response to Request Nos. 5 and 6.

Search Terms. As stated in the Joint Status Letter, Plaintiffs are concerned that negotiating
search terms before resolving the scope of Apple’s production in response to Plaintiffs’ Requests
and identifying appropriate custodians is inefficient. Nonetheless, today Plaintiffs counter-
proposed search terms and look forward to working with Apple to reach agreement on them.

III. Additional Disputes Over Apple’s Discovery Responses

Additional disputes have emerged during the Parties’ negotiations over Apple’s responses
to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Requests for Production. Plaintiffs would appreciate the Court’s
instruction as to how these disputes should be presented for adjudication:

Objection based on vague and ambiguous terms. Apple claims not to understand
commonplace terms such as “installed base of users,” “customer lifetime value,” or “usable life”
in Plaintiffs’ Requests. 6 Most of the terms Apple claims not to understand are commonly used by
Apple employees in ordinary course documents and at times appear in Apple counsel’s own
documents. Plaintiffs asked Apple to construe these consistently with how they are reasonably
used by employees of a large technology company including any Apple-specific usage.

Exclusion of responsive documents. In response to Requests for “all documents” related

to certain studies, analyses and reports, Apple proposes to restrict its production to the studies,
analyses and reports, while omitting any internal or external communications regarding those
reports, and/or drafts of those reports. Those materials are relevant because they are likely to shed
important light on the context surrounding the reports, such as who received them, any explanation
provided in a cover email, and any views shared in response.7

Exclusion of competitor Smartphones. In response to several Requests for documents

related to all Smartphones—defined as including not only iPhones but also other competitors’

6
These examples are drawn from Apple’s Responses to Request Nos. 19, 27, and 28. Similar
vagueness objections appear in Apple’s Response to Requests Nos. 8, 18, 19, 20, 25, 27, 31, 34,
36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 43, 45, 50, 52, 55, 56, 60, 61, 62, and 63.
7 Request Nos. 18, 27, 30, 32 (with respect to drafts), 38.
Case 2:24-cv-04055-JXN-LDW Document 320 Filed 09/10/25 Page 5 of 8 PageID:
2739
September 10, 2025
Page 5

products—Apple proposes to restrict its production only to information about iPhones.8 Plaintiffs
contend that Apple’s documents relating to competitors’ Smartphones, and usage of apps and
accessories with competitors’ Smartphones, will reflect on the core competition issues in this
antitrust enforcement action.

Omission of periodic reports and data. Plaintiffs served Requests for periodic reports and
data that Apple is likely to have created in the ordinary course of business. These Requests seek
to capture Apple’s granular information about: (a) Apple’s iPhone business and the primary
products or services in the Complaint (cloud streamed games, messaging systems, digital wallets
or payments apps, platform apps or mini programs, and smartwatches); (b) information on sales
metrics and release version data; or (c) user and developer behavior metrics. Apple has not
committed to providing these reports or data, despite their relevance to the claims in this case. 9

Worldwide scope. Plaintiffs’ Requests generally seek responsive documents relating to any
geography worldwide, and certain Requests reiterate the need for documents with scope outside
the United States. Yet, as a general matter, Apple refuses to produce documents with this broader
geographic scope.10 Documents across global geographies are relevant because Apple conducts
business differently in countries where it lacks market power, for example by allowing Super Apps
that it prohibits in the U.S., or where foreign regulators compel different behavior than the U.S.
Although Apple claims that ex-U.S. documents are not relevant to the Parties’ claims and defenses,
Apple’s pleadings show that it intends to defend itself by arguing that the Smartphone market is
global. ECF No. 86-1 (Mot. to Dismiss) at 35 (“The Government’s gerrymandered market focuses
on the U.S. alone, masking the worldwide primacy of Android smartphones.”).

IV. Matters Under Further Negotiation

Preliminary materials for source code review. Plaintiffs served Requests for Apple’s
technical documentation and other materials essential to allow Plaintiffs to conduct source code
review relating to the conduct alleged in the Complaint pursuant to the Parties’ stipulated source
code protocol, ECF No. 236.11 Plaintiffs have asked Apple to produce these materials by
September 19, 2025, and are awaiting Apple’s response.

Data requests. To facilitate the Parties’ negotiations, Plaintiffs asked Apple for
descriptions of each database or data set containing information responsive to over Plaintiffs’
Requests for production of data, as well as data samples, data dictionaries, and other

8 Request Nos. 17, 19 (improperly limited to “particular smartphone”), 27, 28, 31, 38.
9
Request Nos. 18, 23, 26, 27, 28, 59, 62, 63.
10
Objection 22 to Definitions and Instructions, Defendant Apple’s Responses and Objections to
Plaintiffs’ First Set of Requests for Production; Request Nos. 6, 11, 24, 25, 31, 46, 61, 62.
11 Request Nos. 44, 45, 46, 55, and 56.
Case 2:24-cv-04055-JXN-LDW Document 320 Filed 09/10/25 Page 6 of 8 PageID:
2740
September 10, 2025
Page 6

documentation, training materials, user guides, or keys that decode or interpret the data.12
Plaintiffs identified databases, organizations within Apple that are likely to use responsive data,
and associated software tools to assist Apple in locating this information. Plaintiffs are awaiting
Apple’s response.

Other Requests under consideration. Apple is continuing to evaluate certain additional

Requests, and Plaintiffs are waiting for Apple’s position to resume negotiations.13

V. Witness Lists and Depositions

The Parties’ positions concerning witness lists and depositions have not changed since they
submitted the Joint Status Letter.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Jonathan H. Lasken

Jonathan H. Lasken
Assistant Chief, Civil Conduct Task Force
United States Department of Justice
450 Fifth Street, NW, Suite 4000
Washington, D.C. 20530
Telephone: (202) 598-6517
Email: jonathan.lasken@usdoj.gov

MATTHEW J. PLATKIN
Attorney General of New Jersey
/s/ David H. Reichenberg
David H. Reichenberg
Section Chief, Antitrust
New Jersey Office of the Attorney General
124 Halsey Street, 5th Floor
Newark, NJ 07101
Tel: (609) 696-4686
Email: David.reichenberg@law.njoag.gov

Attorney for Plaintiff State of New Jersey,

Arizona, California, Washington D.C.,
12
Request Nos. 26, 61, 62, and 63. Also, if there are relevant, responsive databases or data sets,
Request Nos. 2, 8, 17, 18, 22, 27, 28, 37, 52, or 55.
13 Request Nos. 35 and 51.
Case 2:24-cv-04055-JXN-LDW Document 320 Filed 09/10/25 Page 7 of 8 PageID:
2741
September 10, 2025
Page 7

Connecticut, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts,

Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New
Hampshire, New York, North Dakota,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennessee, Vermont,
Washington, and Wisconsin
Case 2:24-cv-04055-JXN-LDW Document 320 Filed 09/10/25 Page 8 of 8 PageID:
2742

BY: AARON M. SHEANIN

Trial Attorney
United States Department of Justice
Antitrust Division
450 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 10-0101
San Francisco, CA 94102

Attorney for Plaintiff United States of America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al.,

Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:24-cv-04055-JXN-LDW
v.

APPLE INC.

Defendants.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that the above letter and this Certificate of Service were served upon

defendant’s counsel, Liza M. Walsh, Esq., Craig S. Primis, Esq., Devora W. Allen, Esq., and K.

Winn Allen, Esq., 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C., 20004, by CM/ECF on

September 10, 2025.

BY: s/ Aaron M. Sheanin

Aaron M. Sheanin
United States Department of Justice
Antitrust Division
Attorney for Plaintiff United States