Apple is asking a federal judge in New Jersey to force the U.S. government to hand over documents from 14 federal agencies that it says could support its defense in the DOJ antitrust case. The government, however, disagrees. Here are the details.
Apple seeks government data in iPhone antitrust lawsuit
Apple and the US government have filed a joint letter of protest in the US District Court for the District of New Jersey, formalizing their disagreement over whether Apple has the right to obtain documents from 14 federal agencies.
The request is part of Apple’s defense in the DOJ’s antitrust case filed against the company in 2024, alleging that Apple illegally maintains a monopoly in the smartphone market by restricting apps, services, and accessories that could make it easier for users to switch from the iPhone.
According to Apple:
The United States refuses to produce its own agency documents that are relevant to the parties’ allegations and defenses. These documents reflect the United States’ own assessments of key issues, such as the iPhone’s market differentiators, the privacy and security risks associated with various smartphones, and the potential dangers of exposing the iPhone’s secure ecosystem to less rigorous, less controlled third parties. Apple believes these documents will support its argument that the practices challenged by the plaintiffs make Apple products different – and, in the eyes of Apple’s customers, better – than alternatives, thereby promoting competition. Whether through party discovery under Rule 34 or subpoenas under Rule 45, these agency documents are discoverable and must be produced.
Apple bases its request on two distinct discovery avenues: Rule 34, which generally governs document requests made to parties to a lawsuit, and Rule 45, which governs subpoenas issued to non-parties.
Apple argues that the documents must be produced in both directions. If federal agencies are treated as part of the United States for discovery purposes, the documents are covered by Rule 34. If treated separately, Apple argues that its Rule 45 subpoenas still require their production.
Apple claims that despite its numerous attempts to obtain these documents, “the United States has refused to produce a single document from the relevant agencies and in the meantime has forced Apple to go around in circles,” raising contradictory and sometimes conflicting procedural objections to their production.
Apple is looking for documents relating to:
- (How federal agencies find, evaluate, and purchase smartphones and wearable devices, as well as agency evaluations and guidance related to the selection and use of smartphones and the specific products and services involved.
- (A) agencies’ concerns regarding non-Apple operating systems and application markets and the risks associated with requiring third-party access to Apple platforms.
- US smartphone price and market share data.
- (Documents) related to multiple agencies’ own involvement in Apple’s development program for creating applications for internal use.
Apple’s argument is essentially this: If the documents can show that federal agencies independently recognize the benefits of Apple’s approach to security, privacy, pricing, or app development, then the government’s claims about the iPhone’s anticompetitive practices could weaken, since parts of the government itself would have treated those same practices as legitimate benefits of the product.
Apple further notes that it carefully selected 14 of the 444 government agencies to preempt the argument that its request would be too broad or too burdensome.
Finally, Apple asserts that the government cannot use the possibility that certain documents may be privileged, classified, or protected to justify the complete refusal to search for relevant documents.
The US government responds.
In its response, the United States argues that Apple’s requests are irrelevant, overly burdensome, and likely to involve privileged or classified documents.
From the “US Position” section of the document:
Apple has subpoenaed 14 federal government agencies, including several in the intelligence community, none of which regulate smartphones, participated in the investigation, or are part of this litigation. Not surprisingly, Apple’s requests make clear on their face that any documents these agencies might have that might respond to are, at best, tangentially relevant to the factual disputes presented in this case. Collecting, reviewing, and producing responsive documents, particularly from classified document systems, would require extraordinary effort and impose an exceptional burden on these agencies, in part because many of the documents requested by Apple are highly likely to be privileged or classified. The information sought lacks relevance because these agencies do not regulate the products or markets involved and do not purchase or use smartphones in the same way as ordinary consumers. The requests are too broad, and Apple has neither proposed nor agreed to feasible restrictive measures to reduce the burden on these agencies and limit taxpayer expenses.
The government then develops this argument in three parts. First, he claims the subpoenaed agencies are too far removed from the consumer smartphone market, the center of the case. Second, they argue that these agencies should be treated as non-parties under Rule 45, not as part of the United States for ordinary discovery. And third, Apple’s requests are too broad and would require tedious searches of sensitive government systems, although the United States believes their relevance is likely limited.
The government ends its request by telling the court that “Apple’s production requests by 14 agencies not otherwise involved in this action should be denied and the subpoenas quashed.”
You can read the entire Joint Discovery Dispute Letter below:
To discover on Amazon
