Apple and Amazon have asked for a combined $223,000 in sanctions against a prominent class action law firm, accusing it of dragging out litigation over the price of iPhones and iPads after the initial plaintiff in the case sought to drop out, reports Reuters.
Last month U.S. District Judge Kymberly Evanson in Seattle said the companies could ask to recover legal fees from Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro for failing to immediately disclose that its client wanted out of the case.
Apple and Amazon have this to say in their request: The parties have spent significant time over the course of months litigating issues caused by Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s conduct in connection with the withdrawal of Plaintiff Steven Floyd as a class representative. At the Court’s direction in its April 10, 2025, Order (Dkt. 203), counsel for Defendants Amazon and Apple jointly submit this request for attorneys’ fees and costs incurred
in connection with the Motions to obtain discovery from Mr. Floyd.
Defendants first issued discovery to Mr. Floyd in September 2023, Dkt. 203 at 2, when Mr. Floyd was the sole named plaintiff in the case. In May 2024, Apple moved to compel Mr. Floyd to respond to discovery and testify at a deposition. Dkt. 104. In August 2024, the Court granted the motion to compel, holding that “the discovery Apple seeks is relevant to its defenses
as well as to some of the issues related to class certification even if Floyd will not be a named plaintiff at that stage.” Dkt. 132 at 6. Despite the Court’s order, Mr. Floyd failed to provide
discovery and did not appear for a deposition.
In October 2024, Amazon and Apple moved for discovery sanctions in the form of an order to show cause why Mr. Floyd should not be held in contempt for failing to respond to
discovery. Dkt. 152. In November 2024, the Court denied without prejudice the motion for sanctions and ordered Mr. Floyd’s counsel to produce all non-privileged communications with Mr. Floyd and a privilege log. Based upon this material, Defendants reactivated their motion for discovery sanctions and the Court conducted an in camera review of the communications
between Mr. Floyd and Hagens Berman. Based upon this in camera review, the Court found that, “Floyd informed his counsel in January 2024 that he did not want to continue participating in this litigation, specifically because he did not wish to provide the information necessary to respond to discovery requests.” Dkt. 203 at 6. And later on, “Floyd’s August 28, 2024 email to his counsel was pointedly hostile, and
clearly indicated that he would not willingly participate in the case after all. Yet Floyd’s counsel told the Court the next day that Floyd simply needed more time to comply with discovery and secured an extension of the discovery deadline on that basis.” Dkt. 203 at 7. Thus, the Court found that “counsel’s descriptions of this episode are lacking in candor” and that “counsel’s characterizations of Floyd’s situation over the past fourteen months have not reflected his reality.”
Reuters reports that the tech companies said they would limit their fee request to match hourly rates typically charged in the Western District of Washington. Weil partner Mark Perry, a Washington, D.C., lawyer who co-leads the firm’s appellate and strategic counseling practice, said his rate for the purpose of the fee request was $900 an hour. Perry and other defense lawyers in the case did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
I hope you’ll help support Apple World Today by becoming a patron. Patreon pricing ranges from $2 to $10 a month. Thanks in advance for your support.
