Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp.

ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL AND PLAINTIFF’S CROSS-MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

INTRODUCTION

Defendant Psystar Corporation has moved to compel Apple Inc. to provide evidence regarding the injury Apple has allegedly suffered, including profit margins. In turn, Apple has filed a cross-motion for a protective order to prevent Psystar from seeking information regarding its profit margins on the sale of its computer models. Because Apple’s profit margins are not required for either parties’ claims or defenses in this action, Psystar’s motion to compel is Denied, and Apple’s motion for a protective order is Granted.

STATEMENT

This discovery dispute began with the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Philip Schiller regarding Apple Inc.’s injury. In July, Psystar Corporation served Apple with a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice. Mr. Schiller was designated as Apple’s corporate representative with respect to topic 3 in the deposition notice, which sought testimony as to the following:

Apple responded that it would “provide a witness to testify on injury suffered by Apple as a result of the unlawful acts committed by Psystar that Apple complains about in this action.” Mr. Schiller,…