Case5:11-cv-02509-LHK Document710 Filed02/27/14 Page1 of 9 1 GEORGE A. RILEY (Bar No. 118304)
[email protected] 2 MICHAEL F. TUBACH (Bar No. 145955)
[email protected] 3 CHRISTINA J. BROWN (Bar No. 242130)
[email protected] 4 VICTORIA L. WEATHERFORD (Bar No. 267499)
[email protected] 5 O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor 6 San Francisco, CA 94111-3823 Telephone: (415) 984-8700 7 Facsimile: (415) 984-8701 8 Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc. 9 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 SAN JOSE DIVISION 14 15 IN RE HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE Master Docket No. 11-CV-2509 LHK ANTITRUST LITIGATION 16 DEFENDANT APPLE INC.’S REPLY THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS 17 INDIVIDUAL MOTION FOR ALL ACTIONS SUMMARY JUDGMENT 18 Date: March 20, 2014 and 19 March 27, 2014 Time: 1:30 p.m. 20 Courtroom: 8, 4th Floor Judge: The Honorable Lucy H. Koh 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANT APPLE INC.’S REPLY ISO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT NO. 11-CV-2509 LHK Case5:11-cv-02509-LHK Document710 Filed02/27/14 Page2 of 9 1 INTRODUCTION 2 In their Consolidated Opposition (“Opposition”), Plaintiffs fail to provide evidence “that 3 tends to exclude the possibility” that Apple acted independently when it entered into separate do- 4 not-cold-call (“DNCC”) agreements with Adobe, Pixar, and Google. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. 5 v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 588 (1986) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).