The US Department of Justice has asked the court to review a recent ruling that would allow Apple to go after the records of 14 federal agencies in its antitrust case. Here are the details.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n Earlier this month, retired federal judge Jose Linares, who is serving as a special discovery expert in the case, rejected the government’s attempt to block Apple from seeking documents from 14 government agencies as part of discovery in the DOJ’s 2024 antitrust case against the company.<\/p>\n According to Apple, if these documents show that agencies have chosen its products because of their privacy, security, or other factors, they could help undermine the DOJ’s antitrust claims.<\/p>\n The reason this dispute reached the special administrator is that the government argued that the agencies are not involved in the case and that Apple’s requests are frivolous, overly broad, and at risk of revealing special, classified, or sensitive information about national security.<\/p>\n Judge Linares ultimately sided with Apple, finding that the requested documents were relevant and that the government had not sufficiently supported its objections.<\/p>\n Now, the DOJ, supported by declarations from several federal officials and offices, has asked Judge Linares to review that decision. Notably, neither the Commerce Department nor the FTC issued an announcement.<\/p>\n In its proposal, the DOJ says Linares applied the wrong legal standard by treating agencies as parties to the case rather than non-parties entitled to greater protection from discovery.<\/p>\n From filling:<\/p>\n Government agencies are not automatically subject to “party” discovery whenever the United States files a lawsuit; rather, courts must conduct a specific factual analysis of the state agency’s relationship in each case.3 The order did not conduct a specific factual analysis in concluding that none of the 14 federal agencies is entitled to the broad protection afforded to non-parties under Rule 45. That was an obvious mistake.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n The DOJ says Linares did not conduct an agency-by-agency review before concluding that all 14 organizations were subject to the broad discovery obligations imposed on the groups.<\/p>\n Along with the motion for reconsideration, the DOJ and the agencies asked the court to confirm that their deadline to appeal Linares’ decision will remain suspended until he decides to overturn it.<\/p>\n If Linares stands by his initial decision, the appeals period will begin, allowing the government to challenge the decision before the district judge presiding over the case.<\/p>\n It’s worth noting that the dispute comes after a recent report that Apple and the DOJ are discussing a settlement that could end the broader antitrust case. You can read more about that here.<\/p>\n You can read the DOJ filing below:<\/p>\n \t\t\t FTC: We use auto affiliate links to earn income.<\/em> More.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The US Department of Justice has asked the court to review a recent ruling that would allow Apple to go after the records of 14 federal agencies in its antitrust case. Here are the details. It’s a small background Earlier this month, retired federal judge Jose Linares, who is serving as a special discovery expert […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":16739,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-16738","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-laptops-gear"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.runwayritz.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16738","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.runwayritz.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.runwayritz.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.runwayritz.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.runwayritz.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=16738"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.runwayritz.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16738\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":16740,"href":"https:\/\/www.runwayritz.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16738\/revisions\/16740"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.runwayritz.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/16739"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.runwayritz.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16738"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.runwayritz.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=16738"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.runwayritz.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=16738"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}It’s a small background<\/h2>\n
DOJ asks court to reverse Apple’s win<\/h2>\n
\n
It’s worth checking out on Amazon<\/h4>\n
![\"Add](\"https:\/\/9to5mac.com\/wp-content\/themes\/ninetofive\/dist\/images\/google-preferred-source-badge-dark.png\"){kind=icon}
\n\t\t\t![\"Add](\"https:\/\/9to5mac.com\/wp-content\/themes\/ninetofive\/dist\/images\/google-preferred-source-badge-light.png\"){kind=icon}
<\/p><\/div>\n