Apple Inc v. Match Group Inc, 4:21-mc-80184

Apple subpoenaed Match Group for documents (RFPs 29, 30, 32) in three related antitrust actions: Epic (developer), Cameron (developer class), and In re Apple iPhone (consumer class). Similar subpoenas were served on Basecamp and the Coalition.
The court’s August 19, 2021 Discovery Order denied Apple’s motion to compel, finding much of the requested discovery not relevant/proportional and largely protected by the First Amendment associational-privacy privilege.
After the August 19 Order, the developer class (Cameron) settled; Apple moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) to vacate or revise the Order as moot or inequitable.
Apple argued that the settlement mooted the discovery dispute and asked at least to erase the First Amendment ruling; Match opposed, noting the consumer case remained pending and that the Order benefited Match, Basecamp, and the Coalition.
The court denied vacatur, reasoning the consumer case left the discovery request still relevant, vacatur would be inequitable to the prevailing nonparties, the Order imposes no ongoing burden, and preserving the precedent serves the public interest.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether to vacate or revise the interlocutory August 19 discovery order under Rule 54(b) because the developer-case settlement mooted the dispute	Settlement of Cameron moots the underlying dispute; vacatur appropriate to avoid advisory appellate review	Settlement does not moot discovery requests tied to the still-pending consumer case; vacatur would prejudice Match, Basecamp, Coalition	Denied — settlement did not fully moot the dispute; Apple could have appealed and consumer case kept issues alive
Whether the court should vacate the Order’s First Amendment holding (constitutional avoidance)	At least erase the constitutional ruling to avoid deciding a constitutional question that may be unnecessary post-settlement	First Amendment issue was ripe, fully briefed, and decided; no grounds to erase a published constitutional ruling	Denied — constitutional issue was properly decided and publicly available; no avoidance warranted
Whether vacatur serves public interest and equity (including use of the Order in future litigation)	Vacatur supports settlement policy and avoids leaving unnecessary precedents	Vacatur would unfairly strip a judicial victory from nonparties who asserted associational rights; precedent benefits the public and future cases	Denied — equity and public interest favor preserving the Order and its First Amendment analysis

Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 591 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2010) (First Amendment associational-privacy protections relevant to discovery disputes)
U.S. Bancorp Mortg. Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership, 513 U.S. 18 (1994) (judicial precedents are presumptively valuable; vacatur should serve the public interest)