Apple Inc. v. Superior Court of San Diego Cnty., 228 Cal. Rptr. 3d 668

Background

Plaintiffs sued Apple alleging iPhone 4/4S/5 power (sleep/wake) buttons were defectively prone to intermittent failure; they sought certification of California purchaser classes and asserted warranty, CLRA, UCL, Magnuson-Moss, and breach claims.
Plaintiffs relied on experts (Xitco on damages; Schenkelberg on failure rates; Pinsonneault and Sukumar on diminution/conjoint analysis) to show damages and classwide proof; Apple countered with expert Hitt and others criticizing methodologies and relevance of Apple documents.
The trial court initially expressed concern about classwide proof of injury and damages, requested supplemental expert declarations, but ultimately granted certification while rejecting application of Sargon gatekeeping to class-cert expert declarations.
Apple sought writ relief, arguing the trial court erred by refusing to apply Sargon to expert evidence at the class-certification stage and that expert opinions were unreliable and would not support predominance/manageability.
The appellate court issued a writ directing the trial court to vacate its certification order and reconsider the motion applying the Sargon standard to admissibility of expert opinion evidence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Sargon’s expert-admissibility standard apply at class certification?	Sargon is a trial-stage gatekeeping standard and need not be applied to class-cert expert declarations; applying it would require burdensome §802 hearings.	Sargon governs admissibility wherever Evidence Code applies and must be used at class certification to ensure reliable expert evidence.	Sargon applies to expert evidence at class-certification; trial courts may consider only admissible expert opinions and should perform Sargon’s gatekeeping (but hearings under §802 are discretionary).
What is the admissibility standard for experts at class certification?	Plaintiffs relied on pre-Sargon authorities and urged deference to expert submissions at class-cert stage.	Apple argued experts’ methodologies and reliance materials were unreliable, irrelevant, or speculative under Sargon.	The Evidence Code controls; Sargon describes that standard: exclude opinions based on unacceptable reliance, unsupported reasoning, or speculation. Courts must assess methodology and logical support for opinions.
Did plaintiffs’ experts provide reliable classwide proof of injury/damages and class size?	Plaintiffs claimed cost-of-repair, diminished trade-in value, or conjoint analysis yield classwide damages and Schenkelberg’s failure rates support class size.	Apple argued methodologies were unsupported or irrelevant (postsale measures don’t equate to at-purchase harm; Formula 14 misuse; failure-rate math flawed; many purchasers were made whole).	The appellate court found substantial methodological gaps and reasonable likelihood that, under Sargon, key expert opinions (or parts) could be excluded; therefore certification based on those opinions was prejudicial and the order must be reconsidered.
Did the Sargon error require reversal or other relief?	Plaintiffs argued no reversible error; trial court followed prior class-cert precedents.	Apple sought writ to vacate certification because improper legal standard was used and expert evidence was critical to certification.	The court granted a peremptory writ: vacate the certification order and reconsider under Sargon. It declined to finally resolve predominance on merits, leaving further factfinding to the trial court.

Key Cases Cited

Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California, 55 Cal.4th 747 (California Supreme Court) (defines admissibility gatekeeping for expert opinion under Evidence Code)
Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004 (California Supreme Court) (class-certification standards and predominance framework)
Duran v. U.S. Bank National Assn., 59 Cal.4th 1 (California Supreme Court) (considerations on individual issues and manageability at class certification)
Department of Fish and Game v. Superior Court, 197 Cal.App.4th 1323 (California Court of Appeal) (consideration of expert basis when evaluating class-cert evidence)
Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Superior Court, 29 Cal.4th 1096 (California Supreme Court) (principles on class-cert review and theory-of-recovery linkage)
Safeway, Inc. v. Superior Court, 238 Cal.App.4th 1138 (California Court of Appeal) (discussion of fact-of-damage and classwide proof)
College Hospital Inc. v. Superior Court, 8 Cal.4th 704 (California Supreme Court) (standard for prejudice in appellate relief)