Moreover, Apple argues that its involvement would serve the public interest by providing key insights into how the proposed remedies could impact competition in the search market. Only Apple, the motion claims, can offer a firsthand perspective on why certain remedies may be “unworkable.”
Although Judge Mehta denied Apple’s request to intervene fully, he did allow the company to file a post-trial amicus submission and submit a limited number of fact witness affidavits. However, Apple claims in its Thursday motion that enforcers are now seeking to challenge those affidavits as inadmissible hearsay.
“Thus, notwithstanding this court’s recognition that Apple’s limited participation in the remedies phase is warranted, plaintiffs appear intent on preventing the court from considering even that limited evidence,” Apple’s motion states. The company argues that moving forward without its full participation could create procedural chaos.
Next Steps in the Legal Battle
Apple has signaled that it will ask the D.C. Circuit to issue a stay once its appeal is officially docketed. If granted, the stay could delay the remedies phase of the case while Apple fights for a greater role in the proceedings.
