Judge rejects Apple request to dump legal monitor

A US district judge has rejected an application by Apple to have a court-appointed monitor thrown off an investigation into the tech company’s competition policies and practices.

In an opinion filed last week, New York district court Judge Denise Cote said Michael Bromwich – a white collar crime partner at Goodwin Procter – should not be removed from his role.

Bromwich was appointed by Cote in October to monitor the company’s competition practices, following a ruling in July that Apple conspired with five publishers to fix e-book prices.

Since then, in a row that has spanned several months, Apple has claimed that Bromwich was charging unreasonably high fees and had made unnecessary requests to interview senior management at the technology giant.

But Cote has now dismissed the company’s claims.

“Many of the arguments which Apple once made (and is no longer pursuing) have been waived or are moot,” wrote the judge, stating that Apple had access to a dispute resolution mechanism to ensure Bromwich did not overstep his remit.

“There has been no showing that the monitor should be disqualified or that Apple will suffer irreparable harm,” she added.

On the question of Bromwich’s $1,100 hourly rate, which Apple had argued was higher than any it had encountered, Cote said she hoped the matter could be “resolved by parties acting in good faith”.

Earlier this month, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) accused Apple of pursuing a campaign of character assassination against Bromwich.

Bromwich is carrying out the monitoring work through his external consultancy group, alongside Fried Frank antitrust head Bernard Nigro.

In December, Apple objected to the fees charged by the group, which amounted to $140,000 (£85,000) in the first two weeks of instruction.

At the time, the company argued Bromwich’s “personal financial interest is for as broad and lengthy an investigation as possible”, and that his requests for interviews with senior Apple management were unnecessary.

Earlier this month, the Goodwin Procter partner hit back at the claims by filing a series of email exchanges with the court, which he argues shows obstructive behaviour by Apple.

Apple responded by requesting Bromwich be disqualified from his monitoring role.

Government lawyers – including assistant attorneys general – called Apple’s argument “pure sophistry”, and urged Cote to refuse the request.

“In Apple’s view of the world, the fact that Mr. Bromwich did not sit silent and let Apple’s misrepresentations lay unchallenged makes him biased and subject to disqualification,” said Department of Juctice attorney Lawrence Buterman.

“It is now apparent that Apple has no interest in resolving anything unless the resolution involves expunging the requirement of a monitor from the Final Judgment.”

In an earlier filing, Bromwich quotes one senior Apple lawyer who told him the company’s executives would “never get over the [e-books] case”, and were still “extremely angry”.