A federal appeals court on Monday rejected Apple’s request of imposing hold on working of a court-appointed antitrust monitor.
The court rejected Apple’s request to suspend the activity of monitor Michael Browmwich, who was appointed by U.S. District Judge Denise Cote in October as part of Apple’s eBook antitrust settlement with the Department of Justice, claiming that the company was suffering irreparable harm due to Bromwich’s activity.
The three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Manhattan issued the order after hearing arguments last week on Apple’s request to put a stop on monitor’s activities until the appeal court decided whether or not it was proper to appoint him.
The new order requires the monitor, Washington lawyer Michael Bromwich, to resume his duties and continue to examine the iPad maker’s antitrust compliance policies while the company pursues a broader appeal seeking to remove him altogether.
However, a one-page ruling from the appeal court did put some limits on how far Mr. Bromwich can go in demanding documents and interviews with Apple employees.
The ruling said that the monitor’s job was limited to evaluating the adequacy of the antitrust compliance programme, and not whether Apple employees and management were obeying antitrust laws.
A spokeswoman from the Department of Justice, Gina Talamona, said in a statement that the government was pleased with the decision.
An Apple spokesman declined to comment on the court’s ruling.
A May trial has been scheduled to decide on how much Apple will have to pay as damages against eBook claims brought by 33 state attorneys general and 16 class action attorneys representing clients from 16 states. According to court documents, the plaintiffs are seeking a claim of around $840 million.
[Source: The New York Times]
