The court-appointed monitor in the Apple e-book price-fixing case can get back to work.
A federal appellate court on Monday rejected
Apple’s request to stay the monitor, Michael R. Bromwich, a Washington
lawyer, from doing any more work pending the outcome of its challenge to
a judge’s earlier order appointing the monitor in the first place.
But a one-page ruling from the three-judge
panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 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 to
make sure the company was putting in place procedures to comply with
federal antitrust laws and that Apple executives and board members “are
being instructed on what those compliance policies mean and how they
work.” Yet, the order went on to say the monitor was not supposed to
“investigate whether such personnel were in fact complying with the
antitrust or other laws.”
The appellate panel said the limits were
consistent with the trial court’s initial order and statements made by
lawyers for the federal government, which brought the lawsuit, at a
hearing last week.
In October, Judge Denise Cote of the United
States District Court in Manhattan appointed Mr. Bromwich as the monitor
after she earlier determined that the company conspired with five
publishers to fix prices for e-books.
In January, Judge Cote rejected Apple’s
request that she remove Mr. Bromwich. She told the company and its
lawyers to stop challenging the monitor’s authority and let him do his
work.
Apple contends the appointment of a monitor
is unwarranted and represents a major intrusion into its business
practices. The company has argued there is no need for a monitor because
it is already moving to enact a plan to bring its pricing policies for
consumer goods into compliance with federal antitrust laws.