Apple Inc lost a bid on Monday to block an antitrust monitor appointed after a judge found that the company had conspired to fix e-book prices.<\/p>\n
At a hearing, U.S. District Judge Denise Cote in Manhattan denied Apple’s request to stay an order requiring an external compliance monitor pending the company’s appeal.<\/p>\n
“I want the monitorship to succeed for Apple,” she said.<\/p>\n
The judge also said there was “nothing improper” about a declaration filed by a lawyer chosen to serve as monitor, Michael Bromwich, that became the basis of Apple seeking his disqualification.<\/p>\n
Cote said she will promptly issue a decision explaining her reasoning. Apple will then have 48 hours to seek an emergency stay from the federal appeals court in New York, she said.<\/p>\n
Theodore Boutrous, a lawyer for Apple, said Apple would appeal. A spokeswoman for the Justice Department declined immediate comment.<\/p>\n
The hearing was the latest to spill out of a growing battle stemming from Apple’s objections to the monitor. In October, Cote appointed Bromwich, a former Justice Department inspector general, three months after she found Apple liable for conspiring with five publishers to raise e-book prices.<\/p>\n
In November, Apple complained he had been trying aggressively to interview top executives, even though his mandate called for him to review the company’s antitrust policies 90 days after his appointment.<\/p>\n
Apple also complained about his proposed hourly fee rate of $1,100, which Apple said gave him an incentive to run, “as broad and intrusive investigation as possible.”<\/p>\n
The Justice Department came to Bromwich’s defense. He himself also filed a declaration disputing Apple’s claims that he had engaged in a “roving” investigation and detailing a series of unsuccessful attempts to gain Apple’s cooperation.<\/p>\n
Apple subsequently moved for his disqualification, saying Bromwich had a personal bias against the company and had engaged in “grossly inappropriate behavior” through filing the declaration.<\/p>\n
At the hearing on Monday, Cote said it had become clear, “that parts of Apple have been resistant to the monitor performing his duties.”<\/p>\n
She hoped Apple cooperates with the monitor going forward, and urged the parties to bring disputes to her attention sooner.<\/p>\n
As for Bromwich’s rates, the judge said it was not surprising that, “lawyers get paid a lot of money.”<\/p>\n
She cited a survey of 350 law firms that the National Law Journal published on Monday reporting that Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, the law firm representing Apple, had a partner with the highest billing rate in the country, $1,800 an hour. The average rate for lawyers at the firm was $980 an hour, she added.<\/p>\n
The Justice Department says Bromwich has indicated a willingness nonetheless to adjust his fee. Cote said she would refer the dispute to a magistrate, “so we can resolve this fee dispute and put it behind us.”<\/p>\n
Apple and Samsung marketing battle looms with China Mobile deal<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n Are Apple\u2019s China ambitions worth all the hype?<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n Apple vs Samsung legal bill: $60 million<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n