Not that this is any indication of how the actual appeal for the anti-trust lawsuit will go, but
the Second Court of Appeals denied Apple's motion to rein in Bromwich.
Here's the pertinent portion of the decision:
Quote:
...As the government explaned at oral argument, the injunction "ensur[es] not just that [Apple] ha[s] an anti-trust compliance program in place but [that Apple's] employess particularly, senior executives and board members are being instructed on what those compliance policies mean and how they work" The government conceded that the injunction would not allow the monitor to investigate whether such personnel were in fact complying with the antitrust or other laws.
This according to appellees, the monitor was empowered to demand only documents relevant to his authorized responsibilty as so defined, and to interview Apple directors, officers, and employees only on subjects relevant to that responsibility. We agree with that interpretation of the district court's order. In addition, we take counsel's statement as a formal representation that appellees also accept that interpretation, and that the monitor will conduct his activities within the bounds of that order, absent further action by the district court or by the panel that will in due course hear the merits of the appeal.
Upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is DENIED because, on the above understanding of the order and judgement, Appellant Apple had not demonstrated that is is entited to a stay pending appeal.
|
So, no overreach on the part of Bromwich (so far), and one of the best summaries I've seen as to why they've got the monitor and why he's supposed to be able to interview anyone at Apple.