By Matthew Perlman

Law360 (January 11, 2021, 5:13 PM EST ) A California federal court has extended deadlines for a pair of proposed class actions targeting Apple's App Store practices as anti-competitive but preserved a May trial date slated for Epic's claims after Apple suggested it might need to be delayed.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on Friday issued an order maintaining Epic's May 3 trial date, saying that the proceedings could take place either in-person or virtually since it will be a bench trial. The court has already successfully completed one bench trial virtually during the COVID-19 pandemic, the order said, and has another scheduled this spring.

"That is not an option for many other trials on the court's docket," the order said. "Given the backlog, which is being created due to the pandemic, the court must proceed as efficiently as possible."

Apple filed a statement in the related class action cases in late December contending that it needed more time to hand over data to the proposed classes and that an eight-week extension of all deadlines, including the Epic trial date, might be necessary to allow time for the sides to file their class certification briefs.

The court had previously expressed a preference for briefing on class certification to finish ahead of the trial and the deadline was set for Feb. 3. Apple said delaying all the deadlines would also increase the chances of a trial being held in-person, given the current public health situation in California.

But in the alternative, Apple said, the court could put off all briefing on class certification until after the trial.

Epic responded last week, accusing Apple of trying to manufacture a delay and insisting that the trial not be rescheduled. In a separate response, a proposed class of developers said they do not oppose waiting until after the Epic trial to file the class certification briefs.

Friday's order refused to move the trial, but extended the class certification deadlines, with the initial briefs now due June 1 and a hearing scheduled for mid-November.

Epic sued both Apple and Google in August last year, accusing the companies of monopolizing the app distribution streams for iPhones and Androids, effectively blocking developers from reaching consumers outside the App Store or Play Store. The suits also attack the 30% commission charged by the tech companies for app sales and in-app purchases.

In addition to the Epic case, Apple has been embroiled in litigation over its App Store for several years from proposed classes of app developers and consumers.

In late December, U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson rejected Epic's bid to force Apple to turn over documents about its business activities abroad. Last week, the proposed class of consumers had its bid to obtain Apple's global revenues and sales data rejected by Judge Hixson following a virtual hearing, according to court records.

Representatives for Apple, Epic and the proposed classes did not respond to requests for comment Monday.

Epic Games is represented by Christine A. Varney, Katherine B. Forrest, Gary A. Bornstein, Yonatan Even and Lauren Moskowitz of Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP and Paul J. Riehle of Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP.

The consumers are represented by Rachele R. Byrd of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP.

The developers are represented by Robert F. Lopez, Benjamin Siegel, Ted Wojcik and Steve Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Apple is represented by attorneys from Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP.

The cases are In re: Apple iPhone Antitrust Litigation, case number 4:11-cv-06714, Cameron et al. v. Apple Inc., case number 4:19-cv-03074, and Epic Games Inc. v. Apple Inc., case number 4:20-cv-05640, all in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

--Additional reporting by Bryan Koenig, Dorothy Atkins, Julia Arciga and Nadia Dreid. Editing by Jay Jackson Jr.

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.