In United States v. Apple Inc.,787 F.3d 131 (2nd Cir. 2015) (Nos. 14-60, 14-61), Apple was found liable by the district court, after a bench trial, of violating Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.SC. § 1.  The district court entered a judgment that included (1) a requirement that Apple adopt policies and training to promote compliance with the antitrust laws; and (2) the appointment of an external monitor to review and evaluate Apple’s adoption of the required policies and training.  The appointment of the monitor was unusual in that the appointment was without consent, and resulted from a judgment in an adversarial proceeding rather than from a consent decree.  Since the appointment, a series of disputes between Apple and the monitor have arisen.  In this appeal, the principal issue was whether the monitor should be disqualified for having engaged in ex parte communications with the plaintiffs and collaborated with the plaintiffs in connection with the filing of brief by plaintiffs and the submission of a report in connection with that brief.  The court noted that it was “remarkable that an arm of the court would litigate on the side of a party in connection with an application to the court he serves.”  However, the appellate court found that it could not say the district court abused its discretion when it concluded that the monitor’s disqualification was not required.