Elan Microelectronics Corporation v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 225

Declaration of Derek Walter In Support of Apple Inc.'s Motion to Compel (1) Discovery Relating to US Sales; (2) Documents Improperly Withheld on the Basis of Privilege; and (3) Inventor Depositions filed byApple, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 3, # 3 Exhibit 5, # 4 Exhibit 6, # 5 Exhibit 7, # 6 Exhibit 9, # 7 Exhibit 10, # 8 Exhibit 15, # 9 Exhibit 22, # 10 Exhibit 24, # 11 Exhibit 28, # 12 Exhibit 29, # 13 Exhibit 30, # 14 Exhibit 31, # 15 Exhibit 32, # 16 Exhibit 33, # 17 Exhibit 36)(Greenblatt, Nathan) (Filed on 5/31/2011)

EXHIBIT 36

From: Bu, Jane [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 1:28 PM
To: Greenblatt, Nathan
Cc: Elan Apple Team; Apple Elan WGM Service
Subject: RE: Elan Privilege Logs & Summaries of Apple Patents

Nathan:   

Your email of last Wednesday was the first time Apple has raised the issues of Nick Lin's documents or the 
communications amongst Elan in‐house legal personnel.  We immediately responded that we would look into these 
issues and provide a response promptly.  One email, with an arbitrary deadline over the long holiday weekend, is 
unreasonable and does not meet the requirement for "direct dialogue and discussion" under the Local Rules.  It is far 
from an "extensive" meet and confer as you characterize it below.  In any event, a motion to compel will be premature, 
at a minimum, and without merit particularly as we have already stated on May 27th, that we are currently looking into 
the issues you have raised and will get back to you shortly.   If you have any specific authority for your claim that these 
documents are not privileged and/or work product, please provide it to us. 

Also contrary to your assertion, Elan has repeatedly revised its privilege logs after our previous communications to 
narrowly apply its privilege assertions. As adequately described in the current log entries, the communications between 
and the work product generated by Elan's in house legal department was under the direction of counsel and/or for the 
purpose of litigation.  However, to the extent you have additional concerns, we are willing to discuss them.  To that end, 
we will look into the specific documents you have referenced below and get back to you as soon as we complete our 
review.  We will also re‐review our logs to determine whether any of the redactions or privilege assertions can be 
withdrawn based on any intervening events such as the rulings in the ITC case.   

Best, 

Jane    

From: Greenblatt, Nathan [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2011 12:40 PM
To: Bu, Jane
Cc: Elan Apple Team; Apple Elan WGM Service
Subject: RE: Elan Privilege Logs & Summaries of Apple Patents

Jane, 

We intend to file a motion to compel on Tuesday that relates to, inter alia, Elan's improper privilege assertions.  Please 
let us know by noon on Tuesday if you have anything further to add to Elan's privilege logs on these issues or on our 
prior, extensive meet and confer on Elan's privilege assertions. 

1

Thanks, 

Nathan A. Greenblatt

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
201 Redwood Shores Parkway
Redwood Shores, CA 94065-1134
[e-mail]
[phone] Direct
[phone] Fax 

From: Bu, Jane [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 2:01 PM
To: Greenblatt, Nathan
Cc: Elan Apple Team; Apple Elan WGM Service
Subject: RE: Elan Privilege Logs & Summaries of Apple Patents

Dear Nathan:  

We are looking into the issues you raised below and will provide a response to you later next week. 

Best, 

Jane  

From: Greenblatt, Nathan [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 7:56 PM
To: Bu, Jane
Cc: Elan Apple Team; Apple Elan WGM Service
Subject: Elan Privilege Logs & Summaries of Apple Patents

Dear Jane, 

I write regarding two issues related to Elan's privilege logs.   

First, please confirm whether Elan has produced the summaries of Elan patents described in Elan's reponse to Apple's 
Interrogatory No. 11, as well as all related documents regarding Elan's knowledge of Apple's asserted 218 and 659 
patents.   In reviewing Elan's privilege logs, I have been unable to locate any documents authored by Nick Lin dated 
September 24, 2008, or February 26, 2009.  At the same time, Elan's interrogatory response does not identify Mr. Lin's 
patent summaries by Bates numbers.  If Elan is withholding these documents on the basis of privilege or work product 
claims, please explain in full Elan's basis for doing so. 

Second, please clarify what legal standard Elan is applying with respect to Elan's assertion of attorney‐client privilege 
and work product protection for documents authored by members of Elan's in‐house legal/IPR department.  As Mr. 
Wayne Chang has testified, there are no attorneys in Elan's legal/IPR department.  Of the 1273 entries on Elan’s privilege 
logs, only entry nos. 212‐238, 240‐247, 249‐259, 261‐262, 267, 298, 314‐322, 341‐342, 344, 347, 431, 433, 464, 536, 
599‐600 on Elan’s Revised July 1, 2010 Privilege Log, entry nos. 43‐44, 109, 161, 164, 184, and 248 on Elan’s Revised 
September 1, 2010 Privilege Log, and entry nos. 3, 13, 21, 95‐96, 107, 109, 160, 162‐163, 176, 183, 209, 218, 220, 230‐
272 on Elan’s October 25, 2010 Privilege Log indicate any involvement of an attorney.  For the entries not indicating any 
2

involvement of an attorney, we believe there is insufficient information to justify application of either the attorney‐
client privilege or work product doctrine. 

Please let us know by Friday Elan's position on these issues. 

Best regards, 

Nathan A. Greenblatt

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
201 Redwood Shores Parkway
Redwood Shores, CA 94065-1134
[e-mail]
[phone] Direct
[phone] Fax 

The information contained in this email message is intended only for use of the individual or entity named above. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by email
([e-mail]), and destroy the original message. Thank you.

******************************************************* IRS Circular 230 disclosure: To ensure
compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS and other taxing authorities, we inform you that any tax
advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and
cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties that may be imposed on any taxpayer or (ii) promoting,
marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
______________________________________________________ NOTICE: This e-mail message and all
attachments transmitted with it may contain legally privileged and confidential information intended solely for
the use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
any reading, dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of this message or its attachments is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone [phone]) or by electronic mail ([e-mail]), and delete this message and all copies and backups
thereof. Thank you.
The information contained in this email message is intended only for use of the individual or entity named above. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by email
([e-mail]), and destroy the original message. Thank you.

3