Elan Microelectronics Corporation v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 250

Declaration of Sean P. DeBruine in Support of 249 MOTION to Compel Apple, Inc. to Produce Testing Tool (Public Version) filed byElan Microelectronics Corporation. (Related document(s) 249 ) (DeBruine, Sean) (Filed on 6/7/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

YITAI HU (SBN 248085)
[e-mail]
SEAN P. DEBRUINE (SBN 168071)
[e-mail]
ELIZABETH H. RADER (SBN 184963)
[e-mail]
JANE HAN BU (SBN 240081)
[e-mail]
JENNIFER LIU (SBN 268990)
[e-mail]
PALANI P. RATHINASAMY (SBN 269852)
[e-mail]
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
275 Middlefield Road, Suite 150
Menlo Park, CA 94025-4008
Telephone:
650-838-2000
Facsimile:
650-838-2001
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterdefendant
ELAN MICROELECTRONICS
CORPORATION

12
13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15

SAN FRANCISO DIVISION

16
17
18

21
22

DECLARATION OF SEAN P.
DEBRUINE IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFF ELAN
MICROELECTRONICS
CORPORATION’S MOTION TO
COMPEL APPLE, INC. TO PRODUCE
TESTING TOOL

Plaintiff and Counterdefendant,

19
20

Case No. 5:09-cv-01531 RS (PSG)

ELAN MICROELECTRONICS
CORPORATION,

v.
APPLE, INC.,
Defendant and Counterplaintiff.

[PUBLIC VERSION]

23
24

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS

25
26
27
28
DECL. OF SEAN P. DEBRUINE ISO ELAN’S MOT. TO COMPEL
TESTING TOOL

1

Case No. 5:09-cv-01531 RS (PSG)

1

I, Sean P. DeBruine, declare as follows:

2

1.

I am a partner in the law firm of Alston & Bird LLP, counsel to Plaintiff Elan

3

Microelectronics Corporation (“Elan”) in this action. I have personal knowledge of the following

4

facts and, if called to testify, I could and would testify competently to the matters stated herein.

5

2.

On May 11, 2011 I visited the offices of Weil, Gotshal and Manges, LLP in

6

Redwood Shores, California. Palani Rathinasamy, also an attorney at Alston & Bird, joined me in

7

that visit. While there we were permitted to inspect and use an Apple Macbook Pro laptop

8

computer running Apple’s internal

.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

3.

17
When I asked

18
19

whether the tool could be used to test those other products, the Weil representative supervising our

20

inspection admitted that the laptop was the only version that was available, that he had never seen

21

a version for the iOS products and did not believe that any such version was requested from Apple.

22

I asked that versions for those other products be produced, and he stated that he would look into it.

23

4.

for iOS products, I instructed Mr. Rathinasamy to follow up. Mr. Rathinasamy sent an

24
25
26

The following week, having heard nothing from Apple about the

email to Derek Walter on May 18, 2011 and I was copied on that email.
5.

When Apple responded the following week stating that it was still unable to

27

produce the tool for iOS products and refusing to allow Elan’s expert to make even an initial

28

inspection of the laptop running that tool, I requested, and the Court granted, an expedited
DECL. OF SEAN P. DEBRUINE ISO ELAN’S MOT. TO COMPEL
TESTING TOOL

2

Case No. 5:09-cv-01531 RS (PSG)

1

telephonic conference on this dispute. During that telephonic conference on May 24, 2011 Jared

2

Bobrow, counsel for Apple, represented to the Court that Elan had never specifically asked to

3

inspect the

4

Court, that Apple could not make the

5

the following day, even if ordered by the Court. Only when I explained that counsel had in its

6

possession the laptop running the

7

been able make that version of the tool available the following day.

8
9
10

for the iOS products. Mr. Bobrow also represented, when asked by the
“fully available” for inspection

did Mr. Bobrow agree that counsel would have

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is
true and correct.
Executed this 27th day of May, 2011 at Menlo Park, California.

11
12
13
14

/s/ Sean P. DeBruine
Sean P. DeBruine

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECL. OF SEAN P. DEBRUINE ISO ELAN’S MOT. TO COMPEL
TESTING TOOL

3

Case No. 5:09-cv-01531 RS (PSG)