Elan Microelectronics Corporation v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 286

REPLY (re 209 MOTION to Compel Apple to Supplement Its Response to Elan's Interrogatory No. 13 ) / Elan Microelectronics Corporations Reply to Apples Opposition to Elans Motion to Compel Apple to Supplement Its Response to Elans Interrogatory No. 13 filed byElan Microelectronics Corporation. (Rathinasamy, Palani) (Filed on 6/14/2011)

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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

15
16
17

ELAN MICROELECTRONICS
CORPORATION,

18
19
20
21
22

v.

Plaintiff and Counterdefendant,

APPLE, INC.,
Defendant and Counterplaintiff.
AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS

23

Case No. 5:09-cv-01531 RS (PSG)
ELAN MICROELECTRONICS
CORPORATION’S REPLY TO
APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO ELAN’S
MOTION TO COMPEL APPLE TO
SUPPLEMENT ITS RESPONSE TO
ELAN’S INTERROGATORY NO. 13
Date: June 28, 2011
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Courtroom 5
Hon. Paul S. Grewal

24
25
26
27
28
ELAN’S REPLY TO APPLE’S OPP’N TO ELAN’S MOT. TO
COMPEL SUPPL. RESP. TO ELAN’S INTERROGATORY NO. 13

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

1

In its Opposition to Elan’s Motion to Compel Apple to Supplement Its Response to Elan’s

2

Interrogatory No. 13, Apple Inc. (“Apple”) states that “[t]o the extent there is any correlation and

3

to the extent Apple is able to verify the correlation, Apple will supplement its interrogatory

4

response by June 22, 2011 to provide the information that Elan seeks. Elan’s motion is thus

5

moot.” [Dkt. No. 273 at 2]. Apple does not dispute that Elan is entitled to the supplemental

6

response demanded in its motion.

7

Elan disagrees that Apple’s motion is moot. Apple does not explain why it agreed to

8

provide this fundamental information only after Elan was forced to file this motion. In addition,

9

nowhere in its Opposition does Apple affirmatively state that it will actually supplement its

10

response. Moreover, by choosing to delay any potential supplementation until after this Reply is

11

due, Elan is prevented from addressing any further deficiencies in that supplementation. Elan

12

therefore will await Apple’s supplementation and will withdraw its motion to compel if such

13

supplementation is forthcoming and is sufficient.

14
15

Respectfully submitted,
DATED: June 14, 2011

ALSTON & BIRD LLP

16
17

By:

18
19

LEGAL02/32686010v1

/s/ Palani P. Rathinasamy
Palani P. Rathinasamy
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterdefendant
ELAN MICROELECTRONICS CORPORATION

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ELAN’S REPLY TO APPLE’S OPP’N TO ELAN’S MOT. TO
COMPEL SUPPL. RESP. TO ELAN’S INTERROGATORY NO. 13

1

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