Elan Microelectronics Corporation v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 315

MOTION to Shorten Time for Apple's Motion to Compel Elan Employee Depositions in N.D. Cal. filed by Apple, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Walter, Derek) (Filed on 6/28/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

MATTHEW D. POWERS (Bar No. 104795)
[e-mail]
JARED BOBROW (Bar No. 133712)
[e-mail]
SONAL N. MEHTA (Bar No. 222086)
[e-mail]
DEREK C. WALTER (Bar. No. 246322)
[e-mail]
NATHAN GREENBLATT (Bar No. 262279)
[e-mail]
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
Silicon Valley Office
201 Redwood Shores Parkway
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

9
10

Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff
Apple Inc.

11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13

SAN JOSE DIVISION

14

ELAN MICROELECTRONICS
CORPORATION,

15
Plaintiff and Counterclaim
Defendant,

16
17
18
19

v.
APPLE INC.,
Defendant and Counterclaim
Plaintiff.

Case No. C-09-01531 RS (PVT)
APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO
SHORTEN TIME FOR ITS MOTION
TO COMPEL ELAN’S COMPLIANCE
WITH THE PARTIES’ AGREEMENT
THAT ELAN EMPLOYEES WILL BE
PRESENTED FOR DEPOSITION IN
THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

20
Hon. Paul Singh Grewal
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
APPLE’S MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME FOR ITS MOTION
TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH THE PARTIES’
AGREEMENT

Case No. C-09-01531 RS (PSG)

1

Apple respectfully submits this motion to shorten time with respect to its Motion to

2

Compel Elan’s Compliance with the Parties’ Agreement that Elan Employees Will Be Presented

3

for Deposition in the Northern District of California. The underlying dispute addressed in the

4

motion concerns Elan’s refusal to make its employees available for deposition in the Northern

5

District of California, despite having agreed in multiple joint CMC statements to do so.

6

Good cause exists for Apple’s request to shorten time. On May 31, 2011, Apple filed a

7

motion to compel Elan to make its inventors available for deposition in the Northern District of

8

California. That motion is currently scheduled to be heard on July 5, 2011, and it is based upon

9

the very same agreement that is the basis of the instant motion to compel Elan to present its

10

employees for deposition in the Northern District of California. Apple submits that because both

11

of these motions stem from the same agreement between the parties, it would benefit the Court

12

and the parties to resolve both of them at the same time. Additionally, good cause exists for

13

Apple’s motion to shorten time because it was not until June 10, 2011 that Elan first informed

14

Apple that it would not be making its employees available for deposition in the Northern District

15

of California. See Declaration of Derek C. Walter In Support Of Motion To Shorten Time

16

(“Walter Decl.”), Exh. A [6/10/2011 email from J. Bu to S. Mehta] (June 10, 2011 email from J.

17

Bu stating Elan’s position that the parties’ agreement on deposition location applies only to

18

Elan’s claims). Following reasonable meet and confer efforts on this issue, there now remains

19

insufficient time before the close of fact discovery on August 12, 2011 for (1) a full 35-day

20

briefing schedule, and (2) Apple to conduct the relevant depositions.

21

On June 23, 2011, after previous telephonic meet and confer, Apple informed Elan that it

22

would be filing a motion to compel and that it would request a shortened briefing schedule. See

23

Walter Decl., Exh. B [June 23, 2011 email from D. Walter to J. Bu]. Three business days later,

24

on June 28, 2011, Apple specifically requested Elan’s consent to an expedited schedule that

25

would allow the motion to compel to be heard on July 5, 2011, with Elan’s opposition due on July

26

1, 2011. See Walter Decl., Exh. B [June 28, 2011 email from S. Mehta to S. DeBruine]. Elan

27

responded that by waiting three business days to file its motion, Apple unduly delayed, and that it

28

would hence oppose a motion to shorten time. See id. However, Elan should have little trouble
APPLE’S MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME FOR ITS MOTION
TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH THE PARTIES’
AGREEMENT

1

Case No. C-09-01531 RS (PSG)

1

responding to Apple’s motion to compel—which is less than four pages long—given that the

2

parties have already engaged in oral and written meet and confer on the issue and given that the

3

parties have already briefed a similar issue in the context of inventor depositions.

4

This requested time modification would have no effect on the schedule for this case.

5

Accordingly, Apple hereby requests an expedited briefing schedule on its Motion to

6

Compel Elan’s Compliance with the Parties’ Agreement that Elan Employees Will Be Presented

7

for Deposition in the Northern District of California, wherein Elan’s the motion will be heard on

8

July 5, 2011 with Elan’s opposition due on July 1, 2011.

9
10

Dated: June 28, 2011

WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP

11
12

By:

13

/s/ Derek C. Walter
Derek C. Walter
Attorneys for Apple Inc.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
APPLE’S MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME FOR ITS MOTION
TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH THE PARTIES’
AGREEMENT

2

Case No. C-09-01531 RS (PSG)