Elan Microelectronics Corporation v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 325

Letter from Jane Bu regarding July 5, 2011 Hearing on Apple's Motion to Compel and Supplemental Exhibits in Support of Elan's Opposition to Motion to Compel. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Bu, Jane) (Filed on 7/6/2011)

ALSTON&BIRD LLP
275 Middlefield Road, Suite 150
Menlo Park, CA 94025-4004
650-838-2000
Fax:[phone]
www.alston.com
Jane Bu

Direct Dial: 650-838-2019

E-mail: [e-mail]

July 6, 2011
BY E-FILING
The Honorable Paul Singh Grewal
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
280 South 1st Street,
Courtroom 5, 4th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Re: Elan Microelectronics Corp. v Apple, Inc., Case No. 09-cv-01531 RS (PSG)
Dear Judge Grewal:
I write in response to Apple’s request made during the July 5, 2011 hearing for
the Court to conduct an in camera review of certain unidentified entries on Elan’s revised
privilege logs. As Apple’s counsel Mr. Bobrow explained, Elan served a set of revised
privilege logs on July 1, 2011. For the Court’s convenience, attached Supplemental
Exhibits A-C are the revised logs served on July 1, 2011 and Supplemental Exhibit D is a
communication from me to Ms. Sonal Mehta, explaining the revisions Elan made relating
to the privilege logs. Apple submitted the original logs as exhibits to its motion, and they
can found at Apple motion to compel Exhs. 23, 25 and 26.
When Apple first raised the issue with respect to documents authored by members
of Elan’s in-house legal/IPR department, Elan agreed to re-review the challenged
privilege logs entries (Apple Motion Exh 36). Apple, however, filed its motion just a few
days after raising the issue, before Elan was able to complete its review.
Due to the volume of documents, and the fact that more than half are in Chinese,
Elan was not able to complete its review and revisions to the log until July 1. As a result
of this review, Elan decided to remove a number of entries from the log and to produce
those documents—we are in the process of preparing the documents for production this
week (Supp. Exh. D). For the remaining entries relating to documents authored by Elan’s
in-house legal department, Elan amended the description of those log entries with
additional specificity to more clearly reflect the basis for its privilege assertions, as
requested by Apple (Apple Motion Exh 36; see, e.g., Supp. Exhs. D and B, entries 40 and
45).
The remaining entries on the revised privilege logs properly establish that the
documents identified are privileged communications or work product. It is Elan’s

Atlanta • Charlotte • Dallas • Los Angeles • New York • Research Triangle • Silicon Valley • Ventura County • Washington, D.C.

The Honorable Paul Singh Grewal
July 6, 2011
Page 2
position that these revisions effectively resolve any issue relating to Elan’s in-house legal
department entries, and an in camera review as urged by Apple is unnecessary.
For all these reasons, and to avoid consuming further judicial resources and both
parties’ time and expenses, Elan respectfully requests that the Court deny Apple’s request
to conduct in camera review of any of the Elan’s in-house legal department internal
documents reflected on Elan’s revised privilege logs and consider this aspect of the
privilege log issue resolved.
Respectfully submitted,
Alston + Bird LLP

Jane Bu
LEGAL02/32726634v2

Counsel for Elan Microelectronics Corp.