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)

Download PDF
ALSTON&BIRD LLP 275 Middlefield Road, Suite 150 Menlo Park, CA 94025-4004 650-838-2000 Fax:650-838-2001 www.alston.com Jane Bu Direct Dial: 650-838-2019 E-mail: jane.bu@alston.com 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.

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?