Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al

Filing 663

EXHIBITS re 660 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Apple Inc.'s Notice of Motion and Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Exhibits to Mueller Declaration ISO Apple's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [660-9] filed byApple Inc.(a California corporation). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Mueller Decl Exhibit 43, # 2 Exhibit Mueller Decl Exhibit 44, # 3 Exhibit Mueller Decl Exhibit 45, # 4 Exhibit Mueller Decl Exhibit 46, # 5 Exhibit Mueller Decl Exhibit 47, # 6 Exhibit Mueller Decl Exhibit 48, # 7 Exhibit Mueller Decl Exhibit 49, # 8 Exhibit Mueller Decl Exhibit 50, # 9 Exhibit Mueller Decl Exhibit 51, # 10 Exhibit Mueller Decl Exhibit 52, # 11 Exhibit Mueller Decl Exhibit 53, # 12 Exhibit Mueller Decl Exhibit 54, # 13 Exhibit Mueller Decl Exhibit 55, # 14 Exhibit Mueller Decl Exhibit 56, # 15 Exhibit Mueller Decl Exhibit 57, # 16 Exhibit Mueller Decl Exhibit 58, # 17 Exhibit Mueller Decl Exhibit 59, # 18 Exhibit Mueller Decl Exhibit 60, # 19 Exhibit Mueller Decl Exhibit 61, # 20 Exhibit Mueller Decl Exhibit 62, # 21 Exhibit Mueller Decl Exhibit 63, # 22 Exhibit Mueller Decl Exhibit 64, # 23 Exhibit Mueller Decl Exhibit 65)(Related document(s) 660 ) (Selwyn, Mark) (Filed on 1/25/2012)

Download PDF
Mueller Exhibit 55   From: Melissa Chan [mailto:melissachan@quinnemanuel.com] Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 8:11 PM To: Selwyn, Mark; Victoria Maroulis Cc: HMcElhinny@mofo.com; MJacobs@mofo.com; JTaylor@mofo.com; ATucher@mofo.com; RHung@mofo.com; Lee, William; JasonBartlett@mofo.com; DAhn@mofo.com; Rachel Herrick Kassabian; Todd Briggs; Margret Caruso; kevinjohnson@quinnemanuel.com; Michael T Zeller; Kolovos, Peter Subject: RE: Apple v. Samsung: Discovery Correspondence Mark,    We plan on producing documents today that will be responsive to your requests regarding Intel.  We  also requested Qualcomm’s consent weeks ago, but to my knowledge, we have not heard back.    With regard to your FRAND and licensing requests, as we explained on a previous meet and confer  conference, your requests relating to those other RFPs are not related to preliminary injunction  discovery; since the Court has directed the parties to conduct discovery relating to Apple’s preliminary  injunction motion, we are currently focused on such efforts.  That said, as we stated in our written  responses, Samsung will be producing responsive documents to RFP Nos. 59 and 119, subject to our  objections, and is searching for responsive documents even pending our meet and confer on RFP Nos.  106, 120, 128, and 131.  We plan to produce such documents during the second half of October, if not  sooner.      Thanks,  Melissa      From: Selwyn, Mark [mailto:Mark.Selwyn@wilmerhale.com] Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 12:17 PM To: Victoria Maroulis; Melissa Chan Cc: HMcElhinny@mofo.com; MJacobs@mofo.com; JTaylor@mofo.com; ATucher@mofo.com; RHung@mofo.com; Lee, William; JasonBartlett@mofo.com; DAhn@mofo.com; Rachel Herrick Kassabian; Todd Briggs; Margret Caruso; Kevin Johnson; Michael T Zeller; Kolovos, Peter Subject: RE: Apple v. Samsung: Discovery Correspondence In my September 20, 2011 e‐mail (attached), I informed you that Qualcomm had not received any  request from Samsung, and I asked you to contact Alex Rogers that day.  Your e‐mail suggests that even  as of today, Samsung has not sought consent to produce the license in the NDCal. case.      As for production of the documents related to the Intel‐Samsung agreement, there is nothing that needs  to be clarified.  In my September 22, 2011 e‐mail (attached), I asked you to produce the additional  documents that Intel had produced in response to the 1782 subpoena.  You know exactly what  documents those are because Samsung reviewed them and consented to their production by  Intel.  Intel's counsel has also consented to their production by Samsung to Apple in this case.  If there  are additional documents related to the Intel‐Samsung agreement (as your e‐mail below implies), such  as amendments to the agreement or correspondence between the parties reflecting the negotiation of  that agreement, those should be produced immediately as well.  This has nothing to do with cross‐ use.  The documents we have requested are indisputably relevant to the N.D. Cal. case, and they should  be produced immediately.    You also have not responded to our requests for immediate production of documents responsive to our  FRAND and licensing related Rule 34 requests.  (See, e.g., RFP Nos. 59, 106, 119, 120, 128, and 131.)    Will you agree to an in‐person meet and confer today or not?    Thank you.    Mark      From: Victoria Maroulis [mailto:victoriamaroulis@quinnemanuel.com] Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 8:29 AM To: Selwyn, Mark; Melissa Chan Cc: HMcElhinny@mofo.com; MJacobs@mofo.com; JTaylor@mofo.com; ATucher@mofo.com; RHung@mofo.com; Lee, William; JasonBartlett@mofo.com; DAhn@mofo.com; Rachel Herrick Kassabian; Todd Briggs; Margret Caruso; kevinjohnson@quinnemanuel.com; Michael T Zeller; Kolovos, Peter Subject: RE: Apple v. Samsung: Discovery Correspondence Mark,    Samsung has requested Qualcomm’s permission to produce the license in ITC.  Samsung is waiting for  the permission.  Whether or not that agreement is relevant in the ND Cal case (and Samsung reserves all  of its objections), Samsung has not received the permission yet to produce it anywhere.    Please clarify what it is you want regarding Intel’s production.  If you want a copy of what Intel produced,  we will check with Intel’s counsel about producing it in  this case.  I note that Samsung suggested  extensive cross‐use provision for all discovery in foreign and domestic proceedings.  Apple flatly rejected  that.  Now, all of a sudden, when it suits Apple, it wants to avail itself of documents produced in or for  the foreign proceedings.  We need a comprehensive and equitable solution to the cross‐use issues.    Please contact Rachel Kassabian of our team to schedule a call or please join one of the frequent calls  we have with your co‐counsel at Morrison & Foerster.         Victoria Maroulis Partner, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor Redwood Shores, CA 94065 650-801-5022 Direct 650.801.5000 Main Office Number 650.801.5100 FAX victoriamaroulis@quinnemanuel.com www.quinnemanuel.com NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message.       From: Selwyn, Mark [mailto:Mark.Selwyn@wilmerhale.com] Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 12:45 AM To: Melissa Chan; Victoria Maroulis Cc: HMcElhinny@mofo.com; MJacobs@mofo.com; JTaylor@mofo.com; ATucher@mofo.com; RHung@mofo.com; Lee, William; JasonBartlett@mofo.com; DAhn@mofo.com; Rachel Herrick Kassabian; Todd Briggs; Margret Caruso; Kevin Johnson; Michael T Zeller; Kolovos, Peter Subject: RE: Apple v. Samsung: Discovery Correspondence Victoria and Melissa:    Samsung still has not produced (1) the additional documents related to the Intel‐Samsung license  agreement that Intel produced ten days ago in response to the § 1782 subpoena; and (2) the  Qualcomm‐Samsung license agreement and related documents.  Samsung has received Intel's and  Qualcomm's consents to produce these documents, they are highly relevant, and there is no burden to  Samsung to produce them.  You have refused my multiple requests for in‐person meet and confers, for  which I offered to make myself available on multiple days, at your office or mine.    We ask you a final time to produce these documents immediately.  Once more, I request an in‐person  meet and confer with you or another one of Samsung's lead counsel.  Please let me know what time on  Monday (10/3) you are available.  If you refuse yet again, we will proceed to file our motion and explain  as part of our motion the efforts we have made to satisfy our obligations under Local Rule 37‐1.    With the sole exception of the Intel‐Samsung license agreement, Samsung has failed to produce any  documents responsive to our FRAND and licensing‐related Rule 34 requests.   (See, e.g., RFP Nos.  59,  106, 119, 120, 128, and 131, as set forth in my August 30 letter.)  We again ask that these documents be  produced immediately.  We would like to meet and confer with you on Monday on this issue as well.    Thank you.    Mark    From: Selwyn, Mark Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 9:27 AM To: 'Melissa Chan'; 'Victoria Maroulis' Cc: HMcElhinny@mofo.com; MJacobs@mofo.com; JTaylor@mofo.com; ATucher@mofo.com; RHung@mofo.com; Lee, William; JasonBartlett@mofo.com; DAhn@mofo.com; 'Rachel Herrick Kassabian'; 'Todd Briggs'; 'Margret Caruso'; kevinjohnson@quinnemanuel.com; 'Michael T Zeller'; Kolovos, Peter Subject: RE: Apple v. Samsung: Discovery Correspondence This really does not seem like something we should need to involve the court, but we cannot seem to  get even a response from you, much less the documents.  Will you be producing these documents  today?  If not, why not?    We will include on the agenda for today's meet and confer.    From: Selwyn, Mark Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 8:42 AM To: 'Melissa Chan'; 'Victoria Maroulis' Cc: HMcElhinny@mofo.com; MJacobs@mofo.com; JTaylor@mofo.com; ATucher@mofo.com; RHung@mofo.com; Lee, William; JasonBartlett@mofo.com; DAhn@mofo.com; 'Rachel Herrick Kassabian'; 'Todd Briggs'; 'Margret Caruso'; kevinjohnson@quinnemanuel.com; 'Michael T Zeller' Subject: RE: Apple v. Samsung: Discovery Correspondence Victoria and Melissa:    I understand that additional documents exist related to the Intel‐Samsung license agreement that Intel  is producing today in response to the § 1782 subpoena.    Samsung should have produced those documents to us weeks ago.  Please produce them to us today.    Thank you.    Mark    From: Selwyn, Mark Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 5:14 PM To: 'Melissa Chan'; Victoria Maroulis Cc: HMcElhinny@mofo.com; MJacobs@mofo.com; JTaylor@mofo.com; ATucher@mofo.com; RHung@mofo.com; Lee, William; JasonBartlett@mofo.com; DAhn@mofo.com; Rachel Herrick Kassabian; Todd Briggs; Margret Caruso; kevinjohnson@quinnemanuel.com; Michael T Zeller Subject: RE: Apple v. Samsung: Discovery Correspondence Victoria and Melissa:    I trust that you have received and reviewed Tim Franks' e‐mail from earlier this afternoon.    Given that, in the five months since this litigation began, Samsung had never even asked Intel for  consent to produce the Intel‐Samsung license agreement and related documents that Apple has  requested, we fail to see how you can say "Samsung is working as fast as it can to produce such  documents without violating the consent, notice, or confidentiality provisions of such license  agreements."  Similarly, we fail to see why you would profess "regret that Apple is unwilling to work  with Samsung to obtain responsive documents in a manner that respects and protects the confidential  information of third parties" when it was Apple, not Samsung, that needed to be the party to approach  Intel in order to move this matter forward.     Now that Intel has given its consent to Samsung immediately producing the Intel‐Samsung license  agreement and related documents to Apple on an outside attorneys' eyes only basis pursuant to the  terms of the interim protective order, we expect that Samsung will produce these documents by  tomorrow.  If Samsung is unwilling to do so, then I would like to meet and confer with you or another  one of Samsung's lead counsel in person tomorrow morning.      Thank you.    Mark      From: Melissa Chan [mailto:melissachan@quinnemanuel.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 12:28 PM To: Selwyn, Mark; Victoria Maroulis Cc: HMcElhinny@mofo.com; MJacobs@mofo.com; JTaylor@mofo.com; ATucher@mofo.com; RHung@mofo.com; Lee, William; JasonBartlett@mofo.com; DAhn@mofo.com; Rachel Herrick Kassabian; Todd Briggs; Margret Caruso; kevinjohnson@quinnemanuel.com; Michael T Zeller Subject: RE: Apple v. Samsung: Discovery Correspondence Mark,    We regret that Apple is unwilling to work with Samsung to obtain responsive documents in a manner  that respects and protects the confidential information of third parties.  Rather than engaging in  unnecessary posturing and forcing a premature meet and confer that would accomplish nothing, we  encourage Apple to work on narrowing, rather than expanding, the scope of disputes Apple intends to  burden the Court with.      First, as you know, Apple’s August 30 letter was sent, and requested a response and an “immediate  meet and confer,” before the deadlines for Samsung to respond to Apple’s Third Set of Requests for  Production of Documents – either the original deadline of Sept. 2 or the extended deadline of Sept.  8.  Under the Federal Rules, therefore, Samsung was under no obligation to respond to Apple’s August  30 letter.    Second, your September 9, 2011, email not only relied on that improper, premature August 30 letter,  but sought immediate production of documents just one day after Samsung’s responses to Apple’s 100  or so document requests were due.  As we explained in our objections, Apple’s requests for license  agreements are overly broad, yet Apple did nothing to address Samsung’s legitimate concerns.        Nevertheless, and without conceding the relevance of the documents, Samsung has been working  diligently to collect the Intel and Qualcomm license agreements.  As you must understand, the  production of such license agreements requires that Samsung comply with consent and notice  procedures before any such documents can be produced.  Moreover, regarding the subpoena to Intel  (and as will be relevant to other third‐party documents), you also know that we are negotiating  protections for the confidential information Intel intends to produce to Apple.  We understand that such  a protective order is being finalized.  As Samsung and other non‐parties are working on those  procedures, we will inform Apple if these efforts are unsuccessful or if Samsung will not be producing  the documents.  As a result, we cannot provide a date certain, as this process depends on non‐ parties.  Apple cannot expect that all companies operate by Apple’s schedule.    To be clear, Samsung is not refusing to produce the requested license agreements; quite the contrary,  Samsung is working as fast as it can to produce such documents without violating the consent, notice or  confidentiality provisions of such license agreements.  If, after we have produced these documents,  Apple still believes there is a dispute and that a meet and confer is necessary, we ask that you advise us  then.    Thanks,  Melissa       From: Selwyn, Mark [mailto:Mark.Selwyn@wilmerhale.com] Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 2:12 PM To: Victoria Maroulis Cc: HMcElhinny@mofo.com; MJacobs@mofo.com; JTaylor@mofo.com; ATucher@mofo.com; RHung@mofo.com; Lee, William; JasonBartlett@mofo.com; DAhn@mofo.com; Melissa Chan; Rachel Herrick Kassabian; Todd Briggs; Margret Caruso; Kevin Johnson; Michael T Zeller Subject: RE: Apple v. Samsung: Discovery Correspondence Victoria:    I am writing to respond to item 3 of your e‐mail below.    First, Apple's August 30 letter was sent before Samsung asked for an extension of the time to respond to  Apple's Third Set of Request for Production of Documents, so your suggestion that the letter asked  Samsung to produce documents "before the deadline set by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure" is  incorrect.  We did not expect that our agreement to your request for an extension would be used by  Samsung to delay production of the Intel, Infineon, and Qualcomm licenses and related documents.    Second, and more substantively, we do not understand what you mean that "Samsung is currently  looking into the license agreements and will produce those that are relevant and responsive."  All the  license agreements we have requested are relevant and responsive, and they are in the present  possession of Samsung and its outside counsel.  Does Samsung disagree with that or not?  Can you give  us a date certain when the documents will be produced?  These questions are very simple.  Please  respond to them today.    Third, we understand from counsel handling the § 1782 subpoena that Intel is willing to produce the  license agreement to Apple under terms essentially the same as the interim protective order, and that  Samsung is instructing Intel not to produce the document until the protective order in the 1782  proceeding is finalized.  Is this correct?  If so, it is improper.  If, in fact, Samsung has no objection to  Intel's production of the license agreement to Apple under the terms of the interim protective order,  please let us know today.    Finally, you write that "a meet and confer on Monday or any time this week on this issue is  premature."  If Samsung is not willing to produce the requested documents now, and is also instructing  Intel not to produce the license agreement, then we believe an immediate meet and confer is  necessary.  In my August 30 letter, I asked you for a meet and confer during the week of September  5.  You did not respond.  In my September 9 e‐mail, I asked for a meet and confer today.  You declined.  I  can be available Tuesday or Wednesday this week for a meet and confer.  If you are unwilling to meet  and confer during those days on these issues, then we will explain the efforts we have made to satisfy  our obligations under Local Rule 37‐1 when we file our motion to compel later this week.    Mark      From: Victoria Maroulis [mailto:victoriamaroulis@quinnemanuel.com] Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 6:41 AM To: Selwyn, Mark; Melissa Chan; Rachel Herrick Kassabian; Todd Briggs; Margret Caruso; kevinjohnson@quinnemanuel.com; Michael T Zeller Cc: HMcElhinny@mofo.com; MJacobs@mofo.com; JTaylor@mofo.com; ATucher@mofo.com; RHung@mofo.com; Lee, William; JasonBartlett@mofo.com; DAhn@mofo.com Subject: RE: Apple v. Samsung: Discovery Correspondence Gentlemen, I write in response to three requests for meet and confer we received Friday night, demanding an in-person meeting Monday morning. Timing-wise, such requests are clearly unreasonable, especially because Monday is the day Samsung is preparing a large document production; filing a reply on its Motion to Compel Apple; preparing for a Tuesday’s hearing on the Motion to Compel; and getting ready to present for depositions four witnesses in four different cities. The substance of these requests is detailed below: 1. Requests to meet regarding the length of the 30(b)(6) deposition: As we already discussed, Apple’s request is unreasonable under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the prior conduct of the parties. Moreover, it is premature as requests for more deposition time are appropriate only after the party exhausted its allotted time and has good cause to seek additional time. We thus urge Apple to withdraw its request. If Apple is unwilling to do so, we are available to meet and confer in person at 4:45 pm on Monday, September 12. Please be prepared to discuss the return of Mr. Stringer for another 7 hours. Please also note that Samsung will strenuously object to Apple raising this issue at the hearing on Tuesday which should and will be devoted to Apple’s deficient discovery responses. 2. Request to meet and confer on unspecified PI discovery matters: Please provide in writing the precise list of issues Apple wishes to meet and confer on and where you believe there is a disagreement. Then, please schedule a teleconference with Melissa Chan and Rachel Kassabian of our team. In the event you are unable to resolve the matters after that call and subsequent consultation with respective clients, we can discuss setting up an in-person meet and confer. 3. Request to meet and confer on licenses unrelated to PI Motion: As you know, Samsung’s written responses to Apple’s Third Set of Requests for Production of Documents and Things (Nos. 53155) – which included over 100 document requests – were originally due September 2, 2011, and extended to September 8, 2011. Therefore, Apple’s letter of August 30, 2011 demanding immediate production of responsive documents was improper, in asking Samsung to immediately produce documents before the deadline set by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Samsung is investigating and has produced or will produce documents that are responsive to Apple’s Third Set of Requests, subject to Samsung’s objections. Samsung is currently looking into the license agreements and will produce those that are relevant and responsive. Therefore, a meet and confer on Monday or any time this week on this issue is premature, since Samsung has not refused to produce the documents you requested. Further, Apple’s threat to compel production of documents (that are not even at issue in the forthcoming preliminary injunction proceedings) one day after Samsung served its objections is unreasonable and harassing. Best Regards, Victoria Maroulis Partner, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor Redwood Shores, CA 94065 650-801-5022 Direct 650.801.5000 Main Office Number 650.801.5100 FAX victoriamaroulis@quinnemanuel.com www.quinnemanuel.com NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message.       From: Selwyn, Mark [mailto:Mark.Selwyn@wilmerhale.com] Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 6:57 PM To: Victoria Maroulis; Melissa Chan Cc: Victoria Maroulis; Todd Briggs; HMcElhinny@mofo.com; MJacobs@mofo.com; JTaylor@mofo.com; ATucher@mofo.com; RHung@mofo.com; Lee, William; JasonBartlett@mofo.com Subject: RE: Apple v. Samsung: Discovery Correspondence Victoria:    Further to my August 30 letter and my e‐mail this afternoon, we would like to meet and confer with you  at the same meeting proposed below regarding Apple's request that Samsung immediately produce  copies of its license agreements and related documents with Intel, Qualcomm, and Infineon.  We need  to resolve the issue without further delay, or Apple will seek the Court's assistance.    Thank you.    Mark    From: Bartlett, Jason R. [mailto:JasonBartlett@mofo.com] Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 5:36 PM To: Melissa Chan Cc: Victoria Maroulis; Todd Briggs; HMcElhinny@mofo.com; MJacobs@mofo.com; JTaylor@mofo.com; ATucher@mofo.com; RHung@mofo.com; Lee, William; Selwyn, Mark Subject: RE: Apple v. Samsung: Discovery Correspondence Melissa, In accordance with the court's order, Apple would like to convene an in-person meeting relating to these discovery issues at your offices in Redwood Shores on Monday starting at 11:00 am. Please confirm Samsung's availability. Sincerely, Jason R. Bartlett Morrison & Foerster 425 Market St. San Francisco, CA 94105 Direct: 415.268.6615 From: Melissa Chan [mailto:melissachan@quinnemanuel.com] Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 5:23 PM To: Bartlett, Jason R. Cc: Victoria Maroulis; Todd Briggs; McElhinny, Harold J.; Jacobs, Michael A.; Taylor, Jennifer Lee (SF); Tucher, Alison M.; Hung, Richard S. J.; william.lee@wilmerhale.com; mark.selwyn@wilmerhale.com Subject: RE: Apple v. Samsung: Discovery Correspondence Jason, Please see the attached response. Thanks, Melissa From: Bartlett, Jason R. [mailto:JasonBartlett@mofo.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:09 PM To: Melissa Chan Cc: Victoria Maroulis; Todd Briggs; McElhinny, Harold J.; Jacobs, Michael A.; Taylor, Jennifer Lee (SF); Tucher, Alison M.; Hung, Richard S. J.; william.lee@wilmerhale.com; mark.selwyn@wilmerhale.com Subject: Apple v. Samsung: Discovery Correspondence Melissa, Please see the attached letter. Sincerely, Jason R. Bartlett Morrison & Foerster 425 Market St. San Francisco, CA 94105 Direct: 415.268.6615 --------------------------------------------------------------------To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, Morrison & Foerster LLP informs you that, if any advice concerning one or more U.S. Federal tax issues is contained in this communication (including any attachments), such advice is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. For information about this legend, go to http://www.mofo.com/Circular230/ ===================================================================== ======= This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail @mofo.com, and delete the message. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, Morrison & Foerster LLP informs you that, if any advice concerning one or more U.S. Federal tax issues is contained in this communication (including any attachments), such advice is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. For information about this legend, go to http://www.mofo.com/Circular230/ ===================================================================== ======= This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail @mofo.com, and delete the message. ---------------------------------------------------------------------

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?