Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated

Filing 164

ORDER Requiring Meet and Confer; Denying Plaintiff Apple, Inc.'s Ex Parte 150 Motion for Leave to Amend as Moot. The Parties are to withdraw the currently pending Joint Motions (ECF Nos. 149, 152, and 156) and file a coherent joint motion representing only those RFPs that remain truly in dispute after a meaningful meet and confer by November 22, 2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 10/25/17. (dlg)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

APPLE INC.,

Case No.: 17cv108-GPC-MDD
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,
Defendant.

15
16

ORDER REQUIRING MEET AND
CONFER; DENYING PLAINTIFF
APPLE, INC.’S EX PARTE
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
AS MOOT
[ECF No. 150]

17
18

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,
Counterclaim-Plaintiff,

19
20

v.

21

APPLE INC.,

22

Counterclaim-Defendant.

23
24

Before the Court are Apple Inc. (“Apple”) and Qualcomm Incorporated’s

25

(“Qualcomm”) Joint Motion for Discovery (ECF Nos. 149, 152), Apple’s ex

26

parte Motion for Order Granting Leave to File an Amended Opposition to

27

Qualcomm’s Motion to Compel the Production of Documents (ECF No. 150),
1
17cv108-GPC-MDD

1

and Apple’s Amended Motion for Discovery (ECF No. 156).
This dispute is a result of poor timing. According to the filings, Apple

2
3

served allegedly deficient responses and objections to Qualcomm’s First Set of

4

Requests for Production (“RFP”) on September 6, 2017. (ECF No. 149-1 at

5

¶2). Qualcomm then sent Apple a meet and confer letter on September 12,

6

2017 (Id. at ¶3), which Apple insists included “little detail.” (ECF No. 151 at

7

2). During a September 20, 2017, phone call Apple declined to provide

8

requested information as to which RFPs Apple intended to stand on its

9

objection and which RFPs required further vetting for potential narrowing.

10

(ECF No. 149-1 at ¶4). During that call, Apple indicated that they would

11

respond to Qualcomm’s September 12 letter on September 22, 2017. (Id.) On

12

September 23, 2017, Apple indicated the letter would be served on September

13

25, 2017. (Id. at ¶6).
Qualcomm served their portion of the Joint Motion for Discovery on

14
15

September 27, 2017, and included a one-sentence cover email indicating that

16

they anticipated filing the Joint Motion on October 6, 2017.1 (ECF No. 153-1

17

at ¶2). Apple insists they did not receive this notice and that the first time

18

they were made aware of Qualcomm’s intent to timely file the Joint Motion

19

was on October 2, 2017. (ECF No. 150 at 3, 4). Qualcomm’s draft portion

20

included a request for the Court to order Apple to meaningfully meet and

21

confer by October 13, 2017, because at the time Qualcomm served their

22

portion, Apple had not yet responded to the September 12 letter. (ECF No.

23

153 at 2-3). Apple stated that they interpreted that request to mean

24
25
26
27

According to Chambers’ Rules, a motion related to discovery disputes must be filed no
later than thirty days after the date upon which the event giving rise to the dispute
occurred.
1

2
17cv108-GPC-MDD

1

Qualcomm wished to extend the meet and confer process for the purposes of

2

the joint motion until October 13, 2017. (ECF No. 150 at 3-4). Apple does not

3

report seeking clarification from Qualcomm with respect to extending the

4

meet and confer process, nor did Apple seek leave from the Court to extend

5

the date by which the joint motion was due. Apple’s response to the

6

September 12 meet and confer letter was then served on September 29, 2017.

7

(149-1 at ¶7).

8
9

The parties had a telephonic meet and confer on October 3, 2017. (Id.
at ¶9). Qualcomm indicates that during the phone call they offered to sit

10

down and discuss each contested RFP one-by-one, while Apple indicated they

11

were not prepared to agree to a compromise in response to any RFPs at that

12

time. (ECF Nos. 149-1 at ¶10, 153 at 5). Apple then served a letter on

13

Qualcomm on October 5, 2017, addressing fifty-four RFPs initially brought

14

up in the September 12 letter. (ECF No. 149-1 at ¶11). Apple indicated that

15

they “planned to follow up as soon as possible” on the remaining unaddressed

16

disputed RFPs. (ECF No. 153 at 5).

17

Apple asserts that they did not have reasonable time to respond to

18

Qualcomm’s disputed RFPs, given the number of RFPs at issue and their

19

complexity. (ECF No. 150 at 4). Nevertheless, in the proposed Amended

20

Joint Motion, Apple agrees to produce documents to the extent they exist and

21

are non-privileged to twenty-four disputed RFPs. (See, e.g., ECF No. 156 at

22

12, 31, 47, 93, etc.). Additionally, both parties have indicated a willingness to

23

meet and confer to further narrow and clarify the disputed RFPs. In fact, in

24

the Amended Joint Motion, Apple articulates this willingness ninety-four

25

times. (See, e.g., Id. at 8, 13, 17, 22, 32, etc.).

26

Therefore, the Court orders the parties to participate in a meaningful

27

meet and confer that fully addresses all remaining allegedly deficient RFP
3
17cv108-GPC-MDD

1

responses within the next 14 days. The Parties are to withdraw the currently

2

pending Joint Motions (ECF Nos. 149, 152, and 156) and file a coherent joint

3

motion representing only those RFPs that remain truly in dispute after a

4

meaningful meet and confer by November 22, 2017.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 25, 2017

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
4
17cv108-GPC-MDD