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
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?