Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated

Filing 295

ORDER Granting Joint 291 Stipulation and Discovery Coordination Order. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 1/24/18. (dlg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION

1
2
3
4

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,

5
6
7
8

v.

Case No. 17-cv-00220-LHK-NMC

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, a
Delaware Corporation,
Defendant.

9
10
11

IN RE: QUALCOMM ANTITRUST
LITIGATION

Case No. 17-md-02773-LHK-NMC

12
13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14
15
16

IN RE: QUALCOMM LITIGATION

Case No. 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD

17
18
19

JOINT STIPULATION AND DISCOVERY COORDINATION ORDER

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

WHEREAS the Parties desire to minimize the burden and expense of duplicative fact
discovery across cases (without limiting or otherwise modifying the appropriate topics of discovery
in each case); and
WHEREAS the Parties agree that fact discovery in the above-captioned actions should be
coordinated as provided herein;
THE PARTIES THEREFORE STIPULATE AND AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. For the purpose of this Order:

1

a. “Apple” refers to Apple Inc.

2

b. “CMs” refers to Compal Electronics, Inc., FIH Mobile Ltd., Hon Hai Precision

3
4

Industry Co., Ltd., Pegatron Corporation, and Wistron Corporation.
c. “Contact Attorneys” refers to counsel designated by each Party and identified on

5

Schedule A.

6

d. “FTC” refers to the Federal Trade Commission.

7

e. “FTC Litigation” refers to Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm Incorporated,

8
9

Case No. 17-cv-00220-LHK (N.D. Cal.).
f.

“MDL Litigation” refers to In re Qualcomm Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 17-md-

10

02773-LHK (N.D. Cal.), including all consolidated member cases (both current and

11

any that may be transferred and consolidated in the future).

12

g. “MDL Plaintiffs” refers collectively to the plaintiffs named in any consolidated or

13

member case in the MDL Litigation, including in any consolidated complaint that is

14

filed in the MDL Litigation.

15

h. “ND Cal Litigation” refers collectively to the FTC Litigation and MDL Litigation.

16

i. “Patents-In-Suit” means “Original Patents-in-Suit” as defined in the First Amended

17
18
19
20
21

Complaint in the SD Cal Litigation (ECF No. 83).
j. “Parties” or “Party” refers to the FTC, MDL Plaintiffs, Apple, the CMs, and
Qualcomm.
k. “Pending Cases” refers collectively to the FTC Litigation, the MDL Litigation, and
the SD Cal Litigation.

22

l. “Protective Orders” refers to the Protective Order and Supplemental Protective Orders

23

in the FTC Litigation (ECF Nos. 81, 137, 205, 220, 230, 306, 324, 371, 374, 384, 388,

24

392, 393, 410, 420, 430 and 447), the Protective Order and Supplemental Protective

25

Orders in the MDL Litigation (ECF Nos. 46, 86, 148, 149, 182, 197, 211, 213, 216,

26

218, 221, 244, 249 and 259), and the Protective Order in the SD Cal Litigation (ECF

27

No. 163), in each case as may be supplemented and amended from time to time.

28
[PROPOSED] JOINT DISCOVERY COORDINATION ORDER
Case Nos.: 17-cv-00220-LHK (N.D. Cal.), 17-md-02773-LHK (N.D.
Cal.), 17-cv-00108-GPC (S.D. Cal.), 17-cv-01010-GPC (S.D. Cal.)

2

1

m. “Qualcomm” refers to Qualcomm Incorporated.

2

n. “SD Cal Litigation” refers to the consolidated cases Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm

3

Incorporated, Case No. 17-cv-00108-GPC (S.D. Cal.) and Qualcomm Incorporated v.

4

Compal Electronics, Inc., FIH Mobile Ltd., Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd.,

5

Pegatron Corporation, and Wistron Corporation, Case No. 17-cv-01010-GPC (S.D.

6

Cal.).

7

2. Counsel for the Parties in each Pending Case shall be bound by this Order.

8

COORDINATION OF WRITTEN DISCOVERY

9

3. Any Party that serves or has served a written discovery request under Rule 31, 33, 34, or 36

10

on another Party in any of the Pending Cases shall provide a copy of the request to the

11

Contact Attorneys in each Pending Case, except insofar as such requests are served in the SD

12

Cal Litgation and relate solely to claims concerning the Patents-In-Suit in the SD Cal

13

Litigation.

14

4. Any Party that responds or has responded to a written discovery request in any of the Pending

15

Cases shall serve its response and produce any responsive materials to the Contact Attorneys

16

in each Pending Case, except insofar as such requests are served in the SD Cal Litigation and

17

relate solely to claims concerning the Patents-In-Suit in the SD Cal Litigation.

18

5. A Party (the “Issuing Party”) that serves, after issuance of this Order, a subpoena or other

19

request (including any request for international judicial assistance) for the production of

20

documents or other materials on a person or entity not a Party (“Non-Party”) to any Pending

21

Case shall promptly (a) provide a copy of the subpoena or other request to all Contact

22

Attorneys; (b) provide a copy of this Order and the Protective Orders in effect in each of the

23

Pending Cases to the Non-Party; (c) notify the Non-Party that, pursuant to this Order,

24

materials produced in response to such subpoena or other request will be produced in each

25

Pending Case, and (d) request that the Non-Party simultaneously produce materials to the

26

Contact Attorneys in each Pending Case. If, notwithstanding such request, the Non-Party

27

does not produce the materials to the Contact Attorneys in each Pending Case, the issuing

28
[PROPOSED] JOINT DISCOVERY COORDINATION ORDER
Case Nos.: 17-cv-00220-LHK (N.D. Cal.), 17-md-02773-LHK (N.D.
Cal.), 17-cv-00108-GPC (S.D. Cal.), 17-cv-01010-GPC (S.D. Cal.)

3

1

Party shall, as permitted by law, provide a copy of all materials produced pursuant to the

2

subpoena or other request to the Contact Attorneys in each of the Pending Cases within five

3

(5) calendar days after receipt of the materials from the Non-Party. If a Party has served a

4

Non-Party subpoena or other document request prior to the issuance of this Order, the Issuing

5

Party will provide a copy of the subpoena or other request to all Contact Attorneys, advise the

6

Non-Party that the document production is to be shared across the Pending Cases and provide

7

an opportunity of ten (10) days to object, and shall provide a copy of all materials produced

8

pursuant to the subpoena or other request to the Contact Attorneys in each of the Pending

9

Cases within five (5) calendar days after the later of (1) expiration of such ten (10) day

10

period, or (2) the Party’s receipt of materials from the Non-Party. If a Party modifies or

11

extends the time to respond to a Rule 45 document subpoena in writing, it shall promptly

12

inform Contact Attorneys in each Pending Case of that written extension or modification.

13

This paragraph shall not apply to a subpoena or other request served in the SD Cal Litigation

14

that relates solely to claims concerning the Patents-In-Suit in the SD Cal Litigation.

15

6. All written responses to discovery requests and subpoenas and materials provided in response

16

to discovery requests and subpoenas in any Pending Case shall be treated as having been

17

obtained through discovery in each Pending Case, except insofar as such responses and

18

materials relate solely to claims concerning the Patents-In-Suit in the SD Cal Litigation. Any

19

such materials shall be clearly designated “SD Cal Litigation Only.”

20
21

COORDINATION OF DEPOSITIONS
7. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(A), leave is granted to all Parties to conduct in excess of

22

ten (10) depositions per side, provided that nothing in this Order shall prevent the FTC and

23

Qualcomm from entry into an agreement limiting the number of depositions to be noticed or

24

deemed taken in the FTC Litigation, or from seeking a court order imposing such a

25

limitation. For avoidance of doubt, this order supplants the deposition hours limitations set

26

forth in the September 11, 2017 Order Granting Joint Motion for Approval of Stipulation

27

Regarding Scheduling and Discovery Matters in the SD Cal Litigation (“September 11, 2017

28
[PROPOSED] JOINT DISCOVERY COORDINATION ORDER
Case Nos.: 17-cv-00220-LHK (N.D. Cal.), 17-md-02773-LHK (N.D.
Cal.), 17-cv-00108-GPC (S.D. Cal.), 17-cv-01010-GPC (S.D. Cal.)

4

1

Order”), except insofar as a deposition relates solely to claims concerning the Patents-In-Suit

2

in the SD Cal Litigation, in which case the party noticing the deposition shall so indicate in

3

such notice and the September 11, 2017 Order will apply.

4

8. Depositions subpoenaed, noticed, and/or taken in any of the Pending Cases shall be treated as

5

if they were noticed and taken in each Pending Case (to the extent, absent agreement of the

6

parties or leave of court, the deposition is taken during the court-ordered discovery period for

7

the particular Pending Case), except insofar as a deposition relates solely to claims

8

concerning the Patents-in-Suit in the SD Cal Litigation, in which case the party noticing the

9

deposition shall indicate in such notice and/or during such deposition; provided that, absent a

10

Court order or agreement of the FTC and Qualcomm to the contrary, only depositions noticed

11

in the FTC Litigation shall be treated as having been noticed and taken in the FTC Litigation.

12

9. A Party issuing a deposition notice or subpoena or seeking a request for international judicial

13

assistance in obtaining testimony of any non-Party witness (the “Subpoenaing Party”) shall

14

provide at least five (5) days advance notice to Contact Attorneys in each Pending Case.

15

Other Parties shall be entitled to join the Subpoenaing Party’s notice, subpoena, or request by

16

notice to Contact Attorneys in each Pending Case within such five (5) day period. The

17

Parties also will preserve the right to add topics to any 30(b)(6) or similar subpoena or notice.

18

The Parties shall make reasonable good-faith efforts to coordinate the scheduling of the

19

deposition with each other and with any Non-Party witness, provided, however, that no Party

20

may unreasonably delay a deposition.

21

10. For Party depositions, prior to issuing a notice for a date certain, the noticing Party shall

22

notify the Contact Attorneys for all Parties of its intent to depose a particular witness, and

23

request available dates for the witness from counsel for the Party whose witness’s deposition

24

is sought. Within seven (7) days of receiving the request, the Party to whom such a request is

25

made shall provide at least one (1) proposed deposition date (i.e., one (1) set of two (2) days

26

for a fourteen (14) hour deposition) and use good faith efforts to provide two (2) proposed

27

deposition dates. For depositions of witnesses requested after entry of this Order, if any Party

28
[PROPOSED] JOINT DISCOVERY COORDINATION ORDER
Case Nos.: 17-cv-00220-LHK (N.D. Cal.), 17-md-02773-LHK (N.D.
Cal.), 17-cv-00108-GPC (S.D. Cal.), 17-cv-01010-GPC (S.D. Cal.)

5

1

proposes only one (1) deposition date for a particular witness, it shall not propose any date

2

that would require more than one (1) of its other witnesses to be deposed on the same date,

3

absent agreement of all Parties. If other Parties intend to depose the same witness, they must

4

provide notice to the Contact Attorneys for all Parties of such intent within seven (7) days of

5

being notified that such witness’s deposition is being sought.1 If the Party whose witness is

6

being sought for deposition is informed that multiple Parties intend to depose that witness,

7

that Party shall provide deposition dates with sufficient time for questioning by multiple

8

Parties. The noticing Party or Parties shall use their best efforts to schedule the deposition on

9

a proposed deposition date mutually agreeable to all Parties. The Party whose witness’s

10

deposition is sought shall retain its right to formally object (by motion for protective order or

11

otherwise) to the taking of a particular deposition or to the timing or scope of such

12

deposition.

13

11. Counsel in any of the Pending Cases shall be entitled to attend depositions noticed in each

14

Pending Case, so long as they agree to be bound by the Protective Order entered in one of the

15

Pending Cases, except insofar as such depositions relate solely to claims concerning the

16

Patents-In-Suit in the SD Cal Litigation, in which case only counsel for Parties to the SD Cal

17

Litigation may attend. A Party’s in-house counsel bound by a protective order may attend

18

depositions of its current or former employees, and if the examining party intends to ask

19

questions about information produced in discovery that has been designated for outside

20

counsel only, the examining party shall indicate that it intends to ask about information so

21

designated, allowing the in-house counsel to excuse himself or herself for that portion of the

22

examination. Non-noticing counsel may ask questions and raise objections at depositions to

23

the extent allowed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Parties shall meet and

24

confer in advance of each deposition to allocate deposition time, if necessary, and attempt to

25

coordinate a single Party to make objections. Any Party may avail itself of any objection to

26
27

1

Note, for any deposition notice issued prior to the filing of this Proposed Order, the seven day
notice period starts from the filing of this Proposed Order.

28
[PROPOSED] JOINT DISCOVERY COORDINATION ORDER
Case Nos.: 17-cv-00220-LHK (N.D. Cal.), 17-md-02773-LHK (N.D.
Cal.), 17-cv-00108-GPC (S.D. Cal.), 17-cv-01010-GPC (S.D. Cal.)

6

1

the form of a question made by any other Party properly in attendance at a deposition without

2

the need to be in attendance or express its joinder in the objection.

3

12. The time limits on depositions established by Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(1) shall apply to all

4

depositions, except that in the event that a deposition of a Non-Party is noticed in both the

5

ND Cal Litigation and the SD Cal Litigation, the Parties agree that, absent good cause, they

6

will not oppose an extension of the time limit for that deposition to up to fourteen (14) hours

7

of on-the-record questioning time. In any deposition of Qualcomm or a current or former

8

Qualcomm employee in his or her individual capacity noticed in both the ND Cal Litigation

9

and the SD Cal Litigation, the deposition time limit shall be extended to up to fourteen (14)

10

hours of on-the-record questioning time in total. In any deposition of Apple or a current or

11

former Apple employee in his or her individual capacity, or in any deposition of a CM or a

12

current or a former CM employee in his or her individual capacity noticed in both the ND Cal

13

Litigation and the SD Cal Litigation, the deposition time limit shall be extended to up to

14

fourteen (14) hours of on-the-record time in total.

15

13. A Party that was provided prior notice of a deposition (other than a deposition pursuant to

16

Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6)) in any Pending Case and did not make a contemporaneous request to

17

depose the witness may not, absent leave of Court, notice a second deposition of the same

18

witness in a Pending Case.

19

14. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent documents relating to a Party’s witness are

20

produced by that Party either within the two week period prior to the commencement of a

21

witness’s deposition or after the commencement or completion of such witness’s deposition,

22

and such documents are material and non-cumulative of documents previously produced, the

23

parties shall as soon as practicable meet and confer to discuss whether to reschedule the

24

deposition, or re-open the deposition (to the extent it has already occurred). If the parties are

25

unable to agree, they shall jointly present the issue to the Court for resolution. With respect

26

to depositions of Apple or CM witnesses, this Paragraph supersedes the fourth sentence of

27
28
[PROPOSED] JOINT DISCOVERY COORDINATION ORDER
Case Nos.: 17-cv-00220-LHK (N.D. Cal.), 17-md-02773-LHK (N.D.
Cal.), 17-cv-00108-GPC (S.D. Cal.), 17-cv-01010-GPC (S.D. Cal.)

7

1

Paragraph 8(b) of the Stipulated Order Re: Discovery of Electronically Stored Information

2

and Related Discovery Matters in the FTC Litigation (ECF No. 142).

3

PLEADINGS AND MOTIONS

4

15. Any Party that serves or has served a pleading or motion on another Party in any Pending

5

case shall serve an unredacted copy of the pleading or motion on the Contact Attorneys in

6

each Pending Case, subject if necessary to the Protective Orders in those cases. This

7

paragraph shall not apply to pleadings or motions served in the SD Cal Litigation that relate

8

solely to claims concerning the Patents-In-Suit in the SD Cal Litigation.

9
10

PROTECTION OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
16. The Protective Order in effect in each Pending Case is hereby modified to permit the

11

disclosure and production of Protected Material (as defined therein) to the Contact Attorneys

12

in each Pending Case, and the further use and disclosure of such material by each Party

13

hereto in accordance with the Protective Order(s), including any Supplemental Protective

14

Order(s), in each Pending Case to which it is a Party.

15

17. The Protective Order or Supplemental Protective Order(s) in effect in each Pending Case

16

shall govern the handling by the Parties to such Pending Case of protected material produced

17

hereunder, and, unless modified by the designating party, confidentiality designations applied

18

in one Pending Case shall apply in all Pending Cases. To the extent there are conflicts among

19

the Protective Orders or Supplemental Protective Order(s) regarding the individual

20

employees of a Party who may access Protected Material, the Protective Order or

21

Supplemental Protective Order that applied to the original production of a particular

22

document designated as Protected Material shall control.

23

18. Effective upon its entry in all of the Pending Cases, this Order shall supersede in its entirety

24

the Joint Stipulation and Discovery Coordination Order currently in effect in the FTC

25

Litigation (ECF No. 207) and the MDL Litigation (ECF No. 131).

26
27
28
[PROPOSED] JOINT DISCOVERY COORDINATION ORDER
Case Nos.: 17-cv-00220-LHK (N.D. Cal.), 17-md-02773-LHK (N.D.
Cal.), 17-cv-00108-GPC (S.D. Cal.), 17-cv-01010-GPC (S.D. Cal.)

8

1

IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD.

2
3
4

Dated: January 22, 2018

5

By:

6
7
8
9

/s/ Jennifer Milici
Jennifer Milici, D.C. Bar No. 987096
Federal Trade Commission
600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20580
[phone]; [phone] (fax)
[e-mail]

10
Attorney for Plaintiff FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION

11
12
13

Dated: January 22, 2018

14
By:

15

/s/ Kalpana Srinivasan
Kalpana Srinivasan
Marc M. Seltzer
Steven G. Sklaver
Amanda Bonn
Oleg Elkhunovich
Krysta Kauble Pachman
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Joseph Grinstein
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1000 Louisiana Street # 5100
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] JOINT DISCOVERY COORDINATION ORDER
Case Nos.: 17-cv-00220-LHK (N.D. Cal.), 17-md-02773-LHK (N.D.
Cal.), 17-cv-00108-GPC (S.D. Cal.), 17-cv-01010-GPC (S.D. Cal.)

9

1

Joseph W. Cotchett
Adam J. Zapala
Brian Danitz
Mark F. Ram
Michael A. Montano
Toriana S. Holmes
COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY
840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
Burlingame, CA 94010
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel

11

Steve W. Berman
Jeff Friedman
Rio Pierce
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO
LLP
1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee

19
20

Dated: January 22, 2018

21
22

By:

23

/s/ Seth M. Sproul
Juanita R. Brooks (SBN 75934)
Seth M. Sproul (SBN 217711)
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
12390 El Caamino Real
San Diego, CA 92130
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 858-678-5099
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]

24
25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] JOINT DISCOVERY COORDINATION ORDER
Case Nos.: 17-cv-00220-LHK (N.D. Cal.), 17-md-02773-LHK (N.D.
Cal.), 17-cv-00108-GPC (S.D. Cal.), 17-cv-01010-GPC (S.D. Cal.)

10

Ruffin B. Cordell (admitted pro hac vice)
Lauren A. Degnam (admitted pro hac vice)
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
The McPherson Building
901 15th Street, N.W., 7th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 202-783-2331
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]

1
2
3
4
5
6

11

William A. Isaacson (admitted pro hac vice)
Karen L. Dunn (admitted pro hac vice)
Amy J. Mauser (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
1401 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 202-237-6131
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]

12

Attorneys for APPLE INC.

7
8
9
10

13
14

Dated: January 22, 2018

15

By:

/s/ Jason C. Lo

16
Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. (SBN 132099)
Daniel G. Swanson (SBN 116556)
Jason C. Lo (SBN 219030)
Jennifer J. Rho (SBN 254312)
Melissa Phan (SBN 266880)
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Cynthia E. Richman (admitted pro hac vice)
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] JOINT DISCOVERY COORDINATION ORDER
Case Nos.: 17-cv-00220-LHK (N.D. Cal.), 17-md-02773-LHK (N.D.
Cal.), 17-cv-00108-GPC (S.D. Cal.), 17-cv-01010-GPC (S.D. Cal.)

11

Email: [e-mail]

1

Attorneys for COMPAL ELECTRONICS,
INC., FIH MOBILE LTD., HON HAI
PRECISION INDUSTRY CO., LTD.,
PEGATRON CORPORATION, and
WISTRON CORPORATION

2
3
4

Hugh F. Bangasser (admitted pro hac vice)
Christopher M. Wyatt (admitted pro hac
vice)
J. Timothy Hobbs (admitted pro hac vice)
K&L GATES LLP
925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2900
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 206-370-6371
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]

5
6
7
8
9
10

Attorneys for WISTRON CORPORATION

11
12
13

Dated: January 22, 2018

14

By:

/s/ Evan R. Chesler

15
Evan R. Chesler
Richard J. Stark
Antony L. Ryan
Gary A. Bornstein
J. Wesley Earnhardt
Yonatan Even
Vanessa A. Lavely
CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
Worldwide Plaza
825 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Karen P. Hewitt
Randall E. Kay
Kelly V. O’Donnell

27
28
[PROPOSED] JOINT DISCOVERY COORDINATION ORDER
Case Nos.: 17-cv-00220-LHK (N.D. Cal.), 17-md-02773-LHK (N.D.
Cal.), 17-cv-00108-GPC (S.D. Cal.), 17-cv-01010-GPC (S.D. Cal.)

12

JONES DAY
4655 Executive Drive, Suite 1500
San Diego, California 92121
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

1
2
3
4
5

Robert A. Van Nest
Asim M. Bhansali
Eugene M. Paige
Matan Shacham
Justina Sessions
David W. Rizk
Alexander Dryer
KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP
633 Battery Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Richard S. Taffet
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
101 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10178-0060
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

16
17
18
19

Willard K. Tom
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1111 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20004-2541
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

20
21
22
23

Donn P. Pickett
Geoffrey T. Holtz
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
One Market, Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, CA 94105-1126
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

24
25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] JOINT DISCOVERY COORDINATION ORDER
Case Nos.: 17-cv-00220-LHK (N.D. Cal.), 17-md-02773-LHK (N.D.
Cal.), 17-cv-00108-GPC (S.D. Cal.), 17-cv-01010-GPC (S.D. Cal.)

13

Richard S. Zembek
Daniel S. Leventhal
Talbot Hansum
Eric B. Hall
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
1301 McKinney, Suite 5100
Houston, Texas 77010
Tel: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

David A. Nelson
Stephen Swedlow
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
500 West Madison St., Suite 2450
Chicago, Illinois 60661
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

8
9
10
11
12

Alexander Rudis
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
51 Madison Ave., 22nd Floor
New York, NY 10010
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

13
14
15
16
17

Sean S. Pak
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
50 California St., 22nd Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

18
19
20
21

Attorneys for QUALCOMM
INCORPORATED

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] JOINT DISCOVERY COORDINATION ORDER
Case Nos.: 17-cv-00220-LHK (N.D. Cal.), 17-md-02773-LHK (N.D.
Cal.), 17-cv-00108-GPC (S.D. Cal.), 17-cv-01010-GPC (S.D. Cal.)

14

SCHEDULE A

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm Incorporated, Case No. 17-cv-00220-LHK (N.D. Cal.)
Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission
Jennifer Milici, [e-mail]
J. Alexander Ansaldo, [e-mail]
Joseph R. Baker, [e-mail]
Wesley G. Carson, [e-mail]
Elizabeth A. Gillen, [e-mail]
Daniel Matheson, [e-mail]
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20580

10
11

Defendant Qualcomm Incorporated

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Gary A. Bornstein, [e-mail]
J. Wesley Earnhardt, [e-mail]
Yonatan Even, [e-mail]
Vanessa A. Lavely, [e-mail]
Stefan H. Atkinson, [e-mail]
James W. Carlson, [e-mail]
CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
Worldwide Plaza
825 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Robert A. Van Nest, [e-mail]
Asim M. Bhansali, [e-mail]
Eugene M. Paige, [e-mail]
Matan Shacham, [e-mail]
Justina Sessions, [e-mail]
David W. Rizk, [e-mail]
Alexander Dryer, [e-mail]
KEKER, VAN NEST, & PETERS LLP
633 Battery Street
San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
Richard S. Taffet, [e-mail]
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
101 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10178-0060

28
[PROPOSED] JOINT DISCOVERY COORDINATION ORDER
Case Nos.: 17-cv-00220-LHK (N.D. Cal.), 17-md-02773-LHK (N.D.
Cal.), 17-cv-00108-GPC (S.D. Cal.), 17-cv-01010-GPC (S.D. Cal.)

-1-

1
2

Willard K. Tom, [e-mail]
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1111 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20004-2541

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Donn P. Pickett, [e-mail]
Geoffrey T. Holtz, [e-mail]
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
One Market, Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, CA 94105-1126
Richard S. Zembek, [e-mail]
Daniel S. Leventhal, [e-mail]
Talbot Hansum, [e-mail]
Eric B. Hall, [e-mail]
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT
1301 McKinney, Suite 5100
Houston, Texas 77010
In re Qualcomm Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 17-md-02773-LHK (N.D. Cal.)
Plaintiffs’ Interim Co-Lead Counsel
Kalpana Srinivasan
Marc M. Seltzer
Steven G. Sklaver
Amanda Bonn
Oleg Elkhunovich
Krysta Kauble Pachman
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]

22
23
24
25
26

Joseph Grinstein
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

27
28
[PROPOSED] JOINT DISCOVERY COORDINATION ORDER
Case Nos.: 17-cv-00220-LHK (N.D. Cal.), 17-md-02773-LHK (N.D.
Cal.), 17-cv-00108-GPC (S.D. Cal.), 17-cv-01010-GPC (S.D. Cal.)

-2-

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Joseph W. Cotchett
Adam J. Zapala
Brian Danitz
Mark F. Ram
Michael A. Montano
Toriana S. Holmes
COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY
840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
Burlingame, CA 94010
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee
Steve W. Berman
Jeff Friedman
Rio Pierce
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Defendant Qualcomm Incorporated
Gary A. Bornstein, [e-mail]
J. Wesley Earnhardt, [e-mail]
Yonatan Even, [e-mail]
Vanessa A. Lavely, [e-mail]
Stefan H. Atkinson, [e-mail]
James W. Carlson, [e-mail]
CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
Worldwide Plaza
825 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Robert A. Van Nest, [e-mail]
Asim M. Bhansali, [e-mail]
Eugene M. Paige, [e-mail]
Justina Sessions, [e-mail]
David W. Rizk, [e-mail]
Alexander Dryer, [e-mail]

28
[PROPOSED] JOINT DISCOVERY COORDINATION ORDER
Case Nos.: 17-cv-00220-LHK (N.D. Cal.), 17-md-02773-LHK (N.D.
Cal.), 17-cv-00108-GPC (S.D. Cal.), 17-cv-01010-GPC (S.D. Cal.)

-3-

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

KEKER, VAN NEST, & PETERS LLP
633 Battery Street
San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
Richard S. Taffet, [e-mail]
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
101 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10178-0060
Willard K. Tom, [e-mail]
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1111 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20004-2541
Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated, Case No. 17-cv-00108-GPC (S.D. Cal.) and Qualcomm
Incorporated v. Compal Electronics, Inc., FIH Mobile Ltd., Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd.,
Pegatron Corporation, and Wistron Corporation, Case No. 17-cv-01010-GPC (S.D. Cal.)

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant Apple Inc.
Amy J. Mauser
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
1401 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Benjamin C. Elacqua
FISH & RICHARDSON LLP
1221 McKinney Street, Suite 2800
Houston, TX 77010
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

21
22

[e-mail]
Apple/[e-mail]

23
24
25
26
27

Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs Compal Electronics, Inc., FIH Mobile Ltd., Hon Hai
Precision Industry Co., Ltd., Pegatron Corporation, and Wistron Corporation
Jason Lo, [e-mail]
Jennifer Rho, [e-mail]
Ryan Iwahashi, [e-mail]
[e-mail]

28
[PROPOSED] JOINT DISCOVERY COORDINATION ORDER
Case Nos.: 17-cv-00220-LHK (N.D. Cal.), 17-md-02773-LHK (N.D.
Cal.), 17-cv-00108-GPC (S.D. Cal.), 17-cv-01010-GPC (S.D. Cal.)

-4-

1

Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff Qualcomm Incorporated

2

Gary A. Bornstein, [e-mail]
J. Wesley Earnhardt, [e-mail]
Yonatan Even, [e-mail]
Vanessa A. Lavely, [e-mail]
Stefan H. Atkinson, [e-mail]
James W. Carlson, [e-mail]
CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
Worldwide Plaza
825 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10019

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

David A. Nelson, [e-mail]
Stephen Swedlow, [e-mail]
Marc L. Kaplan, [e-mail]
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
500 West Madison St., Suite 2450
Chicago, Illinois 60661
Michael L. Fazio, [e-mail]
Joseph C. Sarles, [e-mail]
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Alexander Rudis, [e-mail]
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
51 Madison Ave., 22nd Floor
New York, NY 10010
Sean S. Pak, [e-mail]
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
50 California St., 22nd Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
Karen P. Hewitt, [e-mail]
Randall E. Kay, [e-mail]
Kelly V. O’Donnell, [e-mail]
JONES DAY
4655 Executive Drive, Suite 1500
San Diego, California 92121
Richard S. Zembek, [e-mail]
Daniel S. Leventhal, [e-mail]
Talbot Hansum, [e-mail]
Eric B. Hall, [e-mail]
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT
1301 McKinney, Suite 5100
Houston, Texas 77010

28
[PROPOSED] JOINT DISCOVERY COORDINATION ORDER
Case Nos.: 17-cv-00220-LHK (N.D. Cal.), 17-md-02773-LHK (N.D.
Cal.), 17-cv-00108-GPC (S.D. Cal.), 17-cv-01010-GPC (S.D. Cal.)

-5-