Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 225

MOTION to Compel Responses to Interrogatories Nos. 7 and 12 Regarding Products Embodying Motorola's Asserted Patents and Accompanying Memorandum of Law in Support by Apple, Inc.. Responses due by 2/16/2012 (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Elena Dimuzio, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit 9, # 11 Exhibit 10, # 12 Exhibit 11, # 13 Exhibit 12, # 14 Exhibit 13, # 15 Exhibit 14, # 16 Exhibit 15, # 17 Exhibit 16, # 18 Exhibit 17, # 19 Text of Proposed Order)(Pace, Christopher)

EXHIBIT 9

quinn emanuel

trial lawyers | new york

51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, New York 10010-1601 | TEL: [phone] FAX: [phone]

WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NO.
[phone]
WRITER'S INTERNET ADDRESS
[e-mail]

November 21, 2011
VIA E-MAIL
Jill Ho, Esq.
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
201 Redwood Shores Parkway
Redwood Shores, CA 94065

Re:

Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 10-cv-3580

Dear Jill:
I write to address a number of the discovery issues raised during yesterday’s meet and
confer.
First, Apple has objected to the proposed date of January 16, 2011 for the deposition of
Gene Eggleston. Mr. Eggleston is also available for a deposition on January 11, 2011. Please
confirm this date works for Apple.
Second, Motorola designates Joy Ganvik as its corporate representative to testify on
topics 11 and 34 of Apple’s Notice of 30(b)(6) Deposition of Motorola (“Apple’s 30(b)(6)
Notice”), subject to the objections set forth in Motorola’s response thereto. Ms. Ganvik is
available for deposition on December 16, 2011. Please confirm that date works for Apple.
Third, Motorola designates Kirk Dailey as its corporate representative to testify on topics
18, 41, 42, 44, 47, 48, 49, 50 and 54 of Apple’s 30(b)(6) Notice, subject to Motorola’s
objections. Mr. Dailey is available for deposition on December 13, 2011. Please confirm that
date works for Apple.
Fourth, we are looking for dates for Terri Hughes to testify in her individual capacity.
quinn emanuel urquhart & sullivan, llp
LOS ANGELES | 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017-2543 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
SAN FRANCISCO | 50 California Street, 22nd Floor, San Francisco, California 94111-4788 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
SILICON VALLEY | 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor, Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
CHICAGO | 500 W. Madison Street, Suite 2450, Chicago, Illinois 60661-2510 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
WASHINGTON,
02426.51753/4457662.1 DC | 1299 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 825, Washington, District of Columbia 20004-2400 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
LONDON | 16 Old Bailey, London EC4M 7EG, United Kingdom | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
TOKYO | NBF Hibiya Bldg., 25F, 1-1-7, Uchisaiwai-cho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-0011, Japan | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
MANNHEIM | Erzbergerstraße 5, 68165 Mannheim, Germany | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]

Fifth, and as noted in my November 14, 2011 letter to you, Motorola believes that
Apple’s subpoenas on third parties – and Motorola clients – AT&T, Inc., Comcast Corp.,
Mediacom Communications Corp., Time Warner Cable, Inc., Bright House Networks, LLC,
Charter Communications, Inc., Cox Communications, Inc., and Suddenlink Communications
("the Third-Party Subpoenas") contain discovery requests that can be addressed by Motorola.
Examples of such requests include Topics 1, 2, 3 and 4, and Document Requests 1, 2, 3, 4, 16
and 17 of each of the Subpoenas. We look forward to discussing this matter with you during our
next meet and confer.
Sixth, you requested that Motorola provide further explanations for its request to review
the MobileMe source code before Apple could consent to producing said code. As you know
and as we discussed on our meet and confer, the process whereby Apple’s systems and products
synchronize information across multiple user devices is at issue in this matter. (See Apple’s
Technology Tutorial Slides for the ‘119 Patent beginning on Slide 28). Also relevant to this
case is the process used by Apple’s systems to filter SPAM from a user’s incoming email
stream. (See Apple’s Technology Tutorial Slides for the ‘006 and ‘531 Patents, beginning on
Slide 18). As you requested, we direct you to Apple’s explanation of the technology at issue in
these slides and ask for the code relating to that technology. We look forward to confirmation
from Apple that it will produce this code as soon as possible on our meet and confer today.
Seventh, you indicated during our meet and confer on November 17, 2011 that Apple
would investigate whether it intended to comply with Motorola’s Requests for Production Nos.
27, 63 and 68. Please let us know whether Apple intends to produce documents in response to
those requests.
Eighth, the parties discussed during last week’s meet and confer Motorola’s responses
and objections to Apple’s requests for production Nos. 2-10, 21, 22, 34, 39, 43 and 46, and
Apple’s interrogatories Nos. 7, 8, 14 and 15. Motorola is making internal inquiries in
connections with those requests, and will address them in separate correspondence to Apple.
Ninth, you confirmed that Apple will not be producing deposition testimony, source code
or documents regarding iCloud and/or iPhone 4s for the reasons stated in your motion to strike
Motorola’s supplemental infringement contentions. We are at an impasse on this issue.
Finally, you proposed that the parties mutually agree to supplement their responses to
certain interrogatories by December 16, 2011. We understand that the corresponding
interrogatories include the following:
Motorola
Interrogatories to Apple
No. 1
No. 3
No. 5
No. 8
02426.51753/4457662.1

Apple Interrogatories
to Motorola
No. 1
No. 3
N/A
No. 12
2

No. 9
No. 11
No. 12
No. 13
No. 14
No. 15

No. 11
No. 7
No. 9
Nos. 20, 22
N/A
No. 13

We look forward to discussing this matter and others with you during our next meet and
confer.

Very truly yours,

/s/
Benoit Quarmby
BQ:BQ

02426.51753/4457662.1

3