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 6

quinn emanuel

trial lawyers | san francisco

50 California Street, 22nd Floor, San Francisco, California 94111 | TEL: [phone]

FAX:

[phone]

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

November 8, 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 in response to your October 31, 2011 letter regarding discovery.
First, Apple states that Motorola has refused to produce documents in response to Apple’s
Requests for Production Nos. 13, 23, and 47-49. To the contrary, Motorola has responded
appropriately to each of these Requests:
1. RFP No. 13 seeks “[a]ll documents concerning, supporting, or contradicting the level of
ordinary skill that You allege pertains to each of the Motorola Mobility Patents-in-Suit.”
As mentioned in Motorola’s objections, this RFP is not reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence, likely involves privileged information, is vague and
ambiguous, and was premature when propounded at the beginning of discovery.
Motorola, however, remains willing to meet and confer to clarify the meaning of this RFP
in order to allow the parties to proceed with discovery.
2. RFP No. 23 seeks information relating to the initial use, sale and manufacture of “each
embodiment of any invention claimed” in the patents-in-suit. Motorola properly objected
to this extremely broad request as being, inter alia, overly broad, unduly burdensome,
and premature when propounded at the beginning of discovery. Nevertheless, Motorola
quinn emanuel urquhart & sullivan, llp
LOS ANGELES | 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
NEW YORK | 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, NY 10010 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
SILICON VALLEY | 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Fifth Floor, Redwood Shores, CA 94065 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
TOKYO | Akasaka Twin Tower Main Building, 6th Floor, 17-22 Akasaka 2-Chome, Minato-ku, 107-0052 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
LONDON | 16 Old Bailey, London United Kingdom | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]

has identified representative products that embody one or more of its patent claims,
including the products listed on pages 49 and 81 of Motorola's technology tutorial filed
with the Court. Motorola is in the process of reviewing its documents and, subject to all
of its objections, will produce non-privileged documents responsive to RFP No. 23.
3. RFP No. 47 seeks information on all “documents and things concerning Your pleadings,”
while RFP No. 48 request the production of all “documents and things concerning Your
responses to Apple’s Interrogatories.” Both of these RFPs were properly objected to as
overly broad, unduly burdensome, and as seeking the disclosure of information protected
under the attorney client privilege and/or the doctrine of attorney work product.
Nevertheless, Motorola remains willing to meet and confer with Apple to delineate the
proper scope and boundaries of these RFPs in order to allow the parties to proceed with
discovery.
4. RFP No. 49 requests the production of “[a]ll documents and things concerning the
assignment or ownership of the Motorola Mobility Patents-in-Suit,” information that
Motorola has already produced en masse in this litigation and/or other litigations between
Motorola and Apple. Motorola is, however, in the process of reviewing its documents
and, subject to all of its objections, will supplement its production with non-privileged
documents responsive to RFP No. 49.
Second, Apple takes exception to Motorola’s inability to decipher certain Apple RFPs and
demands that Motorola “clarify [its] understanding and identify what questions [it]
ha[s]…concerning scope.” But it is not Motorola’s burden to rephrase Apple’s discovery
requests so as to render them comprehensible. Moreover, Motorola has made it very clear in its
responses that it would produce relevant responsive documents to the extent it was able to
understand the requests. If Apple deems Motorola's efforts to be insufficient, it should
reconsider its rejection (in subsection A(4) of its October 31 letter) of Motorola’s proposal to
meet and confer in order to narrow its unduly broad discovery requests.
Third, Apple challenges Motorola's contention that many of Apple's requests for production were
premature when first propounded in this case. But Motorola’s responses made it very clear that
it would produce relevant, non-privileged responsive documents at an appropriate time.
Motorola has done, and continues to do, just that. Motorola is in the process of reviewing its
documents and will continue to produce non-privileged, relevant documents on a rolling basis.
Specifically, Motorola intends to produce, subject to its objections, non-privileged documents
responsive to RFPs 11, 18 (for the aforementioned representative products that Motorola has
identified), 19 (for those same representative products), and 25-26.
Fourth, Motorola's interrogatory responses expressly and properly reserved the right to continue
to supplement these interrogatories in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule
26(e) and the Court-ordered schedule. In any event, Motorola continues to review the subject
matter of these requests and will supplement its interrogatory responses with non-privileged,
responsive and relevant information as appropriate. In particular, Motorola will, subject to all of
its objections, supplement its responses to Apple's interrogatories as needed, including
Interrogatories Nos. 3, 7, 8, and 12-15. We likely will not be able to do so by Apple's unilateral
November 11 deadline.
2

Finally, Motorola notes that Apple owes Motorola responses to similar interrogatories, including
Motorola Interrogatory No. 8, which seeks information on embodiments of the asserted Apple
patents (which Apple only partially answered, with a promise to supplement) and No. 11, which
seeks information on the first sale, use and manufacture of the alleged inventions disclosed in the
Apple patents (for which Apple provided no substantive response). Motorola requests that Apple
update its own answers to Motorola’s interrogatories to reflect any and all information that Apple
has collected during discovery.
Very truly yours,
/s/
David Perlson

3