Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.
Filing
249
NOTICE by Apple, Inc. of Filing of Exhibits to Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff Apple Inc.'s Motion to Compel Motorola to Provide Timely Depositions Concerning The Accused Set-Top Boxes (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit S, # 19 Exhibit T, # 20 Exhibit U, # 21 Exhibit V, # 22 Exhibit W, # 23 Exhibit X, # 24 Exhibit Y)(Pace, Christopher)
EXHIBIT O
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Matt Korhonen
Thursday, February 16, 2012 9:34 PM
Schmidt, Jill; Greg Bonifield; Amanda Williamson
Moto-Apple-SDFL; Weil_TLG Apple Moto FL External; AppleCov@cov.com
RE: Apple/Motorola (FL): 30(b)(6) topics - Motorola's designations
Hi Jill,
Motorola does not see why Apple needs to depose the six individual witnesses listed below. Motorola has designated a
witness for the 30(b)(6) topics that Apple propounded seeking information regarding the accused set top boxes. Those
30(b)(6) topics should be sufficient. For each of these individual witnesses, please explain why Apple needs the
witness’s testimony in addition to the 30(b)(6) testimony.
Also, please be advised that Motorola stands on its objections to Topic Nos. 36 and 37 and will not be producing
witnesses for those topics.
Best,
Matt
From: Schmidt, Jill [mailto:jill.schmidt@weil.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 8:08 AM
To: Greg Bonifield; Amanda Williamson; Matt Korhonen
Cc: Moto-Apple-SDFL; Weil_TLG Apple Moto FL External; AppleCov@cov.com
Subject: RE: Apple/Motorola (FL): 30(b)(6) topics - Motorola's designations
Hi Greg,
To date, Motorola has offered only one additional 30(b)(6) witness in the FL case. Please confirm that you are still
planning to provide dates for the remainder of Motorola's designated witnesses and at least some of Motorola's
individual witnesses by tomorrow.
Thanks,
Jill
From: Schmidt, Jill
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 1:51 PM
To: 'Greg Bonifield'; 'Amanda Williamson'; Matt Korhonen (mattkorhonen@quinnemanuel.com)
Cc: 'Moto-Apple-SDFL'; Weil_TLG Apple Moto FL External; 'AppleCov@cov.com'
Subject: RE: Apple/Motorola (FL): 30(b)(6) topics - Motorola's designations
Hi Greg / Amanda / Matt,
Thanks for meeting and conferring with us today. I write to memorialize our discussion. You said you have several
individuals in mind for Topics 1‐5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 17, and 23‐27, but you are in the process of confirming their availability
and will provide deposition dates either later today or tomorrow. For Topics 30, 33, 34, 36, 37 and 71, you said you
would provide deposition dates for Motorola's designated witnesses by Friday, February 17.
You confirmed that Mr. Schladt will be adequately prepared on Topics 59, 60, and 62.
With regard to Chuck Supinski, Joe Murray, Mike DiFiglia, Lou Fodor, Nathan Mengel, and Scott Sellers, you said you
were still checking on their availability. As for the individuals listed in Motorola's initial disclosures, I repeated Apple's
1
request that you confirm as soon as possible whether Motorola intends to call those individuals at trial. Per our prior
agreement, we expect Motorola to make available for deposition any individual who may be called at trial. You were
unwilling to commit to providing dates for these individual depositions by Friday. Please confirm whether you will be in
a position to offer at least some of these dates by Friday and the rest by Wednesday, February 22. Given the quickly
approaching fact discovery deadline, any further delay in scheduling unfairly prejudices Apple.
Please let me know if I have misunderstood any aspect of our conversation.
Best regards,
Jill
From: Greg Bonifield [mailto:gregbonifield@quinnemanuel.com]
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 5:28 PM
To: Schmidt, Jill; Amanda Williamson
Cc: Moto-Apple-SDFL; Weil_TLG Apple Moto FL External; AppleCov@cov.com
Subject: RE: Apple/Motorola (FL): 30(b)(6) topics - Motorola's designations
Jill,
Amanda and I can meet and confer at noon Pacific tomorrow.
Regards,
Greg
From: Schmidt, Jill [mailto:jill.schmidt@weil.com]
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 7:51 PM
To: Greg Bonifield; Amanda Williamson
Cc: Moto-Apple-SDFL; Weil_TLG Apple Moto FL External; AppleCov@cov.com
Subject: RE: Apple/Motorola (FL): 30(b)(6) topics - Motorola's designations
Hi Greg,
When our teams met and conferred last Wednesday, February 8, Amanda asked (again) whether we would be ready to
exchange designations by Friday, February 10. I confirmed that Apple was planning to do so for both the IL & FL cases,
with the understanding that the exchange was going to be mutual. Indeed, as you state below, you were the one who
initially suggested a mutual exchange by that date.
We continue to believe the parties can resolve this dispute amicably, but we need a date certain by which Motorola will
complete its 30(b)(6) designations. These include witnesses and deposition dates for Topics 1‐5, 7, 17, 23‐27, 30, 33‐34,
36, 37, and 71. I called Amanda earlier this afternoon in an attempt to continue our meet and confer process, but she
said she would have to call me back. I am generally available the rest of today and tomorrow. Please let me know when
you are available to meet and confer.
Finally, we accept the March 7 date for Mr. Schladt. Given Mr. Schladt's testimony from the 745 case that his work with
mobile phones at Motorola has been limited to an administrative role as program manager, please confirm that you will
be preparing him to testify regarding Topics 59, 60, and 62 at the level of particular source code functions, as opposed to
a high‐level description of the accused functionalities.
Best regards,
Jill
From: Greg Bonifield [mailto:gregbonifield@quinnemanuel.com]
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 3:19 PM
2
To: Schmidt, Jill; Amanda Williamson
Cc: Moto-Apple-SDFL; Weil_TLG Apple Moto FL External; AppleCov@cov.com
Subject: RE: Apple/Motorola (FL): 30(b)(6) topics - Motorola's designations
Jill,
Your threat to move to compel is unwarranted. We have recently designated a number of witnesses in response to
Apple’s 30(b)(6) topics, and we are continuing to identify witnesses and will designate additional ones over the next few
days. Your claim that we made representations regarding designating witnesses on last Friday, February 10, is
wrong. During our call on February 3, I suggested the idea of the parties agreeing to a mutual exchange of witness
designations by that date. However, you indicated that Apple could not agree to such an arrangement on that
call. There was never any agreement with respect to designating witnesses by last Friday. In any event, we will continue
to provide you with witness designations as soon as possible.
As for the individual witnesses, we are working with them to determine their availability, and will let you know their
availability shortly as well.
With respect to the deposition of Greg Schladt, he is not available to be deposed prior to March 7.
Regards,
Greg
From: Schmidt, Jill [mailto:jill.schmidt@weil.com]
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 3:12 PM
To: Greg Bonifield; Amanda Williamson
Cc: Moto-Apple-SDFL; Weil_TLG Apple Moto FL External; AppleCov@cov.com
Subject: RE: Apple/Motorola (FL): 30(b)(6) topics - Motorola's designations
Hi Greg / Amanda,
Please designate your remaining 30(b)(6) witnesses by COB today or we are moving to compel. In addition, please
provide deposition dates for the individuals we requested and let us know if Mr. Schladt is available any earlier than
March 7.
Best regards,
Jill
_____________________________________________
From: Schmidt, Jill
Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2012 11:37 AM
To: 'Greg Bonifield'; Amanda Williamson (amandawilliamson@quinnemanuel.com)
Cc: 'Moto-Apple-SDFL'; Weil_TLG Apple Moto FL External; 'AppleCov@cov.com'
Subject: RE: Apple/Motorola (FL): 30(b)(6) topics - Apple's designations
Hi Greg / Amanda,
Contrary to your representations during meet and confer, Motorola did not designate any of its outstanding 30(b)(6)
witnesses in the FL case yesterday. Please confirm that Motorola will do so first thing on Monday or let me know when
you are available to meet and confer.
Best regards,
Jill
3
_____________________________________________
From: Schmidt, Jill
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 4:30 PM
To: 'Greg Bonifield'; Amanda Williamson (amandawilliamson@quinnemanuel.com)
Cc: 'Moto-Apple-SDFL'; Weil_TLG Apple Moto FL External; 'AppleCov@cov.com'
Subject: Apple/Motorola (FL): 30(b)(6) topics - Apple's designations
Hi Greg / Amanda,
Apple hereby designates the following 30(b)(6) witnesses.
Jason Skinder will be Apple's designee for Topic 1. He is available for deposition on February 24.
Boris Teksler will be Apple's designee for Topics 21‐26, 36, 38, 48‐50, 52, 83, and 90. He is available for deposition on
February 17. We are designating prior testimony from Boris Teksler (745 & 750) and Chip Lutton (745 & 750) for Topic
47.
Mark Buckley will be Apple's designee for Topics 78‐79 & Topics 101‐102. He is available for deposition on February 17.
Stan Ng will be Apple's designee for Topics 55 (to the extent we understand what Motorola means by
"commercialization"), 56 (subject to the caveats discussed during meet and confer), 57, 80, & 103‐104, excluding
subcomponents of the accused Apple products. He is available for deposition on February 17, starting at 8am.
In addition to FL topics 2‐4 (as limited to conception/reduction to practice), Fabrice Florin will be Apple's designee for
Topics 8, 9 , 11, 16, and 17, all limited to the '509/'560/'456 patents.
We are not designating any witnesses for the remainder of Motorola's Topic 12 because, as stated during our meet and
confer, we believe the portion pertaining to prior art to the Apple asserted patents about which Apple has knowledge
was withdrawn (in exchange for Apple's Topic 29 relating to prior art to the Motorola patents‐in‐suit about which
Motorola has knowledge) and there is no Apple prior art asserted against the '509/'560/'456 patents.
We maintain our objections to Topics 41‐42, 44 & 51 on the basis that it calls for expert testimony.
We decline to designate a witness for Topic 40 and note that Motorola has refused to designate a witness for Apple's
Topic 36.
We maintain our objections to Topic 54 on the basis that the method of manufacture of Apple's accused products and
subcomponents is not relevant to any of the issues and, with respect to subcomponents obtained from third‐party
vendors, Apple is not in possession of that knowledge.
We maintain our objections to Topics 71‐74 & 76‐77 on the basis that these topics remain overly broad and unduly
burdensome, even if limited to a representative version of source code. We have produced Apple's source code and
designated witnesses for Topic 75. Motorola can question those witnesses on the accused functionalities.
Apple's objections to Motorola's 3rd 30(b)(6) notice are not yet due. We will serve our objections and identify additional
designations, if any, in due course. We believe all other topics in Motorola's 30(b)(6) notices have been withdrawn or
otherwise accounted for. Please let me know if you disagree.
Please confirm that the deposition dates we offered above work for your team.
Best regards,
4
Jill
<< OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) >>
Jill Schmidt (née Ho)
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
201 Redwood Shores Parkway
Redwood Shores, CA 94065-1134
jill.schmidt@weil.com
+1 650 802 3163 Direct
+1 650 802 3100 Fax
The information contained in this email message is intended only for use of the individual or entity named above. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by email, postmaster@weil.com,
and destroy the original message. Thank you.
5
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?