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 V
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Schmidt, Jill
Saturday, February 25, 2012 2:35 PM
Matt Korhonen
Moto-Apple-SDFL; AppleCov; Apple Moto Weil
RE: Motorola v. Apple
Hi Matt,
Nothing in the attached message suggests that Apple agreed that Motorola's designation of prior testimony for Topic 10
was sufficient. On the contrary, that February 1 email from me to Amanda Williamson expressly states our position that
Motorola was still obligated to designate a 30(b)(6) witness with regard to any accused Motorola products that were not
at issue in the ITC actions (and therefore not addressed by prior testimony). Moreover, in our subsequent telephone
conversations, we made clear to you and your colleague Ms. Williamson that we were expecting further designations for
Topics 8, 9 and 10. Moreover, your offer to "look into" whether Motorola would be willing to designate Ms. Deardorff
for Topic 10 when we met and conferred yesterday morning at 8:30am PT hardly resolves the issue. As I pointed out on
the call, the deposition of Ms. Deardorff (which happened yesterday in Chicago) had already begun and Motorola's last‐
minute designation was improper. In any event, your characterization of Ms. Deardorff's deposition testimony is
incorrect. Ms. Deardorff was asked only one question that even arguably concerned supplier agreements and the
defending attorney objected on the basis that it was outside the scope of Ms. Deardorff's 30(b)(6) designation. See
Rough Tr. at 81:2‐17. Please designate another witness for Topic 10 promptly. In addition, we are still waiting for
Motorola's designations for Topics 17 and 33. With only three weeks left in the discovery period, Motorola cannot
continue to delay.
On our call yesterday morning, you further represented that Motorola did not intend to call any of the individuals listed
in its initial disclosures as trial witnesses aside from Larry Robinson and Richard Rementilla. I asked you to confirm this
in writing, but you have not yet done so.
Finally, you represented during our meet and confer that it was unnecessary to schedule depositions of the six
individuals requested in my email of January 26‐‐Chuck Supinski, Joe Murray, Mike DiFiglia, Lou Fodor, Nathan Mengel,
and Scott Sellers‐‐because you were planning to designate Mr. Rementilla and Mr. Robinson in addition to Motorola's
designated 30(b)(6) witnesses and we would thereby get all the testimony we needed. You never mentioned that either
witness would be designated in lieu of Mr. Groat or Mr. Prezuhy. While we are amenable to substituting the deposition
of Mr. Mengel for Mr. Rementilla, Apple was fully cooperative in scheduling depositions of individuals requested by
Motorola, including at least Mr. Engber and Mr. Beyers. It is extremely disappointing that Motorola is once again
refusing to do the very thing it demands of Apple. Furthermore, it is extremely prejudicial to Apple for Motorola to
designate Mr. Rementilla as its 30(b)(6) witness on Topics 2, and 56‐58. Apple served its 30(b)(6) notice on June 24,
2011 and specifically requested that Motorola prioritize its designations for Topics 55‐62 on December 9,
2011. Motorola did not designate Mr. Prezuhy until January 20 and, even then, offered a deposition date that was over
a month later, on February 22. Even when we asked you for earlier dates (see my emails of January 20, January 23, and
January 27), you stated that February 22 was the earliest date that would work. On February 17, less than a week
before Mr. Prezuhy's deposition was scheduled to proceed, Motorola rescheduled it for March 1. Now, you are
cancelling his deposition entirely and offering Motorola's 30(b)(6) witness on the accused set‐top boxes for deposition
on the last day of fact discovery and the same day opening expert reports are due. While Apple would have been willing
to defer scheduling of depositions for Mr. Supinski, Mr. Murray, Mr. DiFiglia, Mr. Fodor, and Mr. Sellers until after Mr.
Prezuhy's deposition on March 1, it is no longer feasible to wait until after the 30(b)(6) deposition has occurred.
Motorola's delays and failure to provide witnesses has and continues to prejudice Apple in developing its case. After
many requests and meet and confers requesting documents sufficiently in advance of depositions, depositions of
1
relevant witnesses, and depositions on Apple's 30b6 topics, Motorola's refusal to do so at this late date means we are at
an impasse. Because of Motorola's delays we are now very close to the discovery deadline and opening expert report
deadlines, so Apple is forced to move to compel and seek additional relief from the court as necessary.
Best regards,
Jill
From: Matt Korhonen [mailto:mattkorhonen@quinnemanuel.com]
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 3:38 PM
To: Matt Korhonen; Schmidt, Jill
Cc: Moto-Apple-SDFL; AppleCov; Apple Moto Weil
Subject: RE: Motorola v. Apple
The previous correspondence is attached.
Thanks,
Matt
From: Matt Korhonen
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 1:59 PM
To: Schmidt, Jill
Cc: Moto-Apple-SDFL; AppleCov; Apple Moto Weil
Subject: Motorola v. Apple
Hi Jill,
During our meet and confer this morning, you stated that Motorola had failed to identify a witness for Topic No. 10 as it
relates to the products that Apple accuses of infringing the ‘849, ‘646, and ‘116 Patents. I followed up on this and have
determined that Motorola has already complied with its discovery obligations for Topic No. 10 with regard to those
products. At least as early as February 1, 2012, Motorola designated Ann Deardorff’s prior testimony in satisfaction of
Topics 8‐10. In response, you indicated that previous testimony was insufficient for Topic Nos. 8 and 9, but not Topic 10
(please see the attached). In addition, you failed to object to our designation of Ms. Deardorff’s prior testimony for
Topic No. 10 in any of the subsequent meet and confer calls. Accordingly, we believe that any objections to her
testimony have already been waived. In any event, despite the prior testimony designation, Apple questioned Ms.
Deardorff about supplier agreements again during her deposition today. Motorola’s designations were clear, Ms.
Deardorff’s deposition was today, and we consider this issue resolved.
In addition, Mr. Prezuhy is no longer available for deposition on March 1, 2012. Mr. Richard Rementilla is available on
March 16 and will be testifying in both his individual capacity and on the Topics for which Mr. Prezuhy was previously
designated. Please confirm this date.
Finally, Mr. Larry Robinson is available for deposition in his individual capacity on March 14, 2012. Please confirm this
date as well.
Thanks,
Matthew Korhonen | Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP | 865 S. Figueroa Street, 10th Floor, Los Angeles,
CA 90017
Direct: +1.213.443.3303 | Main Phone: +1.213.443.3000 | Main Fax: +1.213.443.3100 | E-mail:
mattkorhonen@quinnemanuel.com
NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message
may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any
2
review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately
by e-mail, and delete the original message.
3
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?