Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 320

RESPONSE/REPLY to 292 Response/Reply (Other) Apple's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatory Nos. 19-22 by Motorola Mobility, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of John Duchemin in Support of Surreply, # 2 Exhibit 1- Filed Under Seal)(Herrera, Sujey)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 1:10cv023580-Civ-RNS-TEB

MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

APPLE INC.,
Defendant.

APPLE INC.,
Counterclaim Plaintiff,
v.
MOTOROLA, INC. and
MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC.,
Counterclaim Defendants.

MOTOROLA’S SURREPLY REGARDING APPLE’S MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORY NOS. 19-22

CASE NO. 1:10cv023580-Civ-RNS-TEB
INTRODUCTION
In its reply brief, Apple for the first time raises new arguments concerning Motorola’s
Second Supplemental Responses, none of which have merit. Apple seeks information beyond
what is called for in the interrogatories and beyond what Apple expressly agreed would be
appropriate for discovery. See Ho Decl. Ex. E at 2-3 (J. Lang e-mail). Accordingly, Apple’s
new arguments should be rejected and its motion to compel1 should be denied.
ARGUMENT
1. None of the new information Apple seeks is required for a response to Interrogatory
Nos. 19-22, and Apple never sought it from Motorola until after filing the Motion.
Interrogatory No. 19: Apple does not dispute that, in response to Interrogatory No. 19,
Motorola now has provided extensive descriptions of its commercial relationships with cable
providers, including (1) two lists, totaling 13 pages, of hundreds of customers, (2) narrative
descriptions summarizing the commercial relationships between Motorola and each of those
customers, and (3) an extensive description, running 21 pages, of the commercial relationships of
Motorola's largest customers, which collectively total more than 85 percent of Motorola's sales
regarding the accused set-top boxes.
Nonetheless, Apple in its reply tells the Court that Motorola should provide such detailed
descriptions for the other 15 percent of its customers, no matter how small they are—even
though Motorola already did provide a brief description of its relationships with each one of its
customers—as well as further information on "training provided to cable providers," a
"description of the documentation" of software kits provided to customers, and "historical
information on IPGs used by each cable provider." (Reply at 2-3.) But Apple’s assertion is
1

Apple's Motion to Compel was filed under seal on March 26, 2012. Motorola's
response was filed on April 2. Apple's reply was filed under seal on April 5.

2

CASE NO. 1:10cv023580-Civ-RNS-TEB
contrary to its specific representation, made during the meet and confer process, that it was only
seeking descriptions of:
for each cable provider (or representative groupings): (a) the installation of IPGs
on Motorola STBs and the respective roles (e.g., Motorola itself installs the IPG
on the DACs, provides a download on its server, etc.); (b) testing of the cable
provider's STBs with IPGs before deployment (e.g., validation before
deployment); (c) assistance in resolving IPG issues for the cable providers; and
(d) service, maintenance, and support (e.g., post-deployment support of
Motorola's STBs). (Ho Decl. Ex. E at 2-3.)
Just as Apple asked, Motorola has provided this information for a representative grouping
comprising Motorola's largest set-top customers.

Further, Interrogatory No. 19 does not

mention—as Apple now seems to contend—"training," "documentation," or "IPGs," but rather
"relationships." Motorola has sufficiently described, in narrative form, each such relationship.
Interrogatory No. 20: In accordance with its agreement with Apple, Motorola was to
"confirm that the IPGs identified in certain produced documents were all tested by Motorola."
(Ho Decl. Ex. E at 3.) Motorola did so in its Second Supplemental Responses. Duchemin Decl.
Ex. 4 at 28 ("each of the listed versions of IPG were used in the testing of one or more of the
accused set-top platforms").

Now, Apple demands information on remote controls; "an

explanation of the spreadsheets related to the IPGs installed on the accused STBs;" and
identification of which IPGs Motorola has used at tradeshows. (Reply at 3-4.) Again, this is not
information that Apple had previously requested be included in the Second Supplemental
Response to Interrogatory No. 20. (Ho Decl. Ex. E at 2-3.) Nor does the interrogatory text call
for an explanation of any spreadsheets or information on tradeshows.
Even more egregiously, Apple asserts that "one of the accused products is a remote
control." (Reply at 3.) This is false. All of the accused products are set-top boxes. See

3

CASE NO. 1:10cv023580-Civ-RNS-TEB
Declaration of John Duchemin in Support of Motorola's Surreply ("Duchemin Surreply Decl.")
at ¶1 and Ex. 1.
Interrogatory No. 21: As for Interrogatory No. 21, Apple in its reply has no specific
complaints about Motorola's Second Supplemental Response to this interrogatory, and offers no
explanation for why it continues to press a motion to compel further supplemental responses to
that interrogatory.
Interrogatory No. 22: Motorola had agreed to, and did, identify the APIs that a thirdparty programming guide would typically access. Apple now demands in its reply that Motorola
identify "which hardware and firmware…were designed or modified at the request of the IPG
makers," and "identify the APIs that IPG makers requested Motorola's assistance with
implementing or using IPGs." (Reply at 4-5.) Again, this is far beyond what Interrogatory No.
22 calls for. That interrogatory merely calls on Motorola to identify various components that
"implement[], support[], or provide[] interactive programming guide functions." (Declaration of
John Duchemin in Support of Motorola's Opposition to Apple's Motion to Compel ("Duchemin
Opposition Decl.") Ex. 1 at 4.) Apple’s assertion that Motorola should be obligated to provide
more information simply has no basis in the text of the interrogatory.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, Apple's additional arguments presented for the first time in its reply
brief are without merit. Apple's motion to compel supplemental interrogatory responses should
be denied.

4

CASE NO. 1:10cv023580-Civ-RNS-TEB
Dated: April 9, 2012

Respectfully submitted,
MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC.
By:
/s/ Edward M. Mullins

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
& SULLIVAN, LLP
Edward J. DeFranco*
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, NY 10010
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Edward M. Mullins (Fla. Bar No. 863920)
Astigarraga Davis Mullins & Grossman, P.A.
701 Brickell Avenue, 16th Floor
Miami, Florida 33131
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim
Defendants

David A. Nelson*
500 West Madison St., Suite 2450
Chicago, IL 60661
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Charles K. Verhoeven*
David Perlson*
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
*Admitted pro hac vice

5

CASE NO. 1:10cv023580-Civ-RNS-TEB
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on April 9, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing
document with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF filing system. I also certify that the
foregoing document is being served this date on all counsel of record or pro se parties on the
Service List below in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic
Filing generated by the CM/ECF system or; in some other authorized manner for those counsel
or parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing.

/s/ Edward M. Mullins___________________
Edward M. Mullins (Fla. Bar No. 863920)

SERVICE LIST
Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.
Case No.: 1:10-CV-23580-RNS
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
Samuel F. Ernst*
[e-mail]
Christine Saunders Haskett*
[e-mail]
Robert D. Fram*
[e-mail]
Chris Martiniak*
[e-mail]
Winslow B. Taub*
[e-mail]
R. Anthony Lopez*
[e-mail]
Covington & Burling LLP
One Front Street
San Francisco, California 94111-5356
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

Christopher R.J. Pace
[e-mail]
Edward Soto
[e-mail]
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1200
Miami, Florida 33131
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Jill J. Schmidt*
[e-mail]
Anne M. Cappella*
[e-mail]
Brian C. Chang*
[e-mail]
Arjun Mehra*
[e-mail]
Jeremy Jason Lang*
[e-mail]
Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP
201 Redwood Shores Parkway
Redwood Shores, California 94065-1134
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

Robert T. Haslam*
[e-mail]
Anupam Sharma*
[e-mail]
Covington & Burling LLP
333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700
Redwood Shores, California 94065
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

6

CASE NO. 1:10cv023580-Civ-RNS-TEB
Elena M. DiMuzio*
[e-mail]
Covington & Burling LLP
One Front Street
San Francisco, California 94111
Tel.: [phone] / Fax: [phone]

Mark G. Davis*
[e-mail]
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
1300 Eye Street, NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

Christopher K. Eppich*
[e-mail]
Covington & Burling LLP
9191 Towne Centre Drive, 6th Floor
San Diego, California 92122
Tel.: [phone] / Fax: [phone]
Matthew D. Powers*
[e-mail]
Steven S. Cherensky*
[e-mail]
Azra Hadzimehmedovic
[e-mail]
Tensegrity Law Group LLP
201 Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite 401
Redwood Shores, California
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

*Admitted pro hac vice
Electronically served via CM/ECF

7