Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 342

RESPONSE to Motion re 333 Plaintiff's MOTION to Enforce Order Compelling Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Testimony from Apple and Accompanying Memorandum of Law in Support Apple's Response to Motorola's Motion to Enforce Order Compelling Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Testimony From Apple filed by Apple, Inc.. Replies due by 5/11/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Christine Saunders Haskett, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6)(Pace, Christopher)

EXHIBIT 6

From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Haskett, Christine
Friday, April 20, 2012 9:59 AM
Greg Bonifield
AppleCov; Apple Moto Weil; Moto-Apple-SDFL
RE: Motorola v. Apple (FL)

Greg,
We had understood, based on Marshall’s April 10 email and other meet and confer
discussions, that it was Motorola’s position that certain claims from the Florida II case should
be consolidated into the Florida I case and that the Florida I discovery cutoff should be
extended. As you know from our recently-filed motion, it is our position that the two cases
should be consolidated in their entirety, also with an extension of the schedule. I am
therefore surprised that you are insisting that Florida I discovery be completed by May 4. Is it
no longer Motorola’s position that certain claims from Florida II should be consolidated into
Florida I?
Regardless, we will not provide witnesses for deposition twice on the same
subjects. Therefore, if you insist on proceeding now with these depositions, we will not
provide witnesses on these topics again, either in Florida I or Florida II. Please confirm that
you nonetheless wish to proceed with the depositions now, and I will check into whether the
engineers are available.
Christine
From: Greg Bonifield [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 2:21 PM
To: Haskett, Christine
Cc: AppleCov; Apple Moto Weil; Moto-Apple-SDFL
Subject: RE: Motorola v. Apple (FL)

Christine,
Your email states that “it appears that the parties are at least in agreement that the current deadlines are going
to need to get extended.” It is not clear to us what agreement you are referring to. Under the extension
Motorola agreed to, which the Court has already entered, the close of fact discovery is May 4. We need to
schedule the depositions so that they take place prior to that date.
There is no reason counsel cannot find time for these depositions. Indeed, Apple continues to schedule
depositions that it wants to take for dates before May 4, including multiple depositions of Rovi
employees. Apple also will have had more than enough time to schedule depositions around any scheduling
conflicts for the engineers that Apple decides to designate to testify regarding the Rule 30(b)(6) topics at
issue. That is particularly true considering that the Court initially gave Apple just ten days to schedule those
1

depositions. We agreed to allow the depositions to be scheduled after that time, but there was no suggestion
on Apple’s part that it would try to schedule the depositions after the May 4 close of discovery, and we would
not have agreed to such a delay.
Thus, please provide dates for the 30(b)(6) depositions prior to May 4, and please provide those dates to us
immediately. If Apple refuses to do so, we will seek relief from the Court.
Regards,
Greg

From: Haskett, Christine [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 12:32 PM
To: Greg Bonifield
Cc: AppleCov; Apple Moto Weil; Moto-Apple-SDFL
Subject: RE: Motorola v. Apple (FL)

Greg,
Notwithstanding the disagreements between the parties over various case scheduling
issues, it appears that the parties are at least in agreement that the current deadlines
are going to need to get extended. Given the schedules of the engineers, combined
with the level of activity in the Illinois case, we are going to need to schedule these
depositions for dates after May 4. I suggest that we wait to see how the scheduling
issues are resolved, at which time we will work with you to schedule dates for the
depositions.
Christine
From: Greg Bonifield [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 8:38 AM
To: Haskett, Christine
Cc: AppleCov; Apple Moto Weil; Moto-Apple-SDFL
Subject: Motorola v. Apple (FL)

Christine,
We still have not heard back from you in response to my email of Monday, April 16, or Matt Korhonen’s
email of yesterday morning, April 17, regarding the scheduling of 30(b)(6) witnesses. I have attached
that correspondence for your convenience. As discussed in those emails, we have had conversations
with you about these depositions previously. The Court ordered Apple to provide 30(b)(6) witnesses on
the email notification function for iOS 5 and on the source code for the webmail functionality for
MobileMe. In addition, based on Apple’s earlier agreement, because the Court compelled Apple to
provide a 30(b)(6) witness on email notifications, it also now needs to provide a witness on notifications
(or “alerts”) on Apple’s iOS devices for text messages. Accordingly, please let me know by the end of
today about the scheduling of these depositions or we will plan to move the court for relief at the end of
this week.

2

Regards,
Greg

3