Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 361

MOTION to Amend/Correct (84 in 1:12-cv-20271-RNS) Scheduling Order,,, MEMORANDUM OF LAW AND MOTION TO AMEND THE PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE by Apple Inc.. Responses due by 10/29/2012 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 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)Associated Cases: 1:12-cv-20271-RNS, 1:10-cv-23580-RNS(Pace, Christopher)

EXHIBIT 6

From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Vlasis, Robert
Wednesday, August 15, 2012 3:12 PM
Marshall Searcy
Schmidt, Jill; Moto-Apple-SDFL; Weil_TLG Apple Moto FL External
Re: Apple/Motorola (FL): meet and confer

Marshall, 

As we explained during the meet-and-confer, the deadline for exchanging contentions should
be coordinated with the deadline for adding new products to the case to avoid continual
supplementation of contentions for new products through the 2014 trial, which would
otherwise make trial preparations impractical, unreasonably enlarge the ongoing litigation
between the parties, and unduly burden the parties' witnesses. While Apple agrees to
provide discovery on future products, this agreement must have some reasonable
boundary. Indeed, we cannot continue to have Apple's engineers re-deposed for each new
product and software release, nor is it reasonable for this litigation to continue broadening up
through trial.  
For this reason, we suggest pushing the contentions deadline by at least two months so that
Motorola can add the next generation iPhone and Apple can add new Motorola products
released between now and the extended deadline. Thus, we suggest making the
infringement contentions due on November 7 and invalidity contentions due on December
5. With these dates, we suggest October 8 as the deadline for adding new products to the
case, with documents pertaining to such new products produced by October 15. 

Please let us know if we can agree to these dates.  

Best regards, 
Robert 

On Aug 14, 2012, at 7:52 PM, "Marshall Searcy" <[e-mail]> wrote: 
Jill and Mark, 

Just to follow up on our conversation from last Thursday, because both Apple and Motorola have 
products scheduled for release after the September 7 date for infringement contentions, Apple 
proposed that the parties could potentially agree to extend that date (and possibly others).  Motorola is 
willing to consider such an extension; however, we do not agree that it is proper to lock in the parties to 
only those products identified in infringement contentions, to the exclusion of all products released later 
in the case.  Accordingly, while Motorola is willing to discuss an extension to the contention date, it will 
do so only on the condition that Apple will not argue that any agreement the parties might reach is a 
basis for preventing Motorola from supplementing its infringement contentions in the future.   

To the extent that Apple has any proposal for extending the contention dates, please forward it to me so 
that we may continue our discussions. 

Best regards,  
Marshall 
1

From: Schmidt, Jill [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 8:36 AM
To: Marshall Searcy; Moto-Apple-SDFL
Cc: Weil_TLG Apple Moto FL External
Subject: Re: Apple/Motorola (FL): meet and confer 

Hi Marshall, 

11am PT tomorrow is fine. Please circulate a dial‐in.  

Thanks, 
Jill

From: Marshall Searcy [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 06:33 PM
To: Schmidt, Jill; Moto-Apple-SDFL <[e-mail]>
Cc: Weil_TLG Apple Moto FL External
Subject: RE: Apple/Motorola (FL): meet and confer

Hi Jill, 
I’m available on Thursday at 11 a.m. In connection with this subject, it has been widely reported that
Apple will be announcing the iPhone 5 on September 12, 2012. Infringement contentions are
presently due September 7. Please confirm that Apple will promptly provide documents concerning
the iPhone 5 including technical specifications, design documents and instruction manuals, well in
advance of September 7.  

In addition, please let me know when we can expect Apple’s document production this week. 

Best regards, 
Marshall 

From: Schmidt, Jill [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 2:22 PM
To: Marshall Searcy; Moto-Apple-SDFL
Cc: Weil_TLG Apple Moto FL External
Subject: RE: Apple/Motorola (FL): meet and confer 

Hi Marshall, 

Further to my email below, this is the language we propose for our agreement regarding unreleased 
products: 

Plaintiff/Counterclaim‐Defendant Motorola Mobility, Inc. (“Motorola”) and Defendant/Counterclaim‐
Plaintiff Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) hereby stipulate that discovery regarding unreleased products in the 
above‐captioned litigation shall be limited to products that will be announced prior to XXX. 

Let’s schedule a call for later this week to discuss a mutually agreeable cutoff date. 

Best regards, 
Jill 

2

From: Schmidt, Jill
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 8:01 PM
To: 'Marshall Searcy'; Moto-Apple-SDFL ([e-mail])
Cc: Weil_TLG Apple Moto FL External
Subject: Apple/Motorola (FL): meet and confer 

Hi Marshall, 

I write to memorialize our meet and confer from earlier today.  With respect to document production, 
we agreed that Apple will produce its documents as OCR’ed pdfs and Motorola will produce its 
documents as single‐page TIFFs, but both sides will simply keep their copies of documents produced in 
the FL‐1 action rather than re‐producing everything again.  Since Motorola did not previously specify 
which documents it produced for the FL‐1 action with a different prefix, please identify those 
documents by Bates range.  As for metadata fields, Apple would prefer to stick with the same fields as 
the other Apple/Motorola cases if HTC is no longer involved.  With respect to documents produced in 
other Apple/Motorola cases, Apple is amenable to extending our cross‐use agreement.  You are double‐
checking with your team and will get back to me with any objections. 

With regard to discovery limits, we agreed that the following limits would apply to the consolidated FL 
cases, with the understanding that either party may serve discovery (within these limits) that pertain to 
patents asserted in the FL‐1 action as well as the FL‐2 action: 
 30 Interrogatories 
 125 RFPs 
 100 RFAs 
 90 hours of deposition for fact/30(b)(6) witnesses (experts or third‐party witnesses do not 
count towards this limit) 

As for our agreement regarding unreleased products, we agreed that we likely need to craft a new 
agreement for the consolidated FL cases since my recollection was that our previously agreed cutoff 
date was the 745 trial and both Apple and Motorola have already accused products released since that 
date.  

Finally, on financial data, we agreed in principle that an exchange of representative or summary data 
would be more efficient for both sides.  We agreed to check with our respective teams to see what 
exchange was made in the NDIL case, so we can use that as a starting point for further discussions. 

Please let me know if scheduling another call for early next week would be useful. 

Best regards, 
Jill 
<image001.jpg> 

Jill Schmidt (née Ho)

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
201 Redwood Shores Parkway
Redwood Shores, CA 94065-1134
[e-mail]
[phone] Direct
[phone] Fax 

3

From: Marshall Searcy [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 10:21 AM
To: Schmidt, Jill
Subject: conference call number 

Hi Jill,  
Here’s the number for today 

866-939-8416 
Passcode: 518165 

Speak to you at 11. 

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, [e-mail], and destroy the original message. Thank you. 

4