Eight Mile Style, LLC et al v. Apple Computer, Incorporated

Filing 108

Amended MOTION to Strike 79 Statement, 74 Response to Motion,,,,,,,,,,,,, by Aftermath Records, Apple Computer, Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits to Corrected Motion to Strike, # 2 Exhibit Declaration of Melinda LeMoine, # 3 Exhibit 1-A Excerpts from Deposition of Patrick Sullivan, # 4 Exhibit 1-B E-Mail from DeSalvo to Sullivan dated Aug. 27, 2008, # 5 Exhibit 1-C Email from DeSalvo to Sullivan dated August 20, # 6 Exhibit 1-D Eight Mile Style's Responses to First Set of Interrogatories, # 7 Exhibit 1-E Martin Affiliated's Responses to First Set of Interrogatories, # 8 Exhibit 1-F Eight Mile Style's Responses to First Set of RFPs, # 9 Exhibit 1-G Martin Affiliated's Responses to First Set of RFPs, # 10 Exhibit 1-H Eight Mile Style's Responses to Second Set of RFPs, # 11 Exhibit 1-I Martin Affiliated'd Responses to Second Set of RFPs, # 12 Exhibit 1-J Eight Mile Style's Responses to Second Set of Interrogatories, # 13 Exhibit 1-K Martin Affiliated's Responses to Second Set of Interrogatories, # 14 Exhibit 2 - Anderson v. United States) (Lemoine, Melinda)

Eight Mile Style, LLC et al. v. Apple Computer Inc., et al. Case No. 2:07-CV-13164

EXHIBIT 1-J Plaintiff Eight Mile Style, LLC's Responses to Defendants' Second Set of Interrogatories, dated August 8, 2008

5005843.1

E

H

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION EIGHT MILE STYLE, LLC and MARTIN AFFILIATED, LLC, Plaintiffs, vs. APPLE COMPUTER, INC. and AFTERMATH RECORDS dlbla AFTERMATH ENTERTAINMENT, Defendants. Howard Hertz (P26653) Hertz Schram PC 1760 South Telegraph Road, #300 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 [phone] [e-mail] Richard S. Busch (TN BPR#14594) King & Ballow 1100 Union Street Plaza 315 Union Street Nashville, TN 37201 [phone] [e-mail] Attorney for Plaintiffs PLAINTIFF EIGHT MILE STYLE, LLC'S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS' SECOND SET OF INTEROGATORIES Plaintiff Eight Mile Style, LLC ("Eight Mile") provides the following objections and responses to the Second Set of Interrogatories ("Interrogatories") propounded by Defendants Apple Inc. (named as Apple Computer, Inc.) and Aftermath Records dlb/a Aftermath Entertainment. GENERAL OBJECTIONS The following General Objections apply to and are incorporated in each and every response to each and every Interrogatory, whether or not such General Objections are expressly incorporated by reference in such response. 1. ight Mile objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they collectively or Case No. 2:07-cv-13164 on. Anna Diggs Taylor Magistrate Judge Donald A. Scheer

E

individually seek information subject to or protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product privilege or any other privilege or protection from disclosure. Eight Mile hereby invokes all such privileges to the extent implicated by each Interrogatory and excludes privileged and protected information from its responses to the Interrogatories. Any disclosure of information protected by those privileges is inadvertent, and is not intended to waive any privilege or protection. 2. Eight Mile objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they purport to impose on

Eight Mile any obligation that is different from or greater than any imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, or any other applicable law or rule. 3. Eight Mile objects to the Interrogatories as duplicative, unduly burdensome, and

harassing to the extent they seek information that is equally available to Defendants, or information that could be derived or ascertained by Defendants with substantially the same effort that would be required of fight Mile from review of the documents produced in this case. 4. ight Mile objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they seek information that is

not in Eight Mile's possession, custody, or control, or that is publicly available. 5. In responding to the Interrogatories, Eight Mile does not waive, or intend to

waive, any privilege or objection, including, but not limited to, any objections to the competency, relevance, materiality, or admissibility of any of the information disclosed in response to the Interrogatories. No objection or response made in these responses and objections shall be deemed to constitute a representation by light Mile as to the existence or non-existence of the information requested. 6. ight Mile objects to the Interrogatories as vague, ambiguous, overly broad and

2

unduly burdensome to the extent any Interrogatory requires Eight Mile to provide information that is different from or at a different time than as required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2). 7. Eight Mile objects to the Interrogatories as vague, ambiguous, overly broad and

unduly burdensome to the extent any Interrogatory commands or requires Eight Mile to provide responses or documents in any manner or to any extent that is different that the scope provided by Rules 33 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATORY NO. 22: List all employees, re