Eolas Technologies Incorporated v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al

Filing 1126

RESPONSE in Opposition re 1118 Opposed MOTION for Discovery Motion for Leave to Serve Discovery on Apple, Inc., Patrick Heynen and Los Alamos National Laboratory filed by Eolas Technologies Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(McKool, Mike)

EXHIBIT 1

Page 1 of 6
From: John B. Campbell
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2011 2:22 PM
To: Josh Thane
Cc: F&R Group Adobe; Eolas; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Eolas: Notice of Subpoena
Josh,
I appreciate you providing a response on behalf of all defendants.
As you know, Eolas has sought defendants' position on the Apple subpoena (the Patrick Heyden and
LANL subpoenas you've raised for the first time today) for almost one month--since defendants first
served the Apple subpoena without seeking leave of court. Having finally provided defendants'
position, it is unreasonable to request Eolas' position a few hours later--on the Wednesday afternoon
before Thanksgiving. Furthermore, Eolas cannot provide it's position without reviewing the proposed
discovery defendants intend to serve. Eolas believes that Local Rule 7 requires the parties to meet
and confer on this issue. Notably, Local Rule 7 states that "[c]orrespondence, e-mails, and facsimile
transmissions do not constitute compliance with the substantive requirement" of Rule 7. During the
meet and confer, the parties can discuss the proposed discovery and as well as the things required
by Rule 7 for a discovery related motion. I also note that defendants' motion contains certain factual
inaccuracies--we would be happy to discuss these during the meet and confer.
With respect to Eolas' proposed subpoena, please note that the Protective Order requires that a party
destroy or return any protected material 60 days after the dismissal of another party. Eolas has
complied with the Protective Order. Accordingly, Eolas does not have possession of the documents
requested from Apple. Please let us know if this information changes your position.
Happy Thanksgiving,
John
From: Josh Thane [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2011 1:08 PM
To: John B. Campbell
Cc: F&R Group Adobe; Eolas; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Eolas: Notice of Subpoena

John, 

I apologize for the delay, but I wanted to try and provide a response for all defendants to prevent a piecemeal storm of 
emails.  I believe I speak for all of the defendants in saying that we oppose Plaintiffs seeking leave to serve their 
proposed subpoena on Apple.  All of the defendants are copied on this email, so if I have misspoken they can speak up.  
Obviously, Apple produced documents to Eolas during this litigation and Plaintiffs should already have those documents 
in their possession.  Thus, we don’t see the need for Plaintiffs’ to subpoena Apple for those same documents.   

Defendants do, however, intend to seek leave to serve subpoenas on Apple, Patrick Heynen, and LANL.  I’ve attached a 
copy of our proposed motion to this email.  We intend to file this motion today, and given our previous discussion we 
intend to file this motion as opposed.  Please let us know by COB today, however, if Plaintiffs do not oppose the motion.  
On a similar note, given the timing and upcoming events/deadlines we think that it would be prudent to agree to 
expedited briefing on this matter.  We are happy to discuss this on Monday.  Of course, if Plaintiffs decide to file their 
own motion for leave we would accommodate a similar expedited briefing schedule.  

Regards, 
Josh        

file://C:\Documents and Settings\mmorgan\Desktop\2011 12 05 Response to Defts Motion\Exh. 1.... 12/5/2011

Page 2 of 6
From: John B. Campbell [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 9:58 AM
To: Josh Thane
Cc: F&R Group Adobe; Eolas; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Eolas: Notice of Subpoena 

Josh,  

Please advise. Eolas would like to work through this issue with you, but continued delays may
prejudice the parties ability to agree on a solution given the short time remaining before trial.  

Again, please confirm Defendants are not remaining silent and allowing Apple to respond to an
unenforceable subpoena. As you note, Apple has contractual obligations to Eolas. If Defendants are
remaining silent, Defendants may be inducing Apple to breach these contractual obligations. 

Thanks, 
John 

From: John B. Campbell
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 6:14 PM
To: 'Josh Thane'
Cc: F&R Group Adobe; Eolas; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Eolas: Notice of Subpoena 
Josh, 

Thanks for your response. Please advise as soon as possible. Again, please confirm that Defendants are not remaining
silent and allowing Apple to respond to a subpoena that Defendants agree is not valid absent leave of court.  

Thanks, 
John 

From: Josh Thane [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 4:12 PM
To: John B. Campbell
Cc: F&R Group Adobe; Eolas; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Eolas: Notice of Subpoena 

John –  

I still haven’t heard from all of the defendants regarding whether they would oppose Plaintiffs’ request.  I just pinged the 
group again, and should be able to get you a response shortly. 

Thanks, 
Josh  

From: John B. Campbell [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 2:18 PM
To: Josh Thane
Cc: F&R Group Adobe; Eolas; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Eolas: Notice of Subpoena 

Josh, 

Please advise. 

file://C:\Documents and Settings\mmorgan\Desktop\2011 12 05 Response to Defts Motion\Exh. 1.... 12/5/2011

Page 3 of 6

Thanks, 
John 

From: John B. Campbell
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 4:39 PM
To: 'Josh Thane'
Cc: F&R Group Adobe; Eolas; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Eolas: Notice of Subpoena 
Josh, 

Thanks for your response. Attached is the subpoena to Apple that Plaintiffs may serve if the Court permits. Please
advise if Defendants oppose leave for Plaintiffs to serve this subpoena. 

Given that leave is necessary for a subpoena to Apple, have Defendants informed Apple that a response is not required to
the subpoena unless the Court grants leave? 

Thanks, 
John 

John B. Campbell
McKool Smith, P.C.
300 W. 6th St., Suite 1700
Austin, Texas 78701
[phone]
[phone] (fax)
[e-mail]  

NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY:  

The information contained in and transmitted with this e-mail is SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT and ATTORNEY
WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE and is CONFIDENTIAL. It is intended only for the individual or entity designated above.
You are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, use or reliance upon the information contained in
and transmitted with this e-mail by or to anyone other than the addressee designated above by the sender is unauthorized
and strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply immediately. Any e-mail
erroneously transmitted to you should be immediately destroyed.  

From: Josh Thane [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 1:55 PM
To: John B. Campbell
Cc: F&R Group Adobe; Eolas; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Eolas: Notice of Subpoena 

John, 

Defendants do believe that leave is likely necessary for a subpoena to Apple.  As such, we will prepare a motion for leave 
to seek such discovery.  Are Plaintiffs opposed to such a motion?  Alternatively, if Eolas is willing to release Apple from 
its non‐cooperation agreement this subpoena may not be necessary.  Please advise.  Also, can you please let us know 
what discovery/topics that Plaintiffs intend to seek from Apple. 

Thanks, 
Josh      

file://C:\Documents and Settings\mmorgan\Desktop\2011 12 05 Response to Defts Motion\Exh. 1.... 12/5/2011

Page 4 of 6
From: John B. Campbell [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 1:27 PM
To: Josh Thane; Eolas; [e-mail]
Cc: F&R Group Adobe
Subject: RE: Eolas: Notice of Subpoena 

Josh, 

Please advise. We have been seeking your position on this for some time now. Given that Defendants have not stated
their position, have they at lease advised Apple that a response to the subpoena is not necessary while the parties work
through the issue? 

Thanks, 
John 

From: John B. Campbell
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2011 2:41 PM
To: 'Josh Thane'; Eolas; '[e-mail]'
Cc: 'F&R Group Adobe'
Subject: RE: Eolas: Notice of Subpoena 
Josh, 

Please let me know if you will advise Apple that they do not need to respond to Defendants' subpoena while you are
looking into the question of whether leave is necessary. 

Thanks, 
John 

From: John B. Campbell
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2011 9:38 AM
To: 'Josh Thane'; Eolas; [e-mail]
Cc: F&R Group Adobe
Subject: RE: Eolas: Notice of Subpoena 
Josh, 

Thanks for the response. If I understand you correctly, Defendants are looking into the question of whether leave is
necessary for the subpoena Defendants already served on Apple and the subpoena Eolas is considering serving on
Apple. If this is correct, Eolas believes that we should inform Apple that it is not necessary to respond to the alreadyserved subpoena while the parties work through this issue. Please let us know if you agree and will advise Apple. 

Thanks, 
John 

From: Josh Thane [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2011 7:42 AM
To: John B. Campbell; Eolas; [e-mail]
Cc: F&R Group Adobe
Subject: RE: Eolas: Notice of Subpoena 

John – We are looking into this and coordinating with the other defendants. Hopefully I can have a response to you 
soon. 

Thanks, 
Josh 

file://C:\Documents and Settings\mmorgan\Desktop\2011 12 05 Response to Defts Motion\Exh. 1.... 12/5/2011

Page 5 of 6

From: John B. Campbell [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 3:42 PM
To: Josh Thane; Eolas; [e-mail]
Cc: F&R Group Adobe
Subject: RE: Eolas: Notice of Subpoena 

Josh, 

Please advise. Eolas is considering serving its own subpoena to Apple. We would like to understand whether
Defendants believe these subpoenas require leave given that discovery is closed. 

Thanks, 
John 

John B. Campbell
McKool Smith, P.C.
300 W. 6th St., Suite 1700
Austin, Texas 78701
[phone]
[phone] (fax)
[e-mail]  

NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY:  

The information contained in and transmitted with this e-mail is SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT and ATTORNEY
WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE and is CONFIDENTIAL. It is intended only for the individual or entity designated above.
You are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, use or reliance upon the information contained in
and transmitted with this e-mail by or to anyone other than the addressee designated above by the sender is unauthorized
and strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply immediately. Any e-mail
erroneously transmitted to you should be immediately destroyed.  

From: John B. Campbell
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 1:32 PM
To: 'Josh Thane'; Eolas; [e-mail]
Cc: F&R Group Adobe
Subject: RE: Eolas: Notice of Subpoena 
Josh, 

Given that discovery is closed, are Defendants planning to move for leave to serve this subpoena? 

Thanks, 
John 

John B. Campbell
McKool Smith, P.C.
300 W. 6th St., Suite 1700
Austin, Texas 78701
[phone]
[phone] (fax)
[e-mail]  

NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY:  

The information contained in and transmitted with this e-mail is SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT and ATTORNEY
WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE and is CONFIDENTIAL. It is intended only for the individual or entity designated above.

file://C:\Documents and Settings\mmorgan\Desktop\2011 12 05 Response to Defts Motion\Exh. 1.... 12/5/2011

Page 6 of 6
You are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, use or reliance upon the information contained in
and transmitted with this e-mail by or to anyone other than the addressee designated above by the sender is unauthorized
and strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply immediately. Any e-mail
erroneously transmitted to you should be immediately destroyed.  

From: Josh Thane [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 5:27 PM
To: Eolas; [e-mail]
Cc: F&R Group Adobe
Subject: Eolas: Notice of Subpoena 

Counsel: 

Please find attached for service a notice of subpoena to Apple, Inc.. 

Regards, 
Josh 

Josh Thane, J.D. 
HALTOM & DOAN
Crown Executive Center, Suite 100
6500 Summerhill Road
Texarkana, Texas 75503 
[phone] Direct
[phone] Office
[phone] Facsimile 
[e-mail]  

The preceding email message may be confidential or protected by the 
attorney-client privilege. It is not intended for transmission to, or 
receipt by, any unauthorized persons. If you have received this message in 
error, please (i) do not read it, (ii) reply to the sender that you received 
the message in error, and (iii) erase or destroy the message. Legal advice 
contained in the preceding message is solely for the benefit of the HALTOM & 
DOAN client(s) represented by the Firm in the particular matter that is 
the subject of this message, and may not be relied upon by any other party. 

file://C:\Documents and Settings\mmorgan\Desktop\2011 12 05 Response to Defts Motion\Exh. 1.... 12/5/2011