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 2

Page 1 of 4

From:

John B. Campbell

Sent:

Wednesday, November 30, 2011 2:10 PM

To:

Josh Thane

Cc:

Eolas; '[e-mail]'

Subject: RE: Eolas - Apple/LANL Subpoenas
Josh,
Thanks. Eolas does not oppose the motion to expedite.
Best regards,
John
From: Josh Thane [[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 12:00 PM
To: John B. Campbell
Cc: Eolas; '[e-mail]'
Subject: RE: Eolas - Apple/LANL Subpoenas

John – we have reached out to Apple’s counsel to let them know the situation involving the Apple 
subpoena and the fact that we are moving for leave to serve such.  Hopefully this will assuage any 
concerns that you have.  As I mentioned before, we have not received any responses or objections to 
the subpoena that was previously served.   

In addition, we have revised the motion for expedited consideration to take into account the issue you 
raised below.  I’ve attached a revised draft for your review.  Please let us know if you have any 
additional comments regarding the motion. 

Thanks, 
Josh     

From: John B. Campbell [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 4:23 PM
To: Josh Thane
Cc: Eolas; '[e-mail]'
Subject: RE: Eolas - Apple/LANL Subpoenas 

Josh, 

We still have a concern related to the subpoena that was already served on Apple
without leave of Court. We do not know who would have informed Apple so Defendants
assumption may not be correct. Given Defendants served the subpoena without
seeking leave, it seems reasonable that Defendants would at least send Apple a letter
advising them that the subpoena is invalid without leave of Court. 

Also, Plaintiffs cannot agree to the statement in the motion that "the requested discovery is
needed for the completion of fact discovery, expert discovery, and preparation for trial, and
because the issues have been contemplated by the parties for some time".  

Feel free to call me to discuss. 

Thanks, 
12/5/2011

Page 2 of 4
John 

From: Josh Thane [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 4:11 PM
To: John B. Campbell
Cc: Eolas; '[e-mail]'
Subject: RE: Eolas - Apple/LANL Subpoenas 

John –  

Attached for your review are the motion and proposed order regarding expedited briefing.  Please let us know if you 
have any comments or concerns. 

Thanks, 
Josh 

From: Josh Thane
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 11:47 AM
To: 'John B. Campbell'
Cc: Eolas; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Eolas - Apple/LANL Subpoenas 

We are okay with the sur‐reply on December 14th.  Our only contact with Apple regarding the subpoena has been 
through the process server.  We have not otherwise had any contact with Apple, and understand that Apple would likely 
not speak with us regarding the subpoena for fear that they may be accused of breaching your non‐cooperation 
agreement.  That being said, we have not received any response/objections from Apple and, thus, assume someone has 
informed them that the subpoena is not enforceable absent leave of Court.   

From: John B. Campbell [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 11:31 AM
To: Josh Thane
Cc: Eolas; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Eolas - Apple/LANL Subpoenas 

Josh, 

Could we agree Plaintiffs' Sur-reply is due December 14th? 

Also, Defendants have not responded to Plaintiffs' requests that Defendants confirm that they have
notified Apple that the already-served subpoena is not enforceable absent leave from the Court.
Please respond. If Defendants can confirm that Apple understands that the subpoena is not currently
enforceable, Eolas will agree to the expedited briefing schedule with the above modification. 

Thanks, 
John 

From: Josh Thane [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 11:09 AM
To: John B. Campbell
Cc: Eolas; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Eolas - Apple/LANL Subpoenas 

John, 

12/5/2011

Page 3 of 4

Thanks for getting back to us.  We are fine with the language you propose below, and have incorporated such into our 
certificate of conference.  For your convenience, I’ve attached a copy of our draft motion that includes some minor 
revisions based upon the meet and confer.  As we discussed yesterday, we plan to file our motion today and propose the 
following expedited briefing schedule:  
 Plaintiffs’ Response: Due December 5th 
 Defendants’ Reply (if any): Due December 9th 
 Plaintiffs’ Sur‐reply (if any): Due December 13th  

Please let us know if this briefing schedule is acceptable and we will prepare an agreed motion to circulate. 

Thanks, 
Josh   

From: John B. Campbell [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 10:09 AM
To: Josh Thane
Cc: Eolas; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Eolas - Apple/LANL Subpoenas 

Josh, 

Eolas proposes replacing paragraph 2 with the following. We removed the reasons Defendants
oppose Plaintiffs discovery to avoid argument through the certificate of conference. 

Plaintiffs oppose Defendants seeking leave to take the Media-View related discovery upon Apple,
but offered to not oppose the motion for leave if Defendants agreed to allow Plaintiffs to take
discovery from Apple related to Defendants' knowledge of the patents-in-suit and attempted design
around efforts. Defendants do not object to Plaintiffs taking MediaView-related discovery upon Apple related
to any information Apple provides responsive to Defendants’ subpoena, but believe the discovery should not be
broader. The parties could not come to an agreement and reached an impasse. 

Please let us know your thoughts. Feel free to call me to discuss. 

Thanks, 
John 

From: Josh Thane [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 8:53 AM
To: John B. Campbell
Cc: Eolas; [e-mail]
Subject: Eolas - Apple/LANL Subpoenas 

John – 

Below for your review is the Certificate of Conference we anticipate including in our motion.  Please let us know if you 
have any thoughts or comments.  We are revising the motion to include some of the matters we discussed yesterday, 
and I’ll circulate that later this morning.    

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
The undersigned certifies that the parties have conferred by telephone at least twice on this matter, the
12/5/2011

Page 4 of 4
most recent conference on November 28. Plaintiffs do not oppose portions of the relief requested, namely an
authentication deposition of LANL regarding production materials [LANL92] and [LANL93] (see Exhibit 1),
and the parties agreed that an attempt would be made to obtain authentication of these materials through a
deposition on written questions or another mutually agreeable method that does not require the expense and
logistics of a formal deposition. Defendants agree that it may be possible to postpone discovery on the LANLRegents relationship (Exhibit 1, LANL Topic 3) if the Regents witness was sufficiently prepared to address
topics beyond simply licensing, but Defendants prefer to have the follow-up discovery lined up now.
Plaintiffs also do not oppose Defendants seeking leave to take MediaView-related discovery on Apple
provided that Plaintiffs are also permitted to seek discovery upon Apple. Defendants do not object to Plaintiffs
taking MediaView-related discovery upon Apple related to any information Apple provides responsive to
Defendants’ subpoena, but believe the discovery should not be broader (Plaintiff has indicated that they wish to
obtain materials related to Apple and Defendants’ knowledge of the patents from Apple) at least because
Plaintiffs (1) have already taken the discovery non-MediaView-related materials and (2) the non-cooperation
agreement secured between Apple and Plaintiffs handicaps Defendants ability to take corrective or rebuttal
testimony or documents from Apple. 

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. 

12/5/2011