Eolas Technologies Incorporated v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al

Filing 1176

MOTION for Leave to Designate Additional Exhibits by Adobe Systems Incorporated, Amazon.com Inc., CDW Corporation, Citigroup Inc., Google Inc., J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc., Staples, Inc., The Go Daddy Group, Inc., Yahoo! Inc., YouTube, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit 1 - Emails)(Doan, Jennifer)

EXHIBIT 1

From: Josh Thane
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 7:04 PM
To: John B. Campbell
Cc: [e-mail]; Eolas
Subject: Re: Number of exhibits

John,
It's unfortunate that we couldn't reach agreement on any of Defendants' proposals. That being said, we do not
oppose Plaintiffs' request for leave to designate 400 exhibits.

Thanks,
Josh
On Jan 3, 2012, at 3:33 PM, "John B. Campbell" <[e-mail]> wrote:
Josh,
Plaintiffs would like to reach an agreement and avoid motion practice, especially given
the number of pending motions. Unfortunately, we have significant disagreement over
what is reasonable. Defendants requested to extend the deadlines and compress the
time frame to handle exhibit objections on multiple occasions. Defendants represented
the compressed schedule would not be an issue because each side was limited to 250
exhibits. Defendants now request 1,425-1,550 total exhibits (please let me know if my
math is wrong). Plaintiffs, on the other hand, are requesting 400 total exhibits. If
Defendants make a reasonable proposal, we will certainly consider it, but Defendants
current request is far from reasonable under the circumstances.
Thanks,
John
From: Josh Thane [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 1:54 PM
To: John B. Campbell
Cc: [e-mail]; Eolas
Subject: Re: Number of exhibits

John,
Defendants would certainly like to reach an agreement with respect to each parties proposed
number of designated exhibits. While we believe that our previous request was reasonable under
1

the circumstances, in an attempt to reach agreement and prevent filing opposed motions with the
Court on this issue Defendants propose moving for 300 common Defendants' exhibits and 125
individual defendant exhibits. Please let us know if this is something Plaintiffs can agree to.
Thanks,
Josh
On Jan 3, 2012, at 10:30 AM, "John B. Campbell" <[e-mail]> wrote:
Josh,
Thanks for repeating Defendants proposal. Since you did not correct my understanding,
I assume we have this correct: Defendants asked for an extension of the deadline to
exchange exhibit lists expressly representing that time would not be an issue because of
the standing order limiting the number of exhibit per side. Defendants now seek to
designate between 1,600 and 1,750 exhibits.
Plaintiffs oppose.
Please let us know if you oppose Plaintiffs request to designate no more than 400 total
exhibits.
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 email erroneously transmitted to you should be immediately destroyed.
From: Josh Thane [[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, January 02, 2012 9:50 PM
To: John B. Campbell; [e-mail]
Cc: Eolas
Subject: RE: Number of exhibits

John ‐  

Thanks for the prompt response.  I can't speak for Google/YouTube and how 
they plan to handle their respective exhibits, but Defendants' proposal is as laid 
out below (250 common Defendants' exhibits and 150 individual defendant 
2

exhibits).  Defendants are continuing to attempt to limit the number of proposed 
exhibits, but their remain some 10 defendants in this single lawsuit with nearly, 
or over, 100 products/features accused of infringing over 20 claims in two 
patents.     

If you take issue with some porition of Defendants' proposal, please let us know 
and we will consider an alternative.  Given the number of claims asserted and 
the number of defendants still in this lawsuit, however, we believe that a 
maximum of 400 exhibits for each defendant (250 of which would be common 
amongst all the defendants) is more than reasonable.   

Thanks, 
Josh 
________________________________________
From: John B. Campbell [[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, January 02, 2012 8:32 PM
To: Josh Thane; [e-mail]
Cc: Eolas
Subject: RE: Number of exhibits
Josh,
Let me make sure I understand Defendants' request before I take it to the
team...Defendants intend to seek leave to have 1,600-1,750 exhibits (I don't know
if you count Google/YouTube as 1 or 2)? Plaintiffs agreed to move the deadline
to exchange exhibit lists based on your representation that we would not need
much time to address objections because the number of exhibits would be
limited. Please let me know if I understand the request correctly and please let me
know the total number of exhibits Defendants are seeking.
Thanks,
John
John B. Campbell
McKool Smith, P.C.
300 W. 6th St., Suite 1700
Austin, Texas 78701
[phone]
[phone] (fax)
[e-mail]<mailto:[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
3

error, please notify the sender by reply immediately. Any e-mail erroneously
transmitted to you should be immediately destroyed.
________________________________
From: Josh Thane [[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, January 02, 2012 8:10 PM
To: John B. Campbell; [e-mail]
Cc: Eolas
Subject: RE: Number of exhibits
John,
Defendants also intend to request that the Court grant leave to exceed the limit on
the number of exhibits in the Court’s standing order. At this time, Defendants
intend to seek 250 common defendant exhibits (common amongst all defendants)
plus 150 exhibits for each individual defendant. This would provide each
defendant with a total of 400 exhibits, which is what Plaintiffs are seeking. If this
is agreeable to Plaintiffs, we should be able to fill a joint motion seeking leave to
exceed the Court’s standing order.
Thanks,
Josh
From: John B. Campbell [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2011 11:28 AM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: Eolas
Subject: Number of exhibits
Counsel,
Plaintiffs intend to request that the Court grant Plaintiffs leave to exceed the limit
on the number of exhibits specified in the Court's standing order. Plaintiffs intend
to ask for leave to identify 400 exhibits instead of the 250 exhibits permitted
under the standing order. Please advise if you oppose Plaintiffs motion for
leave. If you oppose, please let us know if you are available for a meet and confer
Tuesday, January 3rd at 12:00pm CT. (I am assuming your offices are closed
Monday, but we are happy to have the meet and confer Monday if it would be
more convenient.)
Thanks,
John
John B. Campbell
McKool Smith, P.C.
300 W. 6th St., Suite 1700
Austin, Texas 78701
[phone]
[phone] (fax)
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY:
4

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.

5