Apple, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc. et al

Filing 274

Stipulation for Documentary Evidence by Plaintiff Apple, Inc.. (Haskett, Christine)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
APPLE INC. and NeXT SOFTWARE,
INC. (f/k/a NeXT COMPUTER, INC.),
Plaintiffs,

v.
MOTOROLA, INC. and MOTOROLA
MOBILITY, INC.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 10-CV-662-BBC
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

STIPULATION REGARDING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by the undersigned counsel for Defendants
Motorola, Inc. d/b/a Motorola Solutions, Inc. ("Solutions") and Motorola Mobility, Inc.
("Motorola") (collectively "Defendants") and Plaintiffs Apple Inc. ("Apple") and NeXT
Software, Inc.'s ("NeXT's") (collectively, "Plaintiffs'") (the “parties”) that:
1.

Any document, including source code, that was produced in discovery by

a party that on its face appears to have been authored by an employee, officer or agent of the
party producing such document, shall be deemed to be a true and correct copy of a document
maintained in that party’s files as of the date of the party’s document collection under Federal
Rule of Evidence 901. Such authentication does not preclude a party from raising any other
objection to the admissibility of such documents.
2.

Any publication or article, including but not limited to documents

submitted to and maintained by Standards Setting Organizations, that was produced in discovery
by a party, but that appears to have been authored by a third party, shall be deemed to be a true

and correct copy of that publication or article from the third party author under Federal Rule of
Evidence 901. Moreover, to the extent the publication or article (or corresponding bibliographic
data) specifies a date of that document (e.g., timing of publication, print, authorship, disclosure,
etc.) and/or the source (e.g., name of journal or proceedings), that publication or article shall be
attributed with such date and/or source specified.
3.

Legible photocopies of U.S. and foreign patents, published applications,

and the contents of their associated file histories, may be offered and received into evidence in
lieu of certified copies thereof, subject to all other objections that may be made to admissibility.
In addition, copies of such documents are deemed to be authentic under the Federal Rules of
Evidence, include Federal Rule of Evidence 901.
4.

None of the foregoing stipulations in paragraphs 1 through 3 shall serve as

a waiver of any other objections a party may have to the trial exhibits, or abrogate the
requirement that the party offering the document into evidence satisfy any other rules governing
the admissibility of evidence set forth in Federal Rules of Evidence, the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, Local Rules, the Court’s individual practices, or any other applicable rule or
regulation. Additionally, none of the foregoing stipulations in paragraphs 1 through 3 shall serve
as an admission, concession, or agreement by any party of any legal significance of a document
and/or attributed date from paragraph 2 beyond authentication, nor preclude a party from raising
any other objection concerning the document.
5.

This Stipulation applies to this above-captioned litigation, Apple, Inc., et

al. v. Motorola, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-CV-662 (BBC) (W.D. Wisc.), as well as the litigations
captioned, Apple, Inc. v. Motorola Mobility, Inc., Case No. 11-CV-178 (BBC) (W.D. Wisc.), and
Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 1:10cv023480-Civ-UU (S.D. Fla.).

2

We hereby stipulate to the entry of the foregoing.
Dated: November 28, 2011

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Christine Saunders Haskett____

/s/ Lynn M. Stathas______

Catherine Cetrangolo
[e-mail]
Boardman, Suhr, Curry & Field LLP
Fourth Floor, 1 South Pinckney St.
Madison, WI 53703
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

Scott W. Hansen
Lynn M. Stathas
Lisa Nester Kass
Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren s.c.
22 East Mifflin Street
P.O. Box 2018
Madison, WI 53701-2018
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
1000 North Water Street, Suite 1700
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Robert T. Haslam (CA Bar No. 71134)
[e-mail]
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700
Redwood Shores, CA 94065-1418
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Robert D. Fram (CA Bar No. 126750)
[e-mail]
Christine Saunders Haskett (CA Bar No.
188053)
[e-mail]
Samuel F. Ernst (CA Bar No. 223963)
[e-mail]
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
One Front Street
San Francisco, CA 94111-5356
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

Edward J. DeFranco
Alexander Rudis
Richard W. Erwine
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, NY 10010
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Mark G. Davis
[e-mail]
Carrie M. Anderson
[e-mail]
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
1300 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 900
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

David A. Nelson
500 West Madison St., Suite 2450
Chicago, IL 60661
Email: [e-mail]
Robert W. Stone
Brian Cannon
555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 560
Redwood Shores, CA 94065

3

Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]

Matthew D. Powers
[e-mail]
Steven S. Cherensky
[e-mail]
TENSEGRITY LAW GROUP LLP
201 Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite 401
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 650-802-6001

Charles K. Verhoeven
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant Motorola Mobility,
Inc.

Attorneys for Plaintiff Apple Inc.

SO ORDERED this _______ day of __________, 2011.

___________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4