UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Master Docket
`Misc. No. 12-244
`MDL No. 2354
`
`CONTI, District Judge
`
`C.A. No. 2:12-cv-89-JFC
`
`_____________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`IN RE: MAXIM INTEGRATED PRODUCTS,
`)
`INC., MDL NO. 2354
`
`
`
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`This Document Relates to: 12-cv-89
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`_____________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`THE PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP,
`)
`INC., and PNC BANK, NATIONAL
`
`)
`ASSOCIATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`
`Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant,
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`MAXIM INTEGRATED PRODUCTS, INC.,
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`Defendant and Counter-Plaintiff.
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`__________________________________________)
`
`
`THE PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC. AND PNC BANK, NATIONAL
`ASSOCIATION’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO MAXIM
`INTEGRATED PRODUCTS, INC.’S FIRST SET OF COMMON INTERROGATORIES
`(NOS. 1–2)
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 33, Plaintiffs and Counter-
`
`Defendants The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. and PNC Bank, National Association
`
`(collectively “PNC”), by their undersigned attorneys, hereby object and respond to Defendant
`
`Maxim Integrated Products, Inc.’s (“Maxim”) First Set of Common Interrogatories (Nos. 1–2) as
`
`follows.
`
`
`
`These objections and responses (collectively, the “Responses”) are made solely on behalf
`
`of PNC and for the purposes of the above-captioned case, No. 2:12-cv-89, (referred to herein as
`
`Maxim Exhibit 2009- PNC/JPMC, CBM2014-00039 - Page 2009-001
`
`

`

`the “Action”) and are based on PNC’s present state of recollection, knowledge, and belief. The
`
`Responses are at all times subject to additional or different information that discovery may
`
`disclose and, while based on the present state of recollection, are subject to such refreshing of
`
`recollection and such knowledge or facts as may result from further investigation by PNC or its
`
`attorneys and/or further discovery from Maxim and/or third parties. PNC reserves the right to
`
`revise, amend, correct, supplement, modify or clarify its Responses. PNC’s Responses to
`
`Maxim’s Interrogatories are not a concession that the subject matter of any particular
`
`Interrogatory or Response thereto is relevant to this Action.
`
`
`
`PNC’s objections and responses are made without in any way waiving or intending to
`
`waive, but to the contrary, are intended to preserve:
`
`
`
`1.
`
`All questions as to competency, relevancy, materiality, privilege, and
`
`admissibility as evidence for any purpose of the Responses or subject matter thereof, in this
`
`Action or any subsequent proceeding associated with this Action or any other matter;
`
`
`
`2.
`
`The right to object on any ground to the use of said Responses, or the subject
`
`matter thereof, in any subsequent proceeding with this Action or any other action; and
`
`
`
`3.
`
`The right to object on any ground at any time to other requests or other discovery
`
`procedures involving or relating to the subject matter of these Interrogatories.
`
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS
`
`1.
`
`PNC objects to the sections entitled “DEFINITIONS” and “INSTRUCTIONS,”
`
`set forth in Maxim’s Interrogatories, and to the specific Interrogatories themselves, to the extent
`
`that they purport to impose obligations not required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
`
`Local Rules of Practice for the Western District of Pennsylvania, and Judge Conti’s Chambers’
`
`Rules.
`
`Page 2009-002
`
`

`

`2.
`
`PNC objects to each of the Interrogatories to the extent that they are unduly
`
`burdensome, oppressive, overly broad, ambiguous, confusing, or vague. PNC also objects to the
`
`“DEFINITIONS,” “INSTRUCTIONS,” and “INTERROGATORIES” to the extent that they use
`
`terms that are undefined, vague, confusing, and/or ambiguous. PNC will interpret terms used by
`
`Maxim based on their ordinary meaning.
`
`3.
`
`PNC objects to each Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks documents, things,
`
`and information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, joint-defense
`
`privilege, common-interest privilege, and/or the work-product doctrine (including, but not
`
`limited to, the impressions, conclusions, opinions, legal research, or theories of attorneys,
`
`whether or not communicated to their client), or any other privilege or protection afforded by law
`
`or regulation.
`
`4.
`
`PNC objects to Maxim’s Interrogatories to the extent that Maxim seeks to require
`
`PNC to provide any information beyond what is available to PNC at present from a reasonable
`
`search of their own files and from reasonable inquiry of their present employees, on the grounds
`
`that such discovery would be unreasonably cumulative, unduly burdensome, and unlikely to lead
`
`to the discovery of admissible information.
`
`5.
`
`PNC objects to each Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks documents that are
`
`not relevant to any claim or defense in the pending Action and/or that are not reasonably
`
`calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
`
`6.
`
`PNC objects to each Interrogatory to the extent it calls for the production of
`
`documents and/or information protected from disclosure by the orders of other courts or judicial
`
`bodies.
`
`Page 2009-003
`
`

`

`7.
`
`PNC objects to Maxim’s Interrogatories to the extent they purport to require PNC
`
`to search for information not within its possession, custody, or control. To do so would place an
`
`undue burden upon PNC.
`
`8.
`
`PNC objects to providing information and the production of documents and things
`
`that are subject to the rights of third parties, that are subject to protective orders, or that are
`
`subject to nondisclosure obligations.
`
`9.
`
`PNC objects to Maxim’s Interrogatories to the extent they seek information that is
`
`already known to Maxim or that may be derived or ascertained from information produced by
`
`PNC or from an examination of such information and for which the burden of deriving or
`
`ascertaining the information sought is substantially the same for Maxim as for PNC.
`
`10.
`
`PNC objects to each Interrogatory to the extent it calls for the production of
`
`documents that contain merely cumulative information.
`
`11.
`
`Nothing in these responses should be construed as waiving rights or objections
`
`that might otherwise be available to PNC, nor should PNC’s responses to any of these
`
`Interrogatories be deemed an admission of relevancy, materiality, or admissibility in evidence of
`
`the discovery requests or the responses thereto.
`
`12.
`
`Because discovery is only beginning in this case, PNC’s responses to these
`
`Interrogatories should not be deemed exhaustive. The following Responses reflect PNC’s
`
`present knowledge, information, and belief, and may be subject to supplementation, change, or
`
`modification based on PNC’s further discovery, or on facts or circumstances that may come to
`
`PNC’s knowledge or attention in the future. PNC reserves the right to include additional
`
`documents, things, and/or information at trial that were obtained during yet-to-be-conducted
`
`discovery and/or investigation.
`
`Page 2009-004
`
`

`

`13.
`
`PNC reserves the right to produce documents in lieu of narrative answers to these
`
`Interrogatories.
`
`14.
`
`PNC reserves the right to produce voluminous or atypical documents by making
`
`them available for inspection and copying by Maxim at Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett
`
`& Dunner, L.L.P.’s facilities or as otherwise agreed by counsel for the parties.
`
`15.
`
`To the extent that Maxim’s Interrogatories seek information from or the
`
`production of documents from the internal work-product files of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
`
`Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P. and/or other attorneys representing or advising PNC, PNC objects
`
`generally to either the production or the listing of such documents on a withheld document list.
`
`16.
`
`An objection based on attorney-client privilege, joint-defense privilege, common-
`
`interest privilege, and/or work-product immunity shall not be construed as a representation that
`
`such information exists or existed. Any such objection indicates only that the interrogatories are
`
`of such a scope as to embrace subject matter protected by the attorney-client privilege, joint-
`
`defense privilege, common-interest privilege, and/or work-product immunity.
`
`17.
`
`PNC objects to identifying or providing publicly available information or
`
`materials that are equally or more accessible to Maxim.
`
`18.
`
`PNC objects to Maxim’s Interrogatories to the extent they seek information from
`
`an unspecified or expansive timeframe.
`
`19.
`
`PNC objects to Maxim’s definition of “This Action” as “MDL No. 2354” as this
`
`number does not identify any single “action,” but rather designates a Multidistrict litigation
`
`proceeding comprising a of a set of actions in accordance with the applicable JPML Order(s).
`
`See, e.g., D.I. 1.
`
`Page 2009-005
`
`

`

`20.
`
`PNC objects to Maxim’s definition of “Patents-in-Suit” to the extent it purports to
`
`extend to claims outside the scope of Maxim’s Local Patent Rule 3.2 and 3.3 Disclosures dated
`
`December 14, 2012, or to the extent it purports to extend to claims outside the scope of any
`
`legally operative set of substitute Local Patent Rule 3.2 and 3.3 Disclosures that Maxim may be
`
`permitted to file pursuant to, and subject to, Court order(s).
`
`21.
`
`PNC objects to Maxim’s definition of the terms “Defendants” and “Opposing
`
`Party” on the grounds that these definitions are (i) vague, overly broad, and unduly burdensome;
`
`(ii) seek information that is not relevant to any claims or defenses of any party and/or is not
`
`reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence with respect to any such
`
`claim or defense; (iii) seek information that PNC cannot reasonably be expected to be aware of
`
`or have knowledge of; and (iv) to the extent they seek information from persons or legal entities
`
`that PNC neither employs nor controls.
`
`22.
`
`PNC objects to Maxim’s definition of the term “Person” as vague, ambiguous,
`
`indefinite, overbroad, unduly burdensome, seeking the production of information that is not
`
`relevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, seeking
`
`the production of information that is subject to the attorney-client privilege, the work product, or
`
`another applicable privilege and/or immunity, and seeking the production of information that is
`
`not within PNC’s possession, custody, or control and is not reasonably accessible to PNC upon
`
`reasonable diligence.
`
`23.
`
`PNC objects to Maxim’s definition of “Identify” as vague, ambiguous, indefinite,
`
`overbroad, unduly burdensome, seeking the production of information that is not relevant and is
`
`not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, seeking the production
`
`of information that is subject to the attorney-client privilege, work-product immunity, or another
`
`Page 2009-006
`
`

`

`applicable privilege and/or immunity, and seeking the production of information that is not
`
`within PNC’s possession, custody, or control and is not reasonably accessible to PNC upon
`
`reasonable diligence.
`
`24.
`
`PNC objects to Maxim’s definition of the term “Communication” as vague,
`
`ambiguous, indefinite, overbroad, unduly burdensome, seeking the production of information
`
`that is not relevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
`
`evidence, seeking the production of information that is subject to the attorney-client privilege,
`
`work-product immunity, or another applicable privilege and/or immunity, and seeking the
`
`production of information that is not within PNC’s possession, custody, or control and is not
`
`reasonably accessible to PNC upon reasonable diligence.
`
`25.
`
`PNC objects to Maxim’s definition of the terms “Relate to,” “Related to,”
`
`“Relating to,” or “Concerning” as vague, ambiguous, indefinite, overbroad, unduly burdensome,
`
`seeking the production of information that is not relevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead
`
`to the discovery of admissible evidence, seeking the production of information that is subject to
`
`the attorney-client privilege, work-product immunity, or another applicable privilege and/or
`
`immunity, and seeking the production of information that is not within PNC’s possession,
`
`custody, or control and is not reasonably accessible to PNC upon reasonable diligence.
`
`INTERROGATORIES
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
`Identify each member of any Joint Defense Group relating to Maxim, this Action, any
`
`Individual Action, or the Patents-in-Suit, including in such identification the date upon which the
`
`group formed and the date upon which each member joined the group.
`
`Page 2009-007
`
`

`

`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
`As set forth above, PNC provides this Response solely on behalf of PNC. PNC
`
`incorporates its General Objections herein by reference. In addition to the General Objections
`
`stated above, PNC objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly
`
`burdensome. PNC objects to this Interrogatory as seeking only information that is not relevant to
`
`any claim or defense in the pending Action and/or that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the
`
`discovery of admissible evidence. PNC further objects to this Interrogatory as it seeks solely
`
`information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, joint-defense privilege,
`
`common-interest privilege, and/or the work-product doctrine (including, but not limited to, the
`
`impressions, conclusions, opinions, legal research, or theories of attorneys, whether or not
`
`communicated to their client), or any other privilege or protection afforded by law or regulation.
`
`PNC also objects to the production or the listing of communications or documents on a withheld
`
`document list to the extent that those communications or other documents were generated after
`
`PNC’s receipt of Maxim’s December 2, 2011, Notice Letter to PNC as unduly burdensome.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing specific and the General Objections, PNC
`
`responds as follows: PNC is aware of no otherwise-responsive information that is not protected
`
`from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, joint-defense privilege, common-interest
`
`privilege, and/or the work-product doctrine.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
`Identify each third party—excluding members of any Joint Defense Group relating to this
`
`Action, litigation experts, consultants, vendors, and other litigation service providers—whom
`
`Opposing Parties (including any individual Opposing Party acting on behalf of some or all
`
`Opposing Parties or any joint defense or common interest group) have communicated with
`
`concerning this Action or the Patents-in-Suit, including in such identification the contact
`
`Page 2009-008
`
`

`

`information of the persons contacted, the date upon which the first communication occurred,
`
`who among Defendants made contact, and the nature and subject matter of the communication.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
`As set forth above, PNC provides this Response solely on behalf of PNC. PNC
`
`incorporates its General Objections herein by reference. In addition to the General Objections
`
`stated above, PNC objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly
`
`burdensome. PNC specifically objects to this Interrogatory and the terms “all,” “any,” “third
`
`party,” “litigation experts,” “consultants,” “vendors,” “litigation service providers,” and “on
`
`behalf of” as vague, ambiguous, indefinite, overbroad, and unduly burdensome. PNC further
`
`objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it purports to require PNC to search for information not
`
`within its possession, custody, or control, or that is not reasonably known or accessible to PNC
`
`upon reasonable diligence. PNC also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it calls for a legal
`
`conclusion concerning whether an entity is acting “on behalf of” any other entity or entities.
`
`PNC objects to this Interrogatory as seeking only information that is not relevant to any claim or
`
`defense in the pending Action and/or that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
`
`admissible evidence. PNC further objects to this Interrogatory as it seeks solely information
`
`protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, joint-defense privilege, common-
`
`interest privilege, and/or the work-product doctrine (including, but not limited to, the
`
`impressions, conclusions, opinions, legal research, or theories of attorneys, whether or not
`
`communicated to their client), or any other privilege or protection afforded by law or regulation.
`
`PNC also objects to the production or the listing of communications or documents on a withheld
`
`document list to the extent that those communications or other documents were generated after
`
`PNC’s receipt of Maxim’s December 2, 2011, Notice Letter to PNC as unduly burdensome.
`
`Page 2009-009
`
`

`

`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing specific and the General Objections, PNC
`
`responds as follows: PNC is aware of no otherwise-responsive information that is not protected
`
`from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, joint-defense privilege, common-interest
`
`privilege, and/or the work-product doctrine.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Date: March 11, 2013
`
`/s/ Lionel M. Lavenue
`Lionel M. Lavenue, Esq.
`lionel.lavenue@finnegan.com
`James J. Boyle, Esq.
`james.boyle@finnegan.com
`Michael V. Young, Sr., Esq.
`michael.young@finnegan.com
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
` GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P.
`Two Freedom Square
`11955 Freedom Drive
`Reston, VA 20190-5675
`Telephone: (571) 203-2700
`Facsimile: (202) 408-4400
`
`Elizabeth A. Laughton, Esq.
`elizabeth.laughton@finnegan.com
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
` GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P.
`901 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20001-4413
`Telephone: (202) 408-4000
`Facsimile: (202) 408-4400
`
`Counsel for Plaintiffs and Counter-Defendants
`The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. and
`PNC Bank, National Association
`
`Page 2009-010
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I, Lionel M. Lavenue, Esquire, hereby certify that on March 11, 2013, THE PNC
`
`FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC. AND PNC BANK, NATIONAL
`
`ASSOCIATION’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO MAXIM INTEGRATED
`
`PRODUCTS, INC.’S FIRST SET OF COMMON INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1–2) were
`
`served upon counsel of record via email.
`
`/s/ Lionel M. Lavenue
`Lionel M. Lavenue, Esq.
`
`Page 2009-011
`
`

`

`VERIFICATION OF THE PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC. AND PNC
`BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES
`TO MAXIM INTEGRATED PRODUCTS, INC.’S FIRST SET OF COMMON
`
`INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1—21
`
`I, Thomas F. Trebilcock, state under penalty of perjury that I am Vice President of E-
`
`Business & Payments for PNC Bank, National Association, that I am authorized to make this
`
`verification for and on behalf of The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. and PNC Bank,
`
`National Association, that I have read THE PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC.
`
`AND PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
`
`MAXIM INTEGRATED PRODUCTS, INC.’S FIRST SET OF CONFMON
`
`INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1—2), and that for those responses calling for information within
`
`the care, custody, or control of The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. and PNC Bank, National
`
`Association, I state that based on reasonable inquiry, the factual statements in the foregoing
`
`responses were true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief of the facts
`
`at the time they were served.
`
`Executed this ll
`
`.
`
`ah
`
`day of March, 2013
`
`
`
`[.7 I 7 “’7 I
`
`-
`.
`~
`Thomas F. Trebil ock
`
`.
`
`Vice President Of E~Business & Payments
`PNC Bank, National Association
`
`Page 2009-012
`
`
`
`Page 2009-012
`
`