UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
`
`This Document Relates to: 12-cv-945
`
`BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST
`COMPANY,
`
`)
`IN RE: MAXIM INTEGRATED PRODUCTS,
`)
`INC., MDL NO. 2354,
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`MAXIM INTEGRATED PRODUCTS, INC.,
`
`
`
`Defendant and Counter-Claimant.
`
`Master Docket
`Misc. No. 12-244
`MDL No. 2354
`
`CONTI, District Judge
`
`C.A. No. 2:12-cv-945-JFC
`
`BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY’S RESPONSES TO MAXIM
`INTEGRATED PRODUCTS, INC.’S FIRST COMMON
`INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-2)
`
`Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Branch Banking and
`
`Trust Company (“BB&T”) hereby responds to Maxim Integrated Products, Inc.’s (“Maxim”)
`
`First Common Interrogatories (Nos. 1-2) (the “Interrogatories”) as follows.
`
`These objections and responses are made solely on behalf of BB&T and for the purposes
`
`of the above-captioned case, No. 2:12-cv-945-JFC.
`
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS
`
`1.
`
`Each of BB&T’s responses to Maxim’s First Common Interrogatories is
`
`subject to, and incorporates, the following General Objections. BB&T specifically incorporates
`
`each of these General Objections into its specific responses to each of Maxim’s Interrogatories
`
`Maxim Exhibit 2010 - PNC/JPMC, CBM2014-00039 - Page 2010-001
`
`

`

`whether or not each such General Objection is expressly referred to in a specific response.
`
`BB&T’s responses are made without waiving any of these General Objections.
`
`2.
`
`BB&T objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they seek information
`
`potentially relevant to damages in light of the Court’s May 10, 2013 Order adopting the Special
`
`Master’s April 3, 2013 Report and Recommendation Re: Damages Discovery and Motion to
`
`Compel Doc. 465 (12-mc-244-JFC, D.I. 535), which phased damages discovery to begin on
`
`November 1, 2013.
`
`3.
`
`BB&T makes its responses subject to, and expressly preserving: (i) the
`
`right to object to any demand for further response to this or any other set of Interrogatories; (ii)
`
`the right to supplement or modify these responses at any time inasmuch as discovery is
`
`continuing, and the responses set forth herein are preliminary and may be amended, clarified,
`
`corrected, revised, or supplemented to the extent required or permitted by the applicable rules;
`
`(iii) all questions and objections as to the competence, relevance, materiality, and admissibility
`
`as evidence for any purpose of these responses, in any respect of this or any action or judicial or
`
`administrative proceeding or investigation; and (iv) the right to object on any ground to the use
`
`of any such responses in any aspect of this or any other action or judicial or administrative
`
`proceeding or investigation.
`
`4.
`
`BB&T further makes its responses subject to, and expressly reserves, the
`
`right to supplement or modify these responses in light of its ongoing review and analysis of the
`
`substantial claim construction proceedings and discovery that took place during the course of the stay
`
`of all proceedings, including discovery, as to BB&T from January 4, 2013 to May 28, 2013 by
`
`the Court’s order (12-mc-244-JFC, D.I. 428).
`
`Page 2010-002
`
`

`

`5.
`
`BB&T objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they call for disclosure
`
`of information that is not ascertainable by means of a reasonably diligent search including,
`
`without limitation, information that is not maintained by BB&T in the normal course of business
`
`or that is no longer maintained by BB&T. The specific responses set forth below and any
`
`production made pursuant thereto are based upon information currently available to BB&T after
`
`having made a reasonably diligent search of information in its possession, custody, or control
`
`that reasonably relates to one or more of the specific Interrogatories. BB&T objects to the
`
`Interrogatories to the extent they purport to demand information or documents not in BB&T’s
`
`possession, custody, or control or require a search of facilities or files that do not reasonably
`
`relate to one or more of the specific Interrogatories.
`
`6.
`
`BB&T objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they are inconsistent
`
`with or seek to impose obligations beyond those imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure and/or the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of
`
`Pennsylvania, including the Local Patent Rules.
`
`7.
`
`BB&T objects to these Interrogatories as unduly burdensome, overly
`
`broad, oppressive, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and
`
`inquiring into confidential, proprietary, or otherwise protected commercial information, to the
`
`extent they do not seek information relevant to any claim, defense, or counterclaim in this case
`
`and/or are not within the scope of permissible discovery as set forth in Rule 26 of the Federal
`
`Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`8.
`
`BB&T objects to these Interrogatories as vague and ambiguous to the
`
`extent they include terms that are undefined. Without waiving its right to supplement, revise,
`
`Page 2010-003
`
`

`

`amend, or modify its objections and/or responses, BB&T may identify terms it believes are
`
`vague and ambiguous and assume a reasonable meaning for each term.
`
`9.
`
`BB&T objects to these Interrogatories to the extent they seek information
`
`from outside a reasonable time period. BB&T also objects to these Interrogatories to the extent
`
`that the time period in question renders an interrogatory vague and ambiguous. BB&T is willing
`
`to meet and confer with Maxim regarding reasonable time periods and cutoffs.
`
`10.
`
`BB&T objects to these Interrogatories to the extent they seek information
`
`or documents dated or otherwise coming into existence after the June 18, 2012 date of filing of
`
`BB&T’s Complaint.
`
`11.
`
`BB&T objects to these Interrogatories as unduly burdensome and overly
`
`broad to the extent that they purport to require BB&T to search facilities and/or inquire of
`
`employees and/or representatives other than those facilities and employees and/or representatives
`
`that would reasonably be expected to have responsive information. BB&T’s responses are based
`
`upon (1) a reasonable search and investigation of facilities and files that could reasonably be
`
`expected to contain responsive information, in light of the stay of all proceedings, including
`
`discovery, as to BB&T from January 4, 2013 to May 28, 2013 by the Court’s order (12-mc-244-
`
`JFC, D.I. 428), and (2) inquiries of employees and/or representatives who could reasonably be
`
`expected to possess responsive information.
`
`12.
`
`BB&T objects to these Interrogatories to the extent they seek information
`
`protected by the attorney-client privilege, common interest privilege, the attorney work-product
`
`doctrine, and/or any other applicable privilege or immunity. Any inadvertent disclosure of such
`
`information shall not be deemed a waiver of the attorney-client privilege, common interest
`
`Page 2010-004
`
`

`

`privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege or immunity recognized
`
`by statute or case law.
`
`13.
`
`BB&T’s responses to these Interrogatories do not constitute admissions
`
`relative to the existence of any documents or information, to the relevance or admissibility of any
`
`documents or information, or to the truth or accuracy of any statement or characterization
`
`contained in Maxim’s Interrogatories. All objections as to relevance, authenticity, or
`
`admissibility of any document are expressly reserved.
`
`14.
`
`BB&T objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they seek to compel
`
`BB&T to generate or create information and/or documents that do not already exist or are not
`
`maintained by BB&T in the ordinary course of business.
`
`15.
`
`BB&T objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they seek confidential or
`
`proprietary information pertaining to BB&T’s business, trade secrets and/or economic
`
`relationships or confidential information that would impinge on the constitutionally protected
`
`right to privacy of individuals. BB&T will only provide such information subject to entry of the
`
`Supplemental Protective Order (12-mc-244-JFC, D.I. 522) (or appropriate modification) as to
`
`BB&T.
`
`16.
`
`BB&T objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they seek confidential,
`
`proprietary, or trade secret information of third parties. BB&T will endeavor to work with third
`
`parties to obtain their consent, where appropriate, before identifying and/or producing such
`
`information and/or documents.
`
`17.
`
`BB&T objects to the Interrogatories on the grounds and to the extent they
`
`seek information that is already known to or in the possession of Maxim, publicly available, or as
`
`readily available to Maxim as it is to BB&T.
`
`Page 2010-005
`
`

`

`18.
`
`BB&T objects to the Interrogatories on the grounds and to the extent that
`
`they seek information unknown to BB&T or not maintained in the ordinary course of business.
`
`19.
`
`BB&T objects to the Interrogatories on the grounds and to the extent that
`
`they seek legal conclusions or call for expert testimony. BB&T’s responses should not be
`
`construed to provide legal conclusions.
`
`OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS
`
`1.
`
`BB&T objects to each of Maxim’s Definitions and Instructions to the
`
`extent it purports to create a requirement or obligation in addition to, beyond the scope of, or
`
`different from those imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and/or the Local Rules of
`
`the United States District Court of the Western District of Pennsylvania.
`
`2.
`
`BB&T objects generally to the definition of the term “Defendants,” as
`
`vague, overly broad, and unduly burdensome to the extent it includes “all of [the Opposing
`
`Parties’] respective corporate locations, and all predecessors, subsidiaries, parents, and affiliates,
`
`and all past or present directors, officers, agents, representatives, employees, consultants,
`
`attorneys, entities acting in joint venture or partnership relationship with the aforementioned
`
`entities, and others acting on their behalves.” BB&T will construe this term to refer solely to
`
`Branch Banking and Trust Company.
`
`3.
`
`BB&T objects to Maxim’s definition of the term “Patents-in-Suit,” as
`
`unduly burdensome, overly broad, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
`
`admissible evidence, and not relevant to any claim, defense, or counterclaim in this case to the
`
`extent it purports to extend to patents and/or claims outside the scope of Maxim’s Supplemental
`
`Infringement Contentions dated December 14, 2012 and corrected on May 29, 2013, or to the
`
`extent it purports to extend to claims outside the scope of any legally operative set of substitute
`
`Page 2010-006
`
`

`

`Infringement Contentions that Maxim may be permitted to file pursuant to, and subject to, Court
`
`order(s).
`
`4.
`
`BB&T objects to Maxim’s definition of “This Action” as overly broad and
`
`unduly burdensome because “MDL No. 2354” does not identify a single “action,” but rather
`
`designates a multidistrict litigation proceeding comprising a set of actions, only one of which
`
`involves BB&T (No. 12-cv-945-JFC), in accordance with the applicable Judicial Panel on
`
`Multidistrict Litigation Rules.
`
`5.
`
`BB&T objects to these Interrogatories to the extent they purport to require
`
`BB&T to analyze, interpret, or summarize information for Maxim that is contained in documents
`
`responsive to Maxim’s requests for production of documents.
`
`6.
`
`BB&T objects to Instruction No. 3 as overly broad and unduly
`
`burdensome to the extent this Instruction purports to impose obligations on BB&T to answer
`
`Maxim’s interrogatories “whether the information is possessed by any Defendant, individually or
`
`collectively, or their respective predecessors, successors, parents, affiliates, subsidiaries, present
`
`or former officers, directors, general partners, limited partners, trustees, managers, employees,
`
`representatives, agents, sub-agents, distributors, attorneys, attorneys-in-fact, accountants,
`
`investigators, advisors, consultants, or any other person acting or purporting to act, exercising
`
`discretion, and/or making decisions on their behalf” beyond the requirements of the Federal
`
`Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Evidence, or the Local Rules of the Western
`
`District of Pennsylvania, and any and all other applicable rules. As set forth above, BB&T’s
`
`responses are made solely on behalf of BB&T and for the purposes of the above-captioned case,
`
`No. 2:12-cv-945-JFC. BB&T will respond to these Interrogatories in accordance with the
`
`Federal and Local Rules.
`
`Page 2010-007
`
`

`

`7.
`
`BB&T objects to Instruction No. 4 to the extent it requires information
`
`beyond any requirements for privilege logs entered by the Court or to which the parties have
`
`agreed.
`
`8.
`
`BB&T objects to Instruction No. 5 as unduly burdensome to the extent it
`
`requires BB&T to re-write or speculate as to the purpose of any Interrogatories. BB&T will
`
`respond to these Interrogatories in accordance with the Federal and Local Rules.
`
`9.
`
`BB&T objects to Instruction No. 6 as unduly burdensome to the extent it
`
`requires BB&T to define terms in the Interrogatories that are vague and/or ambiguous. BB&T
`
`may identify terms it believes are vague and ambiguous and assume a reasonable meaning for
`
`each term.
`
`10.
`
`BB&T objects to each Interrogatory to the extent they are duplicative or
`
`cumulative of Maxim’s Interrogatories to Branch Banking and Trust Company, Maxim’s
`
`Requests for Production of Documents and Things to Branch Banking and Trust Company, or
`
`another discovery request, or is obtainable by Maxim from another source that is more
`
`convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i).
`
`11.
`
`BB&T objects to each Interrogatory to the extent that the burden or
`
`expense of the Interrogatory outweighs their likely benefits under Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`26(b)(2)(C)(iii).
`
`12.
`
`BB&T expressly reserves the right to respond to any or all of the
`
`Interrogatories by specifying documents wherein the responsive information may be ascertained
`
`pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`Page 2010-008
`
`

`

`RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General Objections, BB&T responds as
`
`follows:
`
`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.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1
`
`BB&T incorporates herein the General Objections set forth above and provides this
`
`response solely on behalf of BB&T. BB&T objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks
`
`information from or about persons or legal entities that BB&T neither employs nor controls.
`
`BB&T also objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad and unduly burdensome. BB&T further
`
`objects to this Interrogatory as seeking only information that is not relevant to any claim or
`
`defense and/or that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
`
`BB&T further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information and/or documents
`
`protected by the attorney-client privilege, common interest privilege, work product doctrine,
`
`and/or any other applicable privilege or immunity. BB&T also objects to this Interrogatory to
`
`the extent it seeks information and/or documents not in BB&T’s possession, custody, or control.
`
`BB&T further objects to the production or the listing of communications or documents on a
`
`withheld document list to the extent those communications or documents are dated or otherwise
`
`came into existence after the June 18, 2012 date of filing of BB&T’s Complaint.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General and specific objections, BB&T
`
`states that it is presently unaware of any responsive information that is not privileged or
`
`otherwise immune from discovery.
`
`Page 2010-009
`
`

`

`Discovery is not complete, all proceedings as to BB&T were stayed from January 4, 2013
`
`to May 28, 2013, and BB&T’s investigation is continuing. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e),
`
`BB&T expressly reserves the right to supplement, amend, and/or modify these responses.
`
`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
`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
`
`BB&T incorporates herein the General Objections set forth above and provides this
`
`Response solely on behalf of BB&T. BB&T objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks
`
`information from or about persons or legal entities that BB&T neither employs nor controls.
`
`BB&T also objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad and unduly burdensome. BB&T further
`
`objects to this Interrogatory as seeking only information that is not relevant to any claim or
`
`defense and/or that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
`
`BB&T further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that the use of the terms “members,”
`
`“third party,” “litigation experts,” “consultants,” “vendors,” “litigation service providers,” and
`
`“on behalf of” is undefined, vague, and ambiguous. BB&T 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. BB&T further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks
`
`information and/or documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, common interest
`
`privilege, work product doctrine, and/or any other applicable privilege or immunity. BB&T
`
`further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information and/or documents not in
`
`Page 2010-010
`
`

`

`BB&T’s possession, custody, or control. BB&T also objects to the production or the listing of
`
`communications or documents on a withheld document list to the extent those communications
`
`or documents are dated or otherwise came into existence after the June 18, 2012 date of filing of
`
`BB&T’s Complaint.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General and specific objections, BB&T
`
`states that it has had communications with parties who have been involved in litigation with (or
`
`threatened with suit by) Maxim, and BB&T objects to disclosing these communications on the
`
`grounds of the asserted privileges. BB&T’s privilege objection also extends to communications
`
`with other Opposing Parties about the work product of those Opposing Parties, and BB&T will
`
`not disclose such communications. BB&T’s privilege objection also extends to identification of
`
`any third parties with whom BB&T has had protected communications concerning the patents-
`
`in-suit and/or this litigation. Otherwise, BB&T has not had any communications responsive to
`
`this Interrogatory.
`
`Discovery is not complete, all proceedings as to BB&T were stayed from January 4, 2013
`
`to May 28, 2013, and BB&T’s investigation is continuing. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e),
`
`BB&T expressly reserves the right to supplement, amend, and/or modify these responses.
`
`Page 2010-011
`
`

`

`Dated: July 8, 2013
`
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`
`By: /s/ Henry Huang
`James R. Myers
`Henry Y. Huang
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`One Metro Center
`700 12th Street, NW, Suite 900
`Washington, DC 20005-3948
`James.Myers@ropesgray.com
`Henry.Huang@ropesgray.com
`
`Leslie M. Spencer
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`1211 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036-8704
`Leslie.Spencer@ropesgray.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Branch Banking and Trust Company
`
`Page 2010-012
`
`

`

`Dated: July 8, 2013
`
`As to answers, on behalf of BB&T
`
`By:
`
`‘2 )‘Q/M/L ML Salli/44f
`
`Dean Scharnhorst
`
`Page 2010-013
`
`Page 2010-013
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on this 8th day of July, 2013, a copy of the foregoing BRANCH
`
`BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY’S RESPONSES TO MAXIM
`
`INTEGRATED
`
`PRODUCTS, INC.’S FIRST COMMON INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-2) was served via e-
`
`mail upon counsel for Maxim.
`
` /s/ Henry Huang
`
`Page 2010-014
`
`