`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
`
`
`IN RE: MAXIM INTEGRATED PRODUCTS,
`INC., MDL NO. 2354
`
`
`This Document Relates to: 12-cv-1641
`
`)
`)
`) Master Docket
`) Misc. No. 12-244
`) MDL No. 2354
`)
`)
`) CONTI, District Judge
`)
`)
`)
`)
`) C.A. No. 2:12-cv-1641-NBF
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`MAXIM INTEGRATED PRODUCTS, INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. and
`JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
`
`
`Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. AND JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.’S
`OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO MAXIM INTEGRATED PRODUCTS, INC.’S
`FIRST COMMON INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-2)
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 33, Defendant and Counterclaim
`
`Plaintiffs JPMorgan Chase & Co. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“JPM”) 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 JPM and for the purposes of the above-captioned case, No. 2:12-cv-1641, (referred to
`
`herein as the “Action”) and are based on JPM’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
`
`PALOALTO 146668
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Maxim Exhibit 2011 - PNC/JPMC, CBM2014-00039 - Page 2011-001
`
`

`

`refreshing of recollection and such knowledge or facts as may result from further
`
`investigation by JPM or its attorneys and/or further discovery from Maxim and/or third
`
`parties. JPM reserves the right to revise, amend, correct, supplement, modify or clarify its
`
`Responses. JPM’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.
`
`JPM’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.
`
`J P M 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 Chamber Rules.
`
`2.
`
`JPM objects to each of the Interrogatories to the extent that they are
`
`unduly burdensome, oppressive, overly broad, ambiguous, confusing, or vague. JPM also
`
`objects to the “DEFINITIONS,” “INSTRUCTIONS,” and “INTERROGATORIES” to the
`
`extent that they use terms that are undefined, vague, confusing, and/or ambiguous. JPM
`
`will interpret terms used by Maxim based on their ordinary meaning.
`
`PALOALTO 146668
`
`2
`
`JPM RESPONSES TO FIRST COMMON INTERROGATORIES
`CASE NO. 2:12-CV-0244-JFC
`2:12-CV-01641-JFC
`
`Page 2011-002
`
`

`

`3.
`
`JPM 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.
`
`JPM objects to Maxim’s Interrogatories to the extent that Maxim seeks to
`
`require JPM to provide any information beyond what is available to JPM 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.
`
`JPM 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.
`
`JPM 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.
`
`7.
`
`JPM objects to Maxim’s Interrogatories to the extent they purport to require
`
`JPM to search for information not within its possession, custody, or control. To do so would
`
`place an undue burden upon JPM.
`
`8.
`
`JPM 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.
`
`JPM 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
`
`PALOALTO 146668
`
`3
`
`JPM RESPONSES TO FIRST COMMON INTERROGATORIES
`CASE NO. 2:12-CV-0244-JFC
`2:12-CV-01641-JFC
`
`Page 2011-003
`
`

`

`JPM 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 JPM.
`
`10.
`
`JPM 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 JPM, nor should JPM’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, JPM’s responses to these
`
`Interrogatories should not be deemed exhaustive. The following Responses reflect JPM’s
`
`present knowledge, information, and belief, and may be subject to supplementation, change, or
`
`modification based on JPM’s further discovery, or on facts or circumstances that may come to
`
`JPM’s knowledge or attention in the future. JPM 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.
`
`13.
`
`JPM reserves the right to produce documents in lieu of narrative answers to
`
`these Interrogatories.
`
`14.
`
`JPM reserves the right to produce voluminous or atypical documents by
`
`making them available for inspection and copying by Maxim at the offices of JPM’s attorneys
`
`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 attorneys representing or
`
`advising JPM, JPM 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
`
`PALOALTO 146668
`
`4
`
`JPM RESPONSES TO FIRST COMMON INTERROGATORIES
`CASE NO. 2:12-CV-0244-JFC
`2:12-CV-01641-JFC
`
`Page 2011-004
`
`

`

`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.
`
`JPM objects to identifying or providing publicly available information or
`
`materials that are equally or more accessible to Maxim.
`
`18.
`
`JPM objects to Maxim’s Interrogatories to the extent they seek information from
`
`an unspecified or expansive timeframe.
`
`19.
`
`JPM 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.
`
`20.
`
`JPM 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 March 22, 2013, 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.
`
`JPM 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 JPM 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
`
`JPM neither employs nor controls.
`
`22.
`
`JPM objects to Maxim’s definition of the term “Person” as vague, ambiguous,
`
`indefinite, overbroad, unduly burdensome, seeking the production of information that is not
`
`PALOALTO 146668
`
`5
`
`JPM RESPONSES TO FIRST COMMON INTERROGATORIES
`CASE NO. 2:12-CV-0244-JFC
`2:12-CV-01641-JFC
`
`Page 2011-005
`
`

`

`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 JPM’s possession, custody, or control and is not reasonably
`
`accessible to JPM upon reasonable diligence.
`
`23.
`
`JPM 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 applicable privilege and/or immunity, and seeking the production
`
`of information that is not within JPM’s possession, custody, or control and is not reasonably
`
`accessible to JPM upon reasonable diligence.
`
`24.
`
`JPM 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 JPM’s possession, custody, or control and is not
`
`reasonably accessible to JPM upon reasonable diligence.
`
`25.
`
`JPM 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
`
`PALOALTO 146668
`
`6
`
`JPM RESPONSES TO FIRST COMMON INTERROGATORIES
`CASE NO. 2:12-CV-0244-JFC
`2:12-CV-01641-JFC
`
`Page 2011-006
`
`

`

`within JPM’s possession, custody, or control and is not reasonably accessible to JPM upon
`
`reasonable diligence.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
`
`INTERROGATORIES
`
`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:
`
`As set forth above, JPM provides this Response solely on behalf of JPM. JPM
`
`incorporates its General Objections herein by reference. In addition to the General Objections
`
`stated above, JPM objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly
`
`burdensome. JPM 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. JPM 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. JPM 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 the date of the complaint as unduly burdensome.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing specific and the General Objections, JPM
`
`responds as follows: JPM is aware of no otherwise responsive information that is not protected
`
`PALOALTO 146668
`
`7
`
`JPM RESPONSES TO FIRST COMMON INTERROGATORIES
`CASE NO. 2:12-CV-0244-JFC
`2:12-CV-01641-JFC
`
`Page 2011-007
`
`

`

`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
`
`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, JPM provides this Response solely on behalf of JPM. JPM
`
`incorporates its General Objections herein by reference. In addition to the General Objections
`
`stated above, JPM objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly
`
`burdensome. JPM 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. JPM further
`
`objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it purports to require JPM to search for information not
`
`within its possession, custody, or control, or that is not reasonably known or accessible to JPM
`
`upon reasonable diligence. JPM 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. JPM 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. JPM further objects to this Interrogatory as it seeks solely
`
`PALOALTO 146668
`
`8
`
`JPM RESPONSES TO FIRST COMMON INTERROGATORIES
`CASE NO. 2:12-CV-0244-JFC
`2:12-CV-01641-JFC
`
`Page 2011-008
`
`

`

`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.
`
`JPM 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
`
`the date of the complaint as unduly burdensome.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing specific and the General Objections, JPM
`
`responds as follows: JPM 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.
`
`PALOALTO 146668
`
`9
`
`JPM RESPONSES TO FIRST COMMON INTERROGATORIES
`CASE NO. 2:12-CV-0244-JFC
`2:12-CV-01641-JFC
`
`Page 2011-009
`
`

`

`Dated: February 18, 2014
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/s/ Bijal V. Vakil
`Samuel W. Braver
`PA I.D. No. 19682
`Ralph G. Fischer
`PA I.D. No. 200793
`BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
`One Oxford Centre
`301 Grant Street, 20th Floor
`Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1410
`Telephone 412.562.8800
`Facsimile 412.562.1041
`
`Bijal V. Vakil
`CA State Bar No.: 192878
`bvakil@whitecase.com
`Shamita D. Etienne-Cummings
`CA State Bar No.: 202090
`setienne@whitecase.com
`WHITE & CASE LLP
`3000 El Camino Real
`Five Palo Alto Square 9th Floor
`Palo Alto, CA 94306
`Telephone: 650.213.0300
`Facsimile: 650.213.8158
`
`Attorneys for Defendants and Counterclaimants
`JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. and
`JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.
`
`PALOALTO 146668
`
`10
`
`JPM RESPONSES TO FIRST COMMON INTERROGATORIES
`CASE NO. 2:12-CV-0244-JFC
`2:12-CV-01641-JFC
`
`Page 2011-010
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that on the 18th day of February, 2014 a true and correct copy
`
`of the foregoing document was served via e-mail on counsel of record as follows:
`
`Matthew D. Powers (pro hac vice)
`Steven S. Cherensky (pro hac vice)
`Paul T. Ehrlich (pro hac vice)
`William P. Nelson (pro hac vice)
`Aaron M. Nathan (pro hac vice)
`Stefani C. Smith (pro hac vice)
`Sam Y. Kim (pro hac vice)
`Robert L. Gerrity (pro hac vice)
`Palani P. Rathinasamy (pro hac vice)
`TENSEGRITY LAW GROUP LLP
`555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 360
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`Phone: (650) 802-6000
`Fax: (650) 802-6001
`Email:
`matthew.powers@tensegritylawgroup.com
`steven.cherensky@tensegritylawgroup.com
`paul.ehrlich@tensegritylawgroup.com
`william.nelson@tensegritylawgroup.com
`aaron.nathan@tensegritylawgroup.com
`stefani.smith@tensegritylawgroup.com
`sam.kim@tensegritylawgroup.com
`robert.gerrity@tensegritylawgroup.com
`palani@tensegritylawgroup.com
`
`Leland P. Schermer, Esquire
`Pa. ID No. 47283
`Bryan A. Loose, Esquire
`Pa. ID No. 201385
`LELAND SCHERMER & ASSOCIATES, PC Henry W. Oliver Building
`535 Smithfield Street, Third Floor
`Pittsburgh, PA 15222
`Phone: (412) 642-5000
`Fax: (412) 642-5010
`Email:
`lschermer@schermerlaw.com
`bloose@schermerlaw.com
`
`PALOALTO 146668
`
`11
`
`JPM RESPONSES TO FIRST COMMON INTERROGATORIES
`CASE NO. 2:12-CV-0244-JFC
`2:12-CV-01641-JFC
`
`Page 2011-011
`
`

`

`James C. Otteson
`Phillip W. Marsh
`Michael D.K. Nguyen
`AGILITY IP LAW LLP
`149 Commonwealth Drive
`Menlo Park, CA 94065
`Phone: (650) 227-4800
`Email:
`jim@agilityiplaw.com
`phil@agilityiplaw.com
`mnguyen@agilityiplaw.com
`
`Michael North
`NORTH WEBER & BAUGH LLP
`2479 E. Bayshore Road, Suite 707
`Palo Alto, CA 94303
`Email:
`mnorth@northweber.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant
`Maxim Integrated Products, Inc.
`
`Dated: May 31, 2013
`
`/s/ Bijal V. Vakil
`Bijal V. Vakil
`
`PALOALTO 146668
`
`12
`
`JPM RESPONSES TO FIRST COMMON INTERROGATORIES
`CASE NO. 2:12-CV-0244-JFC
`2:12-CV-01641-JFC
`
`Page 2011-012
`
`