`Case 5:16-cv-00179—RWS Document 291-12 Filed 08/28/18 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 18716
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT K
`
`EXHIBIT K
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 291-12 Filed 08/28/18 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 18717
`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 291-12 Filed 08/28/18 Page 2 of 3 PagelD #: 18717
`
`Miller, Tiffany A.
`From:
`
`gunninghgm, Dumas; figaber. Jamie B.; Fusseli. Triog
`To:
`
`CE: WWWI; MLIENT- HM--ZTE- Service; ZTE Hitachi; "Eric Findiafl,
`"Brian E raft"
`RE: Maxell, Ltd. v. ZTE Corporation at al., Case No. 5:16—cv-00179—RWS (ED. Tex.)
`Monday, May 21, 2013 1:45:36 PM
`image001.png
`mm
`
`Subject:
`Date:
`Attachments:
`
`Nicole,
`
`We agree to a mutual exchange for objections to rebuttal exhibits on Thursday.
`
`Regards,
`
`Tiffany
`
`
`
`[mailto:nicole.cunningham@pillsburylaw.com]
`3:39 PM
`
`r, Jamie B.,' Fusseli, Tripp
`
`exar ana aw. corn‘; 'kbt@texarkanalaw. com'; US-CLIENT-HM-ZTE-Service; ZTE_Hitachi; 'Eric
`.gpc
`Findlay'; 'Brian Craft'
`Subject: RE. Maxell, Ltd. v. ZTE Corporation et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-00179-RWS (ED. Tex.)
`
`Tiffany,
`
`change should be mutual. Please let us know it Maxell agrees.
`
`but our posmon Is that such a
`
`Best Regards,
`Nicole
`
`Nicole S. Cunningham | Partner
`
`Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
`
`501 West Broadway, Suite 1100 J San Diego, CA 92101—3575
`t 619.544.3123
`
`nicolecunningham@pillsburylawcom l websitejlio
`
`From: Miller, Tiffany A. <TMi|ler@mayerbrown.com>
`
`Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 11:16 AM
`
`To: Cunningham, Nicole S. <nicoie.cunningham@pillsburylaw.com>; Beaber, Jamie B.
`
`
`
`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 291-12 Filed 08/28/18 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 18718
`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 291-12 Filed 08/28/18 Page 3 of 3 PagelD #: 18718
`
`<1Beaber@mayerbrown.com>; Fussell, Tripp <JFusseil@mayerbrown.com>
`
`CC:
`
`'gPC@texarkanalaw.com' <gpc@texarl<analaw.com>; 'kbt@texarkanalaw.com‘
`
`<l<bt@texarl<a nalaw.com>; US—CLIENT~HM-ZTE-Service <HM-ZTE-Sewicengmayerbrown.com>;
`
`ZTE_Hitachi <ZTEHitachi@PilIsbury|aw.com>; 'Eric Findlay' <EFindlay@FindlayCrait.com>; 'Brian
`
`Craft' <BCrait@FindlayCratt.com>
`
`Subject: RE: Maxell, Ltd. v. ZTE Corporation at al., Case No. 5:16-cv-00179-RWS (ED. Tex.)
`
`Nicole,
`
`Last week, at the Court’s urging, the parties met and conferred and came to agreement regarding
`
`significant and meaningful narrowing of exhibits. Now, ZTE has identified 200 additional rebuttal
`
`exhibits, notably doubling the total number of exhibits and exceeding the Court’s limit by 150
`
`exhibits. We do not view this latest exchange to be within the spirit of the parties’ agreement or the
`Court’s admonition.
`
`Please let us know whether ZTE will provide a narrowed list, exceeding no more than 50 exhibits,
`
`today. If ZTE is not so willing, Maxell requests until Thursday, May 24, to provide its objections to
`
`ZTE’s rebuttal exhibit list. Maxell further reserves its right to raise this issue with the Court.
`
`Regards,
`
`Tiffany
`
`From: Cunningham, Nicole S. [maiIto:ni;ole.;unningham@pi| shtimlawggm]
`Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 6:34 AM
`To: Miller, Tiffany A.; Beaber, Jamie B.; Fussell, Tripp
`Cc: 'gpc@texarkanalaw.com'; 'kbt@texarkanalaw.com'; US—CLIENT-HM-ZTE-Service; ZTE_Hitachi; ‘Eric
`Findlay'; 'Brian Craft'
`Subject: Maxell, Ltd. v. ZTE Corporation et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-00179-RWS (ED. Tex.)
`
`Counsel,
`
`Please see the attached native version of ZTE USA’s rebuttal exhibit list.
`
`Best Regards,
`Nicole
`
`Nicole S. Cunningham | Partner
`
`Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
`
`501 West Broadway, Suite 1100 | San Diego, CA 92101—3575
`t619.544.3123
`
`nigglegunningham@pill5biirylam,ggm | Mbsiiibifl
`AEIJ Ier'JEil
`A LiSTlN
`E-E .l' NG
`[1 )3)“.
`-Dlv‘3 HUNG
`HC-"JE'Q-N
`-|.:=3\.DI'J=’\
`LOB :‘tNGELES
`VHN')‘
`V325“? _;
`.‘n’E'h‘n' ”0:3:
`Lill—.1 T—EQH HIRE Mi“:
`F‘MJV B-E-‘LCH
`SAC-"i.“«f‘JlEP-TCI
`SAN DiEGO Sufi“ DIEGC' \CR‘T“ C73 -l‘tTi'
`SAP. F2141 NCECCI
`5H“. NEH-1. Bibi-3'. 'Ia'i'v._E ‘r'
`TDl "'C:
`'fia'fnS-l-INGTCli-J DC
`
`
`pi shurq
`
`