Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 147 Filed 11/27/19 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 6125
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TEXARKANA DIVISION
`
`MAXELL, LTD.,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
` Civil Action No. 5:19-cv-00036-RWS
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE
`
`On November 13, 2019, the Court issued an Order (D.I. 126, “Order”) denying plaintiff
`
`Maxell, Ltd.’s (“Maxell’s) motion to compel defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”) to produce
`
`documents. See D.I. 126 at 4 (“Accordingly, Maxell’s motion to compel document production is
`
`DENIED.”). The Court stated that it expected Apple to abide by a representation Apple made
`
`during the September 17, 2019 hearing to substantially complete its document production by
`
`November 27, 2019. See id. (citing D.I. 100).1 Apple hereby provides notice that as of November
`
`27, 2019, it has substantially completed its document production.
`
`Specifically, as of November 27, 2019, Apple has produced over 1,100,000 pages of
`
`documents, including, for example, bill-of-materials (“BOM”) documents, user manuals, design
`
`schematics, financial data, marketing materials, licenses, pre-suit correspondence, data sheets,
`
`presentations and other categories of documents. In response to Maxell’s specific demands, Apple
`
`undertook burdensome and costly searches and produced several categories of technical
`
`
`1 See D.I. 100 (9/17/19 Hrg. Tr.) at 39:10-14 (“Again looking at that if [the Court] decide[s] to
`adopt Judge Gilstrap’s substantial production deadline of November 27, I don’t see any issue
`with rolling those documents out prior to that date.”); 41:6-8 (“One more note about the
`November 27th deadline for substantial completion of production as Judge Gilstrap utilizes.”).
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 147 Filed 11/27/19 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 6126
`
`
`
`documents that are disproportionate to the needs of the case and for which Maxell did not even
`
`attempt to demonstrate a legitimate need. Apple has also made available for inspection, pursuant
`
`to the Protective Order in this case (Dkt. No. 45), over 1.6 million source code files, including
`
`making available source code, pursuant to Maxell’s specific request, for claim limitations for
`
`which Maxell did not even identify as “software” limitations under Patent Rule 3-1(g).
`
`Accordingly, Apple’s document production is now substantially complete.
`
`In its Order, the Court also granted, in whole or in part, Maxell’s motion to compel
`
`responses to Interrogatory Nos. 3-9. See D.I. 126 at 11. The Court did not impose any specific
`
`deadline for Apple’s supplementation of its interrogatory responses. See generally id. at 4-11.
`
`After receiving the Court’s Order, Apple immediately began the process of gathering information
`
`necessary to supplement its responses to these interrogatories in accordance with the Court’s
`
`Order. On November 27, 2019, Apple served supplemental responses to Interrogatory Nos. 3-9
`
`and informed Maxell that Apple will continue to supplement its responses as it continues its
`
`diligent investigation.
`
`As Apple explained during the September 17, 2019 hearing, Maxell’s Interrogatory No. 6
`
`includes an attached spreadsheet requesting Apple fill out a chart with 10,164 cells seeking a
`
`variety of information about components in the Accused Products covering a six year span. See
`
`D.I. 100 (9/17/19 Hrg. Tr.) at 49:9-21, 50:6-20. Responding to Interrogatory No. 6 and completing
`
`the chart attached thereto is extremely burdensome, and it has required and will continue to require
`
`significant time and effort, to the extent all of the information is even in Apple’s possession,
`
`custody, or control. Moreover, the impending holidays and Apple’s corporate shutdowns will also
`
`impact the availability of Apple employees required to complete this task. Apple’s current
`
`supplemental response to Interrogatory No. 6 includes information Apple was able to obtain as of
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 147 Filed 11/27/19 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 6127
`
`
`
`November 27. Apple is continuing its diligent efforts to collect and compile additional responsive
`
`information and expects to further supplement its response with additional information requested
`
`in the chart as soon as practicable and on a rolling basis.
`
`
`
`Dated: November 27, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Luann L. Simmons
`
`
`
`Luann L. Simmons (Pro Hac Vice)
`lsimmons@omm.com
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`Two Embarcadero Center
`28th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: 415-984-8700
`Facsimile: 415-984-8701
`
`Xin-Yi Zhou (Pro Hac Vice)
`vzhou@omm.com
`Anthony G. Beasley (TX #24093882)
`tbeasley@omm.com
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`400 S. Hope Street
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: 213-430-6000
`Facsimile: 213-430-6407
`
`Laura Bayne Gore (Pro Hac Vice)
`lbayne@omm.com
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`Times Square Tower, 7 Times Square
`New York, NY 10036
`Telephone: 212-326-2000
`Facsimile: 212-326-2061
`
`Melissa R. Smith (TX #24001351)
`melissa@gilliamsmithlaw.com
`GILLIAM & SMITH, LLP
`303 South Washington Avenue
`Marshall, Texas 75670
`Telephone: (903) 934-8450
`Facsimile: (903) 934-9257
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 147 Filed 11/27/19 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 6128
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented
`
`to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s CM/ECF system
`
`per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) on November 27, 2019.
`
`/s/ Melissa R. Smith
`Melissa R. Smith
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`