Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 221-3 Filed 03/09/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 8923
`Case 5:19-cv-00036—RWS DocumeHUMQVEflédCO‘S/OQIZO Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 8923
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 221-3 Filed 03/09/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 8924
`
`
`O’Melveny & Myers LLP
`400 South Hope Street
`18ᵗʰ Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899
`
`T: +1 213 430 6000
`F: +1 213 430 6407
`omm.com
`
`July 18, 2019
`
`VIA EMAIL
`
`Jamie B. Beaber
`Mayer Brown LLP
`1999 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20006-1101
`jbeaber@mayerbrown.com
`
`File Number:
`0027559-00428
`
`Tony Beasley
`D: +1 213 430 6529
`tbeasley@omm.com
`
`Re: Maxell, Ltd. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 5:19-cv-00036-RWS (E.D. Tex.)
`
`Dear Mr. Beaber:
`
`We write in response to your July 15, 2019 letter. We agree this Court’s Discovery Order is
`intended to streamline the discovery process, but we disagree with Maxell’s apparent position
`that July 10 was the deadline for Apple to produce all responsive and relevant documents in this
`case. We are unaware of any authority interpreting the deadline for Additional Disclosures in
`this manner. If you have case law to support your position, please send those cases to us.
`
`To reiterate what we stated in our July 12, 2019 letter, Apple does not intend to delay its
`document production in any way. Maxell only served its Infringement Contentions a little over a
`month ago, on June 12, and these contentions identified over 120 different models of accused
`products, many of which were not identified in Maxell’s Complaint. We had begun the
`document collection process for products identified in the Complaint long ago, and we are
`continuing to diligently collect and review documents to cover the expanded and wide breadth of
`allegations in this case. We intend to continue a rolling production in as expeditiously a manner
`as possible and practical. We believe that this type of rolling production is more than sufficient
`under—and consistent with the purposes of—the Docket Control Order, Local Patent Rules, and
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`To answer your specific questions, Apple does intend to comply with Local Patent Rule 3-4 by
`August 14, 2019. (This will include user manuals, which are now stored in a proprietary format
`and require additional processing time.) As to the remaining document categories iterated in
`your July 11 letter, as I also stated previously, we are currently unaware of any areas where the
`parties are at an impasse. We plan to continue our rolling production before August 14, and will
`continue thereafter to produce documents on an ongoing basis. We do not believe it is
`necessary or helpful to set arbitrary deadlines for these productions. As you know, Judge
`Schroeder did not set (and does not typically set) a deadline for the substantial completion of
`document production, nor do we believe such a deadline is necessary in this case. If the only
`perceived conflict on Maxell’s end is the rate at which documents are being produced, we
`suggest (1) providing authority, as requested above, interpreting the Additional Disclosure
`
`Century City • Los Angeles • Newport Beach • New York • San Francisco • Silicon Valley • Washington, DC
`Beijing • Brussels • Hong Kong • London • Seoul • Shanghai • Singapore • Tokyo
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 221-3 Filed 03/09/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 8925
`
`
`deadline in the manner you suggest; and/or (2) tabling any demand for a meet-and-confer until
`at least after August 14, 2019, by which date Apple expects to have produced substantially
`more documents.
`
`
`
`
`Sincerely,
`
`/s/ Tony Beasley
`
`Tony Beasley
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`