Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 270 Filed 04/08/20 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 9888
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TEXARKANA DIVISION
`
`MAXELL, LTD.,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 5:19-cv-0036-RWS
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`MAXELL, LTD.’S SUPPLEMENT TO REPORT REGARDING
`MAXELL LTD.’S MOTION TO COMPEL (D.I. 197)
`
`
`In an effort to save the Court from unnecessary work related to Maxell’s Motion to Compel
`
`(D.I. 197), Maxell clarified the issues that the parties have resolved (specifying the resolving event)
`
`and those that still require the Court’s decision following an extended meet and confer with Apple.1
`
`D.I. 266. Apple declined to join Maxell’s submission stating it was argumentative to include a
`
`listing of the unresolved items.2 Apple then responded with argument designed to muddy the water.
`
`Notwithstanding those untimely arguments, Maxell – as the moving party – respectfully contends
`
`that its view of which issues still require Court intervention is the one the Court must credit.
`
`Last, Apple repeatedly contends that certain issues – resolved or not – were raised for the
`
`first time in Maxell’s Reply. That is not correct. As the Court knows, Maxell was limited to 7
`
`pages for its Motion. See Standing Order Regarding “Meet and Confer” Obligations Relating to
`
`
`1 As the movant, Maxell felt obligated to inform the Court of the resolved and unresolved issues
`in its pending Motion to Compel. In particular, Maxell was mindful of the Court’s statement in
`its Order (D.I. 236) at page 2, stating “[i]t is not clear from the motion for sanctions which
`documents addressed in the motion to compel are still at issue.” D.I. 236 at 2.
`2 By no means was Maxell’s submission “argumentative.” Indeed, during the meet and confer to
`discuss the resolved and unresolved items raised in Maxell’s Motion to Compel, the parties
`generally agreed to a course of submitting a listing of both resolved and unresolved issues to the
`Court. See Exhibit A.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 270 Filed 04/08/20 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 9889
`
`
`Discovery Disputes. As a result of this limitation, Maxell identified in its Motion categories of
`
`discovery deficiencies along with specific examples within each category with the expectation of
`
`providing further specifics (as necessary) at the hearing that was anticipated by the Discovery
`
`Order if Apple had not resolved the categories of deficiencies. D.I. 42 at ¶ 9(b). After referral, the
`
`Court allowed additional, expanded briefing in lieu of a hearing. As such, Maxell included
`
`additional specifics in its Reply. D.I. 244. These specifics fall within the categories raised in
`
`Maxell’s Motion.
`
`Each deficiency was discussed in the parties’ prior correspondence and during meet and
`
`confers. All issues that Maxell identified as “unresolved” are ripe for the Court’s decision.
`
`
`
`Dated: April 8, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Jamie B. Beaber
`
`Geoff Culbertson
`Kelly Tidwell
`Patton, Tidwell & Culbertson, LLP
`2800 Texas Boulevard (75503)
`Post Office Box 5398
`Texarkana, TX 75505-5398
`Telephone: (903) 792-7080
`Facsimile: (903) 792-8233
`gpc@texarkanalaw.com
`kbt@texarkanalaw.com
`
`Jamie B. Beaber
`Alan M. Grimaldi
`Kfir B. Levy
`James A. Fussell, III
`Baldine B. Paul
`Tiffany A. Miller
`Saqib Siddiqui
`Bryan Nese
`William J. Barrow
`Alison T. Gelsleichter
`Clark S. Bakewell
`MAYER BROWN LLP
`1999 K Street, NW
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 270 Filed 04/08/20 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 9890
`
`
`Washington, DC 20006
`Telephone: (202) 263-3000
`Facsimile: (202) 263-3300
`jbeaber@mayerbrown.com
`agrimaldi@mayerbrown.com
`klevy@mayerbrown.com
`jfussell@mayerbrown.com
`bpaul@mayerbrown.com
`tmiller@mayerbrown.com
`ssiddiqui@mayerbrown.com
`bnese@mayerbrown.com
`wbarrow@mayerbrown.com
`agelsleichter@mayerbrown.com
`cbakewell@mayerbrown.com
`
`Robert G. Pluta
`Amanda S. Bonner
`MAYER BROWN LLP
`71 S. Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60606
`(312) 782-0600
`rpluta@mayerbrown.com
`asbonner@mayerbrown.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff Maxell, Ltd.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 270 Filed 04/08/20 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 9891
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to
`electronic service are being served this 8th day of April, 2020, with a copy of this document via
`the Court’s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(A)(3).
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Jamie B. Beaber
`Jamie B. Beaber
`
`
`
`
`
`