`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TEXARKANA DIVISION
`
`MAXELL, LTD.,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff
`
`Civil Action NO. 5:19-cv-00036-RWS
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE’S RESPONSE TO MAXELL’S NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY
`REGARDING APPLE INC.’S OPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT TWO
`DEPOSITIONS AFTER THE FACT DEPOSITION DEADLINE
`
`Apple made its motion (D.I. 307) when it did because (1) Maxell agreed—before
`
`reneging—to take Mr. Watrous’s deposition out of time if Apple intends to call him at trial; and
`
`(2) it believed surprising the Court with opposed motion practice for Mr. Murphy’s deposition,
`
`months after fact discovery closed, and once the pandemic subsides, was inappropriate.
`
`In Optis, the parties jointly sought leave to conduct certain depositions after fact
`
`discovery closed, including for a witness in Germany (Mr. Faber), where remote depositions are
`
`not permitted and travel is restricted due to COVID-19. Nothing in Judge Gilstrap’s order
`
`suggests (as Maxell does) that it is proper for Apple to have assumed (as Maxell does) that just
`
`waiting until later would have been acceptable to this Court. Apple submits that this issue
`
`remains ripe for the Court’s consideration now, rather than at some later time at least because
`
`arrangements with the U.S. Embassy in Japan need to be made in advance. D.I. 307 at 2 n.1.
`
`Maxell’s low-traveling implication that Apple was not forthcoming with the Court on this issue
`
`is also without merit. Apple therefore respectfully asks that the Court grant Apple leave to
`
`conduct these depositions as soon as is warranted under the circumstances. Id. at 1.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 339 Filed 05/22/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 10548
`
`
`May 22, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/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
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`400 S. Hope Street
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: 213-430-6000
`Facsimile: 213-430-6407
`
`Marc J. Pensabene (Pro Hac Vice)
`mpensabene@omm.com
`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.
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 339 Filed 05/22/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 10549
`
`
`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 May 22, 2020.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Melissa R. Smith
`Melissa R. Smith
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
