throbber
Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 35-1 Filed 06/12/19 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 395
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TEXARKANA DIVISION
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 5:19-cv-0036-RWS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`MAXELL, LTD.,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`
`
`DISCOVERY ORDER FOR PATENT CASES
`
`After a review of the pleaded claims and defenses in this action, in furtherance of the
`
`management of the Court’s docket under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, and after receiving
`
`the input of the parties to this action, it is ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:
`
`1.
`
`Initial Disclosures. In lieu of the disclosures required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
`
`26(a)(1), each party shall disclose to every other party the following information:
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`the correct names of the parties to the lawsuit;
`
`the name, address, and telephone number of any potential parties;
`
`the legal theories and, in general, the factual bases of the disclosing party’s claims
`
`or defenses (the disclosing party need not marshal all evidence that may be offered
`
`at trial);
`
`(d)
`
`the name, address, and telephone number of persons having knowledge of relevant
`
`facts, a brief statement of each identified person’s connection with the case, and a
`
`brief, fair summary of the substance of the information known by any such person;
`
`(e)
`
`any indemnity and insuring agreements under which any person or entity carrying
`
`on an insurance business may be liable to satisfy part or all of a judgment entered
`
`Page 1 of 10
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 35-1 Filed 06/12/19 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: 396
`
`
`in this action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the
`
`judgment;
`
`(f)
`
`(g)
`
`any settlement agreements relevant to the subject matter of this action; and
`
`any statement of any party to the litigation.
`
`2.
`
`Disclosure of Expert Testimony. A party must disclose to the other parties the identity
`
`of any witness it may use at trial to present evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702,
`
`703 or 705, and:
`
`(a)
`
`if the witness is one retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony in
`
`the case or one whose duties as the party’s employee regularly involve giving expert
`
`testimony, provide the disclosures required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
`
`26(a)(2)(B) and Local Rule CV-26; and
`
`(b)
`
`for all other such witnesses, provide the disclosure required by Federal Rule of Civil
`
`Procedure 26(a)(2)(C).
`
`3.
`
`Additional Disclosures. Without awaiting a discovery request,1 each party will make the
`
`following disclosures to every other party:
`
`(a)
`
`provide the disclosures required by the Patent Rules for the Eastern District of
`
`Texas with the following modifications to P.R. 3-1 and P.R. 3-3:
`
`
`
`P.R. 3-1(g): If a party claiming patent infringement asserts that a
`claim element is a software limitation, the party need not comply
`with P.R. 3-1 for those claim elements until 30 days after source
`code for each Accused Instrumentality is produced by the opposing
`party. Thereafter, the party claiming patent infringement shall
`identify, on an element-by-element basis for each asserted claim,
`what source code of each Accused Instrumentality allegedly
`satisfies the software limitations of the asserted claim elements.
`
`
`
`                                                            
`1 The Court anticipates that this disclosure requirement will obviate the need for requests for
`production.
`
`Page 2 of 10
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 35-1 Filed 06/12/19 Page 3 of 10 PageID #: 397
`
`
`P.R. 3-3(e): If a party claiming patent infringement exercises the
`provisions of P.R. 3-1(g), the party opposing a claim of patent
`infringement may serve, not later than 30 days after receipt of a P.R.
`3-1(g) disclosure, supplemental “Invalidity Contentions” that
`amend only those claim elements identified as software limitations
`by the party claiming patent infringement.
`
`(b)
`
`produce or permit the inspection of all documents, electronically stored
`
`information, and tangible things in the possession, custody, or control of the party
`
`that are relevant to the pleaded claims or defenses involved in this action, except to
`
`the extent these disclosures are affected by the time limits set forth in the Patent
`
`Rules for the Eastern District of Texas; and
`
`(c)
`
`provide a complete computation of any category of damages claimed by any party
`
`to the action, and produce or permit the inspection of documents or other
`
`evidentiary material on which such computation is based, including materials
`
`bearing on the nature and extent of injuries suffered, except that the disclosure of
`
`the computation of damages may be deferred until the time for Expert Disclosures
`
`if a party will rely on a damages expert.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Protective Orders. The Court will enter the parties’ Agreed Protective Order.
`
`Discovery Limitations. The discovery in this cause is limited to the disclosures described
`
`in Paragraphs 1-3 together with the following discovery propounded or proffered by each
`
`party:
`
`(a) Written Discovery:
`
`(i)
`
`(ii)
`
`25 interrogatories per side;
`
`60 requests for admissions per side;
`
`Page 3 of 10
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 35-1 Filed 06/12/19 Page 4 of 10 PageID #: 398
`
`
`(iii) An unlimited number of requests for admission may be served to establish
`
`the authenticity of documents or the business records exception to the
`
`hearsay rule under Fed. R. Evid. 803(6); and,
`
`(iv) Document subpoenas and depositions on written questions. The parties may
`
`serve as many document subpoenas and depositions on written questions of
`
`custodians of business records as needed.
`
`(b)
`
`Depositions (non expert):
`
`(i)
`
`60 hours for the depositions of another party (excluding inventor
`
`depositions);
`
`(ii)
`
`84 hours of nonparty depositions;
`
`(iii) Defendant shall be entitled to take a deposition of any inventor of the patents
`
`in suit according to Rule 30 of the Federal Rules, which deposition time
`
`shall not count against the above time limits;
`
`(iv) Maxell agrees to make any inventors it intends to call at trial available for
`
`deposition in the United States. If Apple asks to depose an inventor who
`
`Maxell does not intend to present as a witness at trial, Maxell agrees to make
`
`reasonable efforts to make such inventor witnesses available for deposition
`
`in the United States, including to work with Apple to facilitate such travel.
`
`If any inventors are unwilling to travel to the United States for deposition,
`
`Maxell agrees to make reasonable efforts to work with Apple to facilitate
`
`the deposition of that inventor in Japan or another mutually convenient
`
`country.
`
`Page 4 of 10
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 35-1 Filed 06/12/19 Page 5 of 10 PageID #: 399
`
`
` (v) Any deposition time requiring the use of a translator shall be counted in an
`
`amount equal to 66% of the actual time incurred (e.g., three (3) hours of
`
`deposition time requiring the use of a translator shall count as two (2)
`
`hours).
`
`(c)
`
`Experts: Expert depositions shall be conducted in accordance with the Federal Rules of
`
`Civil Procedure except as set forth herein. If one technical expert witness’s report addresses
`
`infringement or invalidity issues for more than one subject matter,2 then that expert may
`
`be deposed for an additional three (3) hours for each additional subject matter covered by
`
`his/her report(s), but in no case may a technical expert witness be deposed for more than
`
`14 hours. The limitations in this sub-paragraph shall not apply to depositions of expert
`
`witnesses as part of claim construction discovery.
`
` Any party may later move to modify these limitations for good cause.
`
` All discovery shall be proportional to the needs of the case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`26(b)(1).
`
`6.
`
`Privileged Information. There is no duty to disclose privileged documents or
`
`information. However, the parties are directed to meet and confer concerning privileged
`
`documents or information after the Status Conference. By the deadline set in the Docket
`
`Control Order, the parties shall exchange privilege logs identifying the documents or
`
`information and the basis for any disputed claim of privilege in a manner that, without
`
`revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable the other parties to assess
`
`                                                            
`2 For purposes of Paragraph 5(c), each of the following groupings of asserted patents is treated as
`a separate “subject matter:” 1) U.S. Patent No. 6,748,317, U.S. Patent No. 6,580,999, and U.S.
`Patent No. 6,430,498; 2) U.S. Patent No. 8,339,493; 3) U.S. Patent No. 7,116,438; 4) U.S. Patent
`No. 6,408,193; 5) U.S. Patent No. 10,084,991; 6) U.S. Patent No. 6,928,306; 7) U.S. Patent No.
`6,329,794; and 8) U.S. Patent No. 6,430,498.
`
`Page 5 of 10
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 35-1 Filed 06/12/19 Page 6 of 10 PageID #: 400
`
`
`the applicability of the privilege or protection. Any party may move the Court for an order
`
`compelling the production of any documents or information identified on any other party’s
`
`privilege log. If such a motion is made, the party asserting privilege shall respond to the
`
`motion within the time period provided by Local Rule CV-7. The party asserting privilege
`
`shall then file with the Court within 30 days of the filing of the motion to compel any proof
`
`in the form of declarations or affidavits to support their assertions of privilege, along with
`
`the documents over which privilege is asserted for in camera inspection.
`
`7.
`
`Signature. The disclosures required by this Order shall be made in writing and signed by
`
`the party or counsel and shall constitute a certification that, to the best of the signer’s
`
`knowledge, information and belief, such disclosure is complete and correct as of the time
`
`it is made. If feasible, counsel shall meet to exchange disclosures required by this Order;
`
`otherwise, such disclosures shall be served as provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
`
`5. The parties shall promptly file a notice with the Court that the disclosures required under
`
`this Order have taken place.
`
`8.
`
`Duty to Supplement. After disclosure is made pursuant to this Order, each party is under
`
`a duty to supplement or correct its disclosures immediately if the party obtains information
`
`on the basis of which it knows that the information disclosed was either incomplete or
`
`incorrect when made, or is no longer complete or true.
`
`9.
`
`Discovery Disputes.
`
`(a)
`
`Except in cases involving claims of privilege, any party entitled to receive
`
`disclosures (“Requesting Party”) may, after the deadline for making disclosures,
`
`serve upon a party required to make disclosures (“Responding Party”) a written
`
`statement, in letter form or otherwise, of any reason why the Requesting Party
`
`Page 6 of 10
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 35-1 Filed 06/12/19 Page 7 of 10 PageID #: 401
`
`
`believes that the Responding Party’s disclosures are insufficient. The written
`
`statement shall list, by category, the items the Requesting Party contends should be
`
`produced. The parties shall promptly meet and confer. If the parties are unable to
`
`resolve their dispute, then the Responding Party shall, within 14 days after service
`
`of the written statement upon it, serve upon the Requesting Party a written
`
`statement, in letter form or otherwise, which identifies (1) the requested items that
`
`will be disclosed, if any, and (2) the reasons why any requested items will not be
`
`disclosed. The Requesting Party may thereafter file a motion to compel.
`
`(b)
`
`In addition to the requirements of Local Rule CV-7(h) and (i), within 72 hours of
`
`the Court setting any discovery motion for a hearing, each party’s lead attorney
`
`(see Local Rule CV-11(a)) and local counsel shall meet and confer in person or
`
`by telephone, without the involvement or participation of other attorneys, in an
`
`effort to resolve the dispute without Court intervention. Counsel shall promptly
`
`notify the Court of the results of that meeting by filing a joint report of no more
`
`than 2 pages. Unless excused by the Court, each party’s lead attorney shall attend
`
`any discovery motion hearing set by the Court (though the lead attorney is not
`
`required to argue the motion).
`
`(c)
`
`Counsel are directed to contact the chambers of the undersigned for any “hot-line”
`
`disputes before contacting the Discovery Hotline provided by Local Rule CV-
`
`26(e). If the undersigned is not available, the parties shall proceed in accordance
`
`with Local Rule CV-26(e).
`
`
`
`10.
`
`No Excuses. A party is not excused from the requirements of this Discovery Order because
`
`it has not fully completed its investigation of the case, or because it challenges the
`
`Page 7 of 10
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 35-1 Filed 06/12/19 Page 8 of 10 PageID #: 402
`
`
`sufficiency of another party’s disclosures, or because another party has not made its
`
`disclosures. Absent court order to the contrary, a party is not excused from disclosure
`
`because there are pending motions to dismiss, to remand or to change venue.
`
`11.
`
`Filings. Only upon request from chambers shall counsel submit to the court courtesy
`
`copies of any filings.
`
`12.
`
`Proposed Stipulations by the Parties Regarding Discovery:
`
`(a)
`
`Privileged Documents and Information Created After the Filing of Litigation.
`
`The parties agree that documents or information created after the filing of the
`
`Action that are protected by attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or
`
`any applicable common interest or joint defense privileges, do not have to be
`
`identified on a privilege log, except as provided under Local Patent Rule 3-7. The
`
`parties further agree that Maxell need not identify privileged or work product
`
`materials created for other pending litigation if created after the filing date for the
`
`complaint in that pending litigation.
`
`(b)
`
`Experts. The parties agree that the following materials shall not be subject to
`
`discovery in this litigation: (i) draft expert reports; (ii) notes, outlines, and any other
`
`materials used to prepare any draft expert report; (iii) communications and
`
`conversations between counsel and testifying or consulting experts, unless such
`
`conversations or communications are relied upon as a basis for any opinions
`
`provided in any expert report or expert testimony; (iv) information, analyses,
`
`opinions, or other materials from any outside consultant or expert, unless such
`
`information, analyses, opinions, or other materials are relied upon as a basis for any
`
`opinions provided
`
`in an expert report or expert
`
`testimony. Materials,
`
`Page 8 of 10
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 35-1 Filed 06/12/19 Page 9 of 10 PageID #: 403
`
`
`communications, and other information exempt from discovery under this
`
`paragraph shall be treated as attorney-work product privileged but need not be
`
`logged on a privilege log. This provision does not change the existing protections
`
`for expert discovery and exceptions thereto set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4).
`
`(c)
`
`Third Party Discovery. A party who serves a subpoena in this matter on a third
`
`party shall promptly provide a copy to the other party. A party who receives
`
`documents from a third party pursuant to a subpoena will reproduce those
`
`documents to the other party within five business days or sooner if necessary for
`
`the receiving parties to have reasonable opportunity to review the documents before
`
`an event (e.g., deposition). Where reproduction of documents within the time
`
`required by this paragraph is not possible, the party who received the documents
`
`will provide prompt notice to the other party and will work in good faith to resolve
`
`the issue on a case-by-case basis.
`
`(d)
`
`Service. The parties agree to electronic service of all correspondence, documents
`
`filed under seal, written discovery requests, and responses to written discovery
`
`requests (unless the volume of electronic information makes such delivery
`
`impractical). The parties agree that service by email before midnight local time
`
`where the court is located shall be considered timely served that day in compliance
`
`with Local Rule CV 5(a)(3)(C-D).
`
`(e)
`
`Authenticity. Absent affirmative evidence that a document or thing is not what it
`
`purports to be, documents produced by either of the parties or any third-party, and
`
`appearing on their face to have originated from or have been kept in the ordinary
`
`course of business by, the party or third-party, will be presumed authentic for
`
`Page 9 of 10
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 35-1 Filed 06/12/19 Page 10 of 10 PageID #: 404
`
`
`purposes of Rule 901 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Nothing in this provision
`
`shall prevent a party from raising any other objections to a document or thing.
`
`(f)
`
`Business Records. Absent affirmative evidence to the contrary, documents
`
`produced from the records of either party, or a third-party, are presumptively
`
`business records for purposes of Rule 902(11). Nothing in this provision shall
`
`prevent a party from raising any other objections to a document or thing.
`
`
`
`
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`

`
`Page 10 of 10
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket