UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`Before The Honorable Theodore R. Essex
`
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN MOBILE DEVICES AND
`
`RELATED SOFTWARE
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA~750
`
`SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL JOINT RE! QUEST FOR RECEIPT OF EVIDENCE
`WITHOUT A SPONSORING WITNESS
`
`Pursuant to the Procedural Schedule and Ground Rule 98.12, Complainant Apple Inc.
`
`(“Apple”) and Respondent Motorola Mobility, inc. (“Motorola”) respectfully submit this joint
`
`request for the receipt of evidence Without a witness. ' As required by the Ground Rules, a
`
`declaration concerning preparation of the proposed exhibits is attached hereto.
`
`On August 29, 2011, the private parties agreed to request that the documents then listed
`
`on the Joint Exhibit List be received into evidence Without a sponsoring Witness. On September
`
`21, 2011, the private parties identified additional exhibits that could be offered into evidence
`
`without a sponsoring witness. The private parties now request that additional deposition
`
`designations listed on the joint exhibit list, attached as Exhibit A, be received into evidence
`
`without a sponsoring witness. The private parties have finalized designations for Exhibits IX-
`
`705C, JX-706C, and JX-707C and submitted those exhibits to the presiding Administrative Law
`
`Judge on September 12, 20E 1. The private parties are finalizing the designation process for
`
`exhibits IX—708C and }X~7G9C and will submit these exhibits to the presiding Administrative
`
`Law Judge as soon as practicable.
`
`Commission Rule 210.37 provides that “[r]elevant, material, and reliable evidence shall
`
`be adrnitted” into the record.
`
`19 C.F.R. § 210.37.
`
`Pursuant to Ground Rule 9.18.12, “if a
`
`
`
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`Before The Honorable Theodore R. Essex
`
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN MOBILE DEVICES AND
`
`RELATED SOFTWARE
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA~750
`
`SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL JOINT RE! QUEST FOR RECEIPT OF EVIDENCE
`WITHOUT A SPONSORING WITNESS
`
`Pursuant to the Procedural Schedule and Ground Rule 98.12, Complainant Apple Inc.
`
`(“Apple”) and Respondent Motorola Mobility, inc. (“Motorola”) respectfully submit this joint
`
`request for the receipt of evidence Without a witness. ' As required by the Ground Rules, a
`
`declaration concerning preparation of the proposed exhibits is attached hereto.
`
`On August 29, 2011, the private parties agreed to request that the documents then listed
`
`on the Joint Exhibit List be received into evidence Without a sponsoring Witness. On September
`
`21, 2011, the private parties identified additional exhibits that could be offered into evidence
`
`without a sponsoring witness. The private parties now request that additional deposition
`
`designations listed on the joint exhibit list, attached as Exhibit A, be received into evidence
`
`without a sponsoring witness. The private parties have finalized designations for Exhibits IX-
`
`705C, JX-706C, and JX-707C and submitted those exhibits to the presiding Administrative Law
`
`Judge on September 12, 20E 1. The private parties are finalizing the designation process for
`
`exhibits IX—708C and }X~7G9C and will submit these exhibits to the presiding Administrative
`
`Law Judge as soon as practicable.
`
`Commission Rule 210.37 provides that “[r]elevant, material, and reliable evidence shall
`
`be adrnitted” into the record.
`
`19 C.F.R. § 210.37.
`
`Pursuant to Ground Rule 9.18.12, “if a
`
`
`
`party believes evidence to be non—controversiai and to be appropriate for receipt in evidence
`
`without a sponsoring witness, that party may present with each such exhibit on or before the due
`
`date set forth in the procedural scheduiez (1) an affidavit or declaration that the declarant
`
`prepared or someone under the dec1arant’s direction prepared the exhibit; (2) arequest that the
`
`exhibit be received in evidence without a witness at the hearing; and (3) a statement of grounds
`
`for receiving the exhibit in evidence without a witness at the hearing. .
`
`.
`
`. In the absence of
`
`objections, and upon good cause shown, the exhibit shall be received in evidence without a
`
`witness subject to the right of objection on other grounds.”
`
`Good cause exists to admit these exhibits into evidence as they are relevant, material,
`
`reliable, and nomcontroversial. The private parties make this request in order to streamline the
`
`hearing and avoid the cumbersome and inefficient process of requiring a witness to identify and
`
`authenticate various non—controversial exhibits. Each of the proposed exhibits that is the
`
`subject of this request is a true and accurate copy.
`
`(See Marando Declaration attached hereto.)
`
`Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the private parties respectfuily request that the
`
`Administrative Law Judge receive the exhibits identified in Exhibit A without sponsoring
`
`witnesses at trial. The Staff has indicated it will not oppose this request.
`
`Dated:
`
`September 27, 201 1
`
`Respectfully submitted
`
`
`
`Steptoe & Johnson LLP
`1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW.
`Washington, DC 20036
`Te1.: (202) 429-81 62
`
`Charies K. Verhoeven
`
`
`
`Brian E. Ferguson
`Robert T. Vlasis
`Edward S. Jou
`Christopher T. Marando
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`1300 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 900
`
`
`
`David Eiseman
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
`50 California Street, 22nd Floor
`San Francisco, CA 941ll
`Tel; (45) 875-6600
`
`Edward J. DeFranco
`Stephen T. Straub
`Anastasia Fernands
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`New York, NY 10010
`Tel.: (212) 849-7000
`
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`Tel: (202) 682-7000
`Fax: (202) 857-0940
`
`Anne M. Cappella
`Jill J. Ho
`
`Jacqueline T. Harlow
`Erin C. Jones
`Brian C. Chang
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`201 Redwood Shores Parkway
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`Tel: (650) 802-3000
`
`David A. Nelson
`
`Matthew D. Powers
`
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
`500 West Madison Street, Ste. 2450
`Chicago, IL 60661
`Tel.: (312) 705-7400
`
`Atrorneysfor Respondent Motorola Mobility,
`Inc.
`
`Steven S. Cherensky
`Paul T. Ehrlich
`Stefani C. Smith
`Robert L. Gerrity
`Tensegrity Law Group LLP
`20} Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite 401
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`
`Tel: (650) 802-6000
`
`/Itforneysfor Complainant Apple Inc.
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`Before The Honorable Theodore R. Essex
`
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN MOBILE DEVICES AND
`
`RELATED" SOFTWARE
`
`
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA~750
`
`DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL JOINT REQUEST
`FOR RECEIPT OF EVIDENCE WITHOUT A SPONSORING WITNESS
`
`1, Christopher T. Marando, declare:
`
`1.
`
`I am an attorney with the law firm of Weii, Gotshal & Manges LLP, counsei for Appie
`
`Inc. (“Apple”) in the aboVe»captioned Investigation.
`
`2.
`
`I make this declaration in support of the private parties’ Second Supplemental Joint
`
`Request for Receipt of Evidence Without a Sponsoring Witness.
`'1
`3. The parties have exchanged or will exchange true and correct copies of the exhibits
`
`identified in Exhibit A, and will submit those exhibits to the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
`
`4.
`
`I hereby deciare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that
`
`this Deciaratiori was executed this 26th day of September, 201 Z, in Washington, DC.
`
`153/?
`
`
`
`..
`W :3.
`or/:2’
`-
`Christopher T.
`arando
`
`an
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a_u__m>:_mm__m_o.22Ew%mmmcnm;,W~w,,mmwL.,.§w%#mmoQmaSomama
`
`
`
`
`
`a_n__9e__&3._:m._._m.6mcom%_amm_+ocoewoamaEamaamowfi,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`b_n__w>Ecofizmmafia”..6mm”_n..._M,mofl_HMww%«n_.__o_H_moQmmtomaa
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`b__u__m>:_.6Etomcmm..m_%Lwommm_uflmcflmmoSomxmxmomxw;M%.fl
`
`
`
`a%_mm>g._mE_m>>E3:8cmmehmww%mAm_mm«mcm_mmo_.Smamaommw
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was served on September 27, 2011 as indicated, on
`the following:
`
`Via EDIS
`
`The Honorable James R. Holbein
`
`Acting Secretary
`US International Trade Commission
`
`500 E Street SW, Room i12—A
`
`Washington, DC. 20436
`
`Via Hand Delivery (2 cogiesg
`The Honorable Theodore R. Essex
`
`Office of the Administrative Law Judge
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`
`500 E Street SW, Room 317
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`
`Via Email and Hand Delivegg
`Lisa Kattan
`
`Office of Unfair Ernport Investigations
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`
`500 E Street, S.W., Room 401
`
`Washington, DC. 20436
`
`Lisa.Kattan@usite.gov
`
`K.lIa..E.m.ail
`Charles K. Verhoeven
`
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
`50 California Street, 22nd Floor
`
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`
`David A. Nelson
`
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP 500
`West Madison Street, Ste. 2450 Chicago, IL
`60661
`
`Edward J . DeFranco
`
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
`5 E Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`
`New York, NY E0010
`
`Moto—Appie—750@quinnernanuel.com
`
`gregory.rr1oldafsky@usitc.gov
`
`Via Email and Hand Delivegg
`Charles F. Schiil
`
`STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
`
`1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20036
`
`rnotoroia750@steptoe.con1
`
`Via Email
`
`Robert T. Haslam
`
`Anuparn Sharrna
`Krista S. Jacobsen
`Covington & Burling LLP
`333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065-1418
`
`Robert D. Fram
`
`Christine S. I-Iaskett
`
`Samuel F. Ernst
`
`L.J. Chris Martiniak
`
`Winslow B. Taub
`
`Covington & Buriing LLP
`One Front Street
`
`San Francisco, CA 941 1105356
`
`AppleCov coveom
`
`Mike Scanlan
`
`Paralegal
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
