Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00108/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00108-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:0271 Patent Infringement

---

1

17cv108-GPC-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

APPLE INC.,

Plaintiff, 

v.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,

Defendant. 

Case No.: 17cv108-GPC-MDD

ORDER REQUIRING MEET AND 

CONFER; DENYING PLAINTIFF 

APPLE, INC.’S EX PARTE 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 

AS MOOT

[ECF No. 150]

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,

Counterclaim-Plaintiff, 

v.

APPLE INC.,

Counterclaim-Defendant. 

Before the Court are Apple Inc. (“Apple”) and Qualcomm Incorporated’s 

(“Qualcomm”) Joint Motion for Discovery (ECF Nos. 149, 152), Apple’s ex

parte Motion for Order Granting Leave to File an Amended Opposition to 

Qualcomm’s Motion to Compel the Production of Documents (ECF No. 150), 

Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 164 Filed 10/25/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

17cv108-GPC-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

and Apple’s Amended Motion for Discovery (ECF No. 156). 

This dispute is a result of poor timing. According to the filings, Apple 

served allegedly deficient responses and objections to Qualcomm’s First Set of 

Requests for Production (“RFP”) on September 6, 2017. (ECF No. 149-1 at 

¶2). Qualcomm then sent Apple a meet and confer letter on September 12, 

2017 (Id. at ¶3), which Apple insists included “little detail.” (ECF No. 151 at 

2). During a September 20, 2017, phone call Apple declined to provide 

requested information as to which RFPs Apple intended to stand on its 

objection and which RFPs required further vetting for potential narrowing. 

(ECF No. 149-1 at ¶4). During that call, Apple indicated that they would 

respond to Qualcomm’s September 12 letter on September 22, 2017. (Id.) On 

September 23, 2017, Apple indicated the letter would be served on September 

25, 2017. (Id. at ¶6). 

Qualcomm served their portion of the Joint Motion for Discovery on 

September 27, 2017, and included a one-sentence cover email indicating that 

they anticipated filing the Joint Motion on October 6, 2017.1 (ECF No. 153-1 

at ¶2). Apple insists they did not receive this notice and that the first time 

they were made aware of Qualcomm’s intent to timely file the Joint Motion 

was on October 2, 2017. (ECF No. 150 at 3, 4). Qualcomm’s draft portion 

included a request for the Court to order Apple to meaningfully meet and 

confer by October 13, 2017, because at the time Qualcomm served their 

portion, Apple had not yet responded to the September 12 letter. (ECF No. 

153 at 2-3). Apple stated that they interpreted that request to mean 

 

1 According to Chambers’ Rules, a motion related to discovery disputes must be filed no 

later than thirty days after the date upon which the event giving rise to the dispute 

occurred. 

Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 164 Filed 10/25/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

17cv108-GPC-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

Qualcomm wished to extend the meet and confer process for the purposes of 

the joint motion until October 13, 2017. (ECF No. 150 at 3-4). Apple does not 

report seeking clarification from Qualcomm with respect to extending the 

meet and confer process, nor did Apple seek leave from the Court to extend 

the date by which the joint motion was due. Apple’s response to the 

September 12 meet and confer letter was then served on September 29, 2017. 

(149-1 at ¶7). 

The parties had a telephonic meet and confer on October 3, 2017. (Id.

at ¶9). Qualcomm indicates that during the phone call they offered to sit 

down and discuss each contested RFP one-by-one, while Apple indicated they 

were not prepared to agree to a compromise in response to any RFPs at that 

time. (ECF Nos. 149-1 at ¶10, 153 at 5). Apple then served a letter on 

Qualcomm on October 5, 2017, addressing fifty-four RFPs initially brought 

up in the September 12 letter. (ECF No. 149-1 at ¶11). Apple indicated that 

they “planned to follow up as soon as possible” on the remaining unaddressed 

disputed RFPs. (ECF No. 153 at 5). 

Apple asserts that they did not have reasonable time to respond to 

Qualcomm’s disputed RFPs, given the number of RFPs at issue and their 

complexity. (ECF No. 150 at 4). Nevertheless, in the proposed Amended 

Joint Motion, Apple agrees to produce documents to the extent they exist and 

are non-privileged to twenty-four disputed RFPs. (See, e.g., ECF No. 156 at 

12, 31, 47, 93, etc.). Additionally, both parties have indicated a willingness to 

meet and confer to further narrow and clarify the disputed RFPs. In fact, in 

the Amended Joint Motion, Apple articulates this willingness ninety-four 

times. (See, e.g., Id. at 8, 13, 17, 22, 32, etc.).

Therefore, the Court orders the parties to participate in a meaningful 

meet and confer that fully addresses all remaining allegedly deficient RFP 

Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 164 Filed 10/25/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

17cv108-GPC-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

responses within the next 14 days. The Parties are to withdraw the currently 

pending Joint Motions (ECF Nos. 149, 152, and 156) and file a coherent joint 

motion representing only those RFPs that remain truly in dispute after a 

meaningful meet and confer by November 22, 2017. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 25, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 164 Filed 10/25/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4