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

28

APPLE AND QUALCOMM'S JOINT STATUS REPORT 

No. 17-cv-0220-LHK-NMC, No. 17-md-2773-LHK-NMC

BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 

William A. Isaacson (Pro Hac Vice App. to be 

filed) 

DC Bar No. 414788, wisaacson@bsfllp.com 

Karen L. Dunn (Pro Hac Vice App. to be 

filed) 

DC Bar No. 1002520, kdunn@bsfllp.com 

Amy J. Mauser (Pro Hac Vice App. to be 

filed) 

DC Bar No. 424065, amauser@bsfllp.com 

1401 New York Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20005 

Telephone: (202) 237-2727 

Facsimile: (202) 237-6131 

BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 

Edward H. Takashima, SBN 270945 

etakashima@bsfllp.com 

401 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 850 

Santa Monica, CA 90401 

Telephone: (310) 752-2400 

Facsimile: (310) 752-2490 

Attorneys for Non-Party APPLE INC. 

CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP 

Gary A. Bornstein (pro hac vice) 

gbornstein@cravath.com 

Yonatan Even (pro hac vice) 

yeven@cravath.com 

825 Eighth Avenue 

New York, NY 10019-7475 

Telephone: (212) 474-1000 

Facsimile: (212) 474-3700 

KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP 

Robert A. Van Nest, SBN 84065 

rvannest@keker.com 

633 Battery Street 

San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 

Telephone: (415) 676-2289 

Facsimile: (415) 397-7188 

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 

Richard S. Taffet (pro hac vice) 

richard.taffet@morganlewis.com 

101 Park Avenue 

New York, NY 10178-0060 

Telephone: (212) 309-6000 

Facsimile: (212) 309-6001 

Attorneys for Defendant 

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, a 

Delaware corporation, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 5:17-cv-00220-LHK-NMC 

NON-PARTY APPLE INC. AND 

DEFENDANT QUALCOMM 

INCORPORATED’S JOINT STATUS 

REPORT 

Courtroom: 7, 4th Floor 

Judge: Hon. Nathanael M. Cousins 

IN RE QUALCOMM ANTITRUST 

LITIGATION 

Case No. 5:17-md-02773-LHK-NMC 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 482 Filed 01/12/18 Page 1 of 14
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

28

APPLE AND QUALCOMM'S JOINT STATUS REPORT 

No. 17-cv-0220-LHK-NMC, No. 17-md-2773-LHK-NMC

Pursuant to the Court’s January 5, 2018 Order, Non-Party Apple Inc. (“Apple”) and 

Defendant Qualcomm Incorporated (“Qualcomm”) submit this Joint Status Report to address 

discovery issues identified by the Court. 

I. Apple’s Document Production 

A. Apple’s Position 

Apple produced additional documents on January 5, 2018 and January 8, 2018. Apple 

also re-produced two documents that had previously been clawed back on January 10, 2018. To 

date, Apple has produced more than 3.8 million documents totaling over 32.2 million pages. 

Apple’s anticipated document production is complete, with the following exceptions: 

(1) Approximately 1,000 documents have not been produced due to third party 

notice/consent issues.1 Apple is working to resolve those issues as quickly as 

possible. 

(2) One written common interest agreement has not been produced pursuant to an 

objection from the other party to the agreement. 

(3) Apple will be downgrading some documents from its privilege logs, and will 

produce any such downgrades that are responsive and non-privileged on a rolling 

basis. 

At 3:58pm today, Qualcomm informed Apple for the first time that Qualcomm would seek 

a “declaration explaining [Apple’s] review process and the basis for the discrepancies that 

Qualcomm has identified,” when it included that demand in a draft of this joint status report. To 

the extent Qualcomm is seeking an order from the Court, the proper vehicle is a joint discovery 

statement submitted after a meet and confer, with a reasonable opportunity to respond, not a last 

minute bait-and-switch on a status report. The Court should disregard Qualcomm’s improper 

request. 

 

1

 One of these documents is from Bruce Sewell’s custodial files. Apple’s production of 

responsive non-privileged documents from Mr. Sewell’s files is otherwise complete at this time. 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 482 Filed 01/12/18 Page 2 of 14
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

28

2 

APPLE AND QUALCOMM'S JOINT STATUS REPORT 

No. 17-cv-0220-LHK-NMC, No. 17-md-2773-LHK-NMC 

Because this is a status report and not a joint discovery statement, Apple will not address 

Qualcomm’s ill-placed argument in detail. However, Qualcomm’s request is without merit. 

Qualcomm’s supposed “notable discrepancies” are neither notable nor discrepancies. 

Qualcomm’s first point, concerning the production of documents that were in the quality control 

process as of December 15, 2017, is not based on anything other than Qualcomm’s skepticism. 

See infra at 3 (“Qualcomm considers that to be a surprisingly large number.”). Qualcomm’s 

second point—concerning documents that were privileged or likely to be privileged as of 

December 20, 2017—is similarly driven by nothing more than supposition, and pays short shrift 

to a key detail. Apple has explained: 

[T]he delta between the approximately 1.1 million documents [sic] identified as 

privileged or likely to be privileged during the 12/20 hearing and the 12/19 

privilege log is due to a combination of the following factors: (a) some documents 

were determined to be non-responsive or non-privileged; (b) attachments are not 

individually logged, and instead are accounted for in the “Attachment Count” 

column of the privilege log; and (c) duplicates across custodians would have been 

counted as separate documents in [Apple’s] 12/20 accounting, but are reflected as 

one entry in the privilege log, with duplicative custodians identified in the 

“Custodians” column. 

(1/11/2018 E. Takashima email to G. Bornstein (emphasis added).) Qualcomm’s faulty 

accounting does not include duplicates across custodians, or attachments to such emails. 

Qualcomm’s third point is similar: Qualcomm seems to find something problematic about the 

fact that a sizeable proportion of documents that enter the quality control process—i.e. documents 

that have gone through an initial review—are either non-responsive or privileged. However, that 

should not be surprising, given that the search terms set for Apple were broad, fourteen of 

Apple’s forty-five custodians are attorneys, and documents concerning several of the topics 

covered by Qualcomm’s subpoenas, such as patent licensing and FRAND analyses, are often 

subject to the attorney-client privilege or work product protection. 

B. Qualcomm’s Position 

i. Apple’s Document Production Status. 

By Qualcomm’s count, it has received 3,699,441 documents from Apple—slightly less 

than the 3.8 million Apple has identified. Qualcomm and Apple are working to identify the 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 482 Filed 01/12/18 Page 3 of 14
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

28

3 

APPLE AND QUALCOMM'S JOINT STATUS REPORT 

No. 17-cv-0220-LHK-NMC, No. 17-md-2773-LHK-NMC 

discrepancy. Qualcomm notes that the “[a]pproximately 1,000” documents not yet produced “due 

to third-party notice/consent” issues is considerably more than the single-digit number that Apple 

identified as subject to this issue at the January 5, 2018 hearing. (1/5/18 Hearing Tr. 6:23-24.) 

Qualcomm looks forward to receiving these documents promptly but has not yet received a 

projected production date from Apple. 

With respect to the common interest agreement that Apple has not produced “pursuant to 

an objection from the other party to the agreement”, Qualcomm believes the proper procedure is 

for the objecting third party to seek a protective order, or for Apple to do so on the third party’s 

behalf. Apple is currently subject to a subpoena requiring the production of this agreement, and 

Apple has not disputed the agreement’s relevance or responsiveness. A third party’s objection, 

which has not been shared with Qualcomm or the Court, is not a sufficient basis for withholding 

the agreement. 

Of the total documents Apple has produced, Apple has represented that 2,870,504 

(representing 77.5%) were produced without manual review. Apple represents that the remaining 

22.5% were produced following manual review. 

Qualcomm has identified notable discrepancies between the number of documents Apple 

has identified at various stages of the review and production process and the number ultimately 

produced to Qualcomm. For example: 

 Apple stated in its December 15, 2017 status report that it had “completed initial review of 

approximately 1.3 million additional documents, which are in various states of the quality 

control process”. (ECF No. 403.) Of that set, only 280,853 documents were actually 

produced to Qualcomm. In response to inquiries from Qualcomm, Apple has represented 

that the delta of approximately 1 million documents were ultimately deemed either 

privileged or non-responsive. Qualcomm considers that to be a surprisingly large number 

for a population of documents that (i) hit on the search terms and (ii) already had 

undergone initial review. 

 Apple stated at the December 20 hearing that approximately 1.1 million documents were 

“currently coded as privileged”, and Apple undertook to “have reviewed all of them by the 

29th as part of the privilege log process”. (12/20/17 Hearing Tr. 64:11-14.) Apple’s 

privilege logs cumulatively have entries for 424,460 document families purporting to 

represent 517,097 individual documents, leaving a delta of approximately 600,000 

documents. Qualcomm understands that some of those 600,000 documents were produced 

to Qualcomm, but the total number of manually reviewed documents that Qualcomm 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 482 Filed 01/12/18 Page 4 of 14
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

28

4 

APPLE AND QUALCOMM'S JOINT STATUS REPORT 

No. 17-cv-0220-LHK-NMC, No. 17-md-2773-LHK-NMC 

received together with or after receiving Apple’s privilege log is approximately 308,000, 

leaving a remaining delta of approximately 292,000 documents. In response to inquiries 

from Qualcomm, Apple has represented that the remaining documents were either deemed 

non-responsive or were duplicates of other documents in the set of 1.1 million.2

 Apple stated in its November 17, 2017 status report that it was “in the process of 

producing approximately 1.1 million additional documents”. (ECF No. 318.) But as 

discussed at the November 27, 2017 hearing (11/27/17 Hearing Tr. 7:23-8:4), Apple 

revised its production volume to fewer than 700,000 documents. Apple also represented 

in the November 17 status report that it had approximately 695,000 documents in the 

quality control process at that time, but Qualcomm did not receive any manually reviewed 

documents until nearly one month later—on December 12, 2017—at which point 

Qualcomm received only slightly more than 100,000 documents that had been manually 

reviewed. 

These gaps cause Qualcomm concern about the completeness of Apple’s production. To 

explain these gaps, Apple has stated that the numbers of documents it has reported in prior status 

reports and at hearings as being in its “quality control” process include documents that are 

initially deemed non-responsive. Apple has stated these non-responsive documents, plus 

documents withheld as privileged, explain the large number of documents that reach the “quality 

control” process but are not ultimately produced. Given these sizable gaps, however, Qualcomm 

respectfully submits that it would be appropriate for the Court to require Apple to submit a 

declaration explaining its review process and the basis for the discrepancies that Qualcomm has 

identified. 

ii. Production of Bruce Sewell’s Documents and Privilege Log. 

Apple has represented that it completed the production of documents from the files of 

Bruce Sewell, which pursuant to a stipulation so ordered by Judge Koh were due on January 8, 

2018. Qualcomm is still reviewing the adequacy of that production. Apple’s log of privileged 

documents from Mr. Sewell’s files is due on January 15, 2018. 

II. Apple’s Privilege Log 

A. Qualcomm’s Position 

Apple provided two privilege logs—its main log on December 29, 2017, and a 

supplemental log on January 5, 2018. The two logs together contain entries for 424,460 

 

2

 Contrary to Apple’s assertion above, Qualcomm has in fact noted the issue of duplicate 

documents across custodians. 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 482 Filed 01/12/18 Page 5 of 14
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

28

5 

APPLE AND QUALCOMM'S JOINT STATUS REPORT 

No. 17-cv-0220-LHK-NMC, No. 17-md-2773-LHK-NMC 

document families. The size of these logs is itself cause for concern. By comparison, 

Qualcomm’s privilege logs for the pre-Complaint investigation plus the two coordinated cases in 

this Court total only 37.5% of that number—159,351 document families—even though 

Qualcomm produced more total documents after manual review than Apple did.3 Apple’s 

privilege logs also contain significant structural and substantive issues that (a) render them 

inadequate for Qualcomm to assess Apple’s privilege assertions, and (b) call into question the 

level of care afforded, and the substantive standards applied, by Apple in both its responsiveness 

and its privilege review. Qualcomm raised these structural and substantive issues with Apple 

during a January 9, 2018 meet and confer. Apple has agreed to consider these points, and 

Qualcomm is waiting for a response. 

i. Structural Issues with Apple’s Privilege Logs. 

Qualcomm identified several structural issues with Apple’s privilege logs: 

First, Apple’s privilege logs do not identify which of the individuals listed on the logs are 

attorneys. Although Qualcomm is aware of the identity of some attorneys affiliated with Apple 

from the ordinary course of business, Apple’s logs contain hundreds of thousands of entries, 

which include hundreds of individuals Qualcomm cannot readily identify, and Qualcomm should 

not have to comb through the logs to see which attorneys it can pick out and which it cannot. 

Identifying the attorney who provided the legal advice being withheld is an important step in 

assessing a claim of privilege, and Qualcomm has therefore asked Apple to annotate its logs by 

identifying which individuals are attorneys. Apple indicated on January 9, 2018, that it would 

provide this information but has not given a date by which it would do so. 

Second, Apple’s privilege logs contain many communications solely between or among 

individuals that Qualcomm knows not to be attorneys. For these entries, the logs do not indicate 

which attorney’s advice was conveyed in the communication. This leaves Qualcomm with 

 

3

 Even including the document families that Qualcomm has produced with redactions, Qualcomm 

has claimed privilege over all or a portion of a document in a document family less than 60% as 

often as Apple has claimed privilege over the entirety of a document family—despite 

Qualcomm’s having produced more documents subject to manual review. 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 482 Filed 01/12/18 Page 6 of 14
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

28

6 

APPLE AND QUALCOMM'S JOINT STATUS REPORT 

No. 17-cv-0220-LHK-NMC, No. 17-md-2773-LHK-NMC 

simply a log entry listing only non-lawyers, with no suggestion of legal advice in the description 

of the document’s subject matter, and therefore no reason to believe any legal advice is contained 

in the withheld document. 

Third, a majority of the entries—349,906 out of 424,460 (or 82.4%)—on Apple’s 

privilege log describe the basis for Apple’s privilege claim as follows: “Email reflecting legal 

advice, request for legal advice, and/or attorney work product created in anticipation of 

litigation.” (Emphasis added.) This is an inadequate description of the basis for Apple’s privilege 

claims, which does not indicate whether the documents are being withheld on the basis of 

attorney-client privilege, work product protection or both. In addition, the indiscriminate use of 

this one-size-fits-all description through the logs suggests that insufficient attention was paid to 

the basis for Apple’s privilege claims, thereby calling into the question the validity of those 

claims. 

Fourth, and perhaps relatedly, Apple’s privilege logs identify 377,170 out of 424,460 

documents—88.9%—as being withheld at least in part on the ground that they contain attorney 

work product produced “in anticipation of litigation”. None of these entries identify which actual 

or anticipated litigation was at issue. The absence of this information further undermines 

Qualcomm’s ability to assess the validity of Apple’s grounds for withholding these documents. 

Fifth, the only documents on the logs for which Apple has provided a description of the 

subject matter of the document are emails. For non-email documents, Apple has not provided any 

subject-matter information, leaving Qualcomm to guess at what the documents might contain. 

ii. Substantive Issues with Apple’s Privilege Logs. 

The privilege claims that Apple has asserted also suffer from a number of substantive 

flaws, which Qualcomm summarizes below. Qualcomm continues to review Apple’s voluminous 

logs and may identify additional issues as it does so, particularly with respect to individual 

entries. Consistent with the discussion at the January 5, 2018 conference, the summary below 

captures the more pervasive and global issues Qualcomm has so far identified. 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 482 Filed 01/12/18 Page 7 of 14
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

28

7 

APPLE AND QUALCOMM'S JOINT STATUS REPORT 

No. 17-cv-0220-LHK-NMC, No. 17-md-2773-LHK-NMC 

First, Apple appears to have withheld documents in their entirety when the documents 

contain any content over which Apple asserts a privilege claim, even if the documents also 

contain non-privileged content. Qualcomm has not located any documents in Apple’s production 

that were redacted for privilege, and the metadata Apple provided does not indicate that any 

documents were redacted for privilege. It is inconceivable that all of the over 420,000 documents 

on Apple’s privilege logs are privileged in their entirety. Qualcomm is entitled to receive 

redacted copies of all responsive documents that contain non-privileged content. 

Second, Apple has asserted attorney-client privilege or work product protection for 

communications that—on the face of the email subject lines—appear to constitute a business 

discussion rather than a communication of legal advice. Such communications include thousands 

of emails with subjects describing a standing engineering-related meeting between Apple and a 

third party, as well as communications with subjects relating to product development timelines. 

For example, multiple log entries refer to an “ ”, which 

Qualcomm understands from the subject line to be a standing meeting to discuss 

 in an Apple cellular device. Similarly, Apple 

withheld communications titled “ ”, which suggests discussions regarding 

. Routine business communications, especially where the participants 

appear to be non-lawyers, are not privileged. 

Third, Apple’s privilege logs contain numerous communications with third parties such as 

standards-setting organizations or commercial entities, including entities with whom Apple is 

negotiating agreements from which Apple is considering purchasing products. Indeed, Apple has 

claimed privilege over documents that some of these third parties have produced to Qualcomm in 

response to subpoenas issued to the third parties in this litigation, and even documents already in 

Qualcomm’s own files. For example, Apple withheld for attorney-client privilege an email that 

was sent by an ETSI official to an ETSI listserv populated by many third parties, including 

Qualcomm. Indeed, Qualcomm produced that same document in its own production to the FTC. 

Similarly, Apple withheld an email string exchanged with Ericsson regarding the negotiation of 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 482 Filed 01/12/18 Page 8 of 14
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

28

8 

APPLE AND QUALCOMM'S JOINT STATUS REPORT 

No. 17-cv-0220-LHK-NMC, No. 17-md-2773-LHK-NMC 

an agreement between Apple and Ericsson, which based on the log entry Qualcomm was able to 

locate in the production made by Ericsson to Qualcomm. Based on Qualcomm’s review of the 

documents it has been able to locate, there is no plausible basis for claiming privilege over these 

documents. Documents Apple has exchanged with third parties, especially those that appear to be 

unaligned or even in an adversarial posture, are not privileged. The fact that these documents 

appear on Apple’s logs suggests that Apple has either taken an inappropriately expansive view on 

“privilege” or simply failed to exercise appropriate case in making privilege calls, or both. 

Fourth, Apple has logged thousands of entries that clearly constitute “spam” 

communications, such as advertising from online dating sites, retail florists, and pharmaceutical 

companies. Entries include invitations for certain custodians to “Flirt With Local Singles Near 

You”, to “Glimpse Obama’s favorite healthcare investment”, and to view “[A] very beautiful and 

unusual picture of GANESH”. That so many such documents would have been deemed 

responsive at all, and then in turn logged as privileged communications, raises serious concerns as 

to the care with which Apple actually reviewed the documents placed on its log or even reviewed 

the log itself. 

B. Apple’s Position 

Apple has served two privilege logs to date—a principal log on December 29, 2017, and a 

small supplemental log on January 5, 2018. Apple will be serving a third privilege log, for Bruce 

Sewell’s custodial documents, on January 15, 2018. 

Apple and Qualcomm have begun discussing Qualcomm’s concerns regarding Apple’s 

log, which Qualcomm details above. Most of these issues will be resolved by Apple’s ongoing, 

proactive efforts to identify documents on its privilege log that are non-responsive, nonprivileged, or should be produced in redacted form, as well as to provide more detailed privilege 

descriptions where appropriate. Apple is also willing to further re-review certain documents as 

needed to address some of the other issues Qualcomm has raised. Apple intends to further meet 

and confer with Qualcomm regarding its other requests. 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 482 Filed 01/12/18 Page 9 of 14
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

28

9 

APPLE AND QUALCOMM'S JOINT STATUS REPORT 

No. 17-cv-0220-LHK-NMC, No. 17-md-2773-LHK-NMC 

i. “Structural Issues” Identified by Qualcomm 

First, as Apple has previously advised Qualcomm, Apple will provide Qualcomm with a 

list of the individuals on its privilege log who are attorneys, or revise its logs to identify attorneys. 

Second, for privilege log entries that are communications solely between or among nonattorneys, Apple will revise log descriptions to more fully describe the basis for Apple’s privilege 

and/or work product claims and identify, where possible from the face of the logged documents, 

the name of the attorney or attorneys involved in those communications or in creating that work 

product. 

Third, Apple is already in the process of revising privilege log entries described as 

documents “reflecting legal advice, request for legal advice, and/or attorney work product created 

in anticipation of litigation,” to provide more specific detail about the basis for Apple’s privilege 

and/or work product claims. 

Fourth, Apple will meet and confer further with Qualcomm regarding its request that 

work product log entries specify the actual or anticipated litigation at issue. 

Fifth, for non-email documents, Apple will import document titles from metadata where 

they are available and provide subject matter information, and meet and confer with Qualcomm 

further regarding its request for subject matter information concerning other documents. 

ii. “Substantive Issues” Identified by Qualcomm 

First, Apple has produced some documents in redacted form. More importantly, Apple is 

well into the process of identifying additional documents on its privilege log that should be 

produced with redactions, and will produce those downgrades on a rolling basis. As Apple has 

explained to Qualcomm, Apple intends to produce documents with redactions to the extent they 

contain non-privileged responsive information. 

Regarding the second, third, and fourth issues raised by Qualcomm, Apple is also in the 

process of identifying documents on its privilege logs which were withheld and logged in error, or 

which upon further review are not privileged or protected from discovery. Those documents will 

be produced on a rolling basis. Finally, this status report is the not the place for Apple and 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 482 Filed 01/12/18 Page 10 of 14
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

28

10 

APPLE AND QUALCOMM'S JOINT STATUS REPORT 

No. 17-cv-0220-LHK-NMC, No. 17-md-2773-LHK-NMC 

Qualcomm to litigate privilege log disputes. To the extent Qualcomm still has issues with 

Apple’s privilege log after Apple serves an amended log and the parties meet and confer, Apple 

and Qualcomm will bring those issues to the Court at that time. 

III. Deposition Scheduling 

A. Apple’s Position 

Apple has provided proposed deposition dates for four of the seven Apple witnesses 

subpoenaed by Qualcomm. Qualcomm has not responded regarding any of those dates. Apple is 

working with the other Apple witnesses and the two former Apple employees subpoenaed by 

Qualcomm to obtain potential deposition dates. Apple will continue to provide proposed dates on 

a rolling basis. 

B. Qualcomm’s Position 

Qualcomm provided nine deposition subpoenas to Apple’s counsel on December 11, 

2017. Apple accepted service for eight of those deposition subpoenas on December 15, 2017 and 

accepted service for the ninth witness on January 4, 2018. Qualcomm has repeatedly requested 

that Apple provide proposed deposition dates for these witnesses. A month has now passed since 

Qualcomm sent deposition subpoenas to Apple’s counsel, and just yesterday (on the eve of the 

filing of this status report), Apple finally provided proposed dates for three of the nine witnesses, 

and it provided one more proposed date shortly before 10:00 p.m. PT tonight. Only 11 weeks 

now remain in an extraordinarily busy fact discovery period. If Qualcomm does not receive the 

remaining dates promptly, it may need to request the Court’s assistance. 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 482 Filed 01/12/18 Page 11 of 14
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

28

11 

APPLE AND QUALCOMM'S JOINT STATUS REPORT 

No. 17-cv-0220-LHK-NMC, No. 17-md-2773-LHK-NMC 

Dated: January 12, 2017 Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ Edward H. Takashima 

William A. Isaacson 

wisaacson@bsfllp.com 

Karen L. Dunn 

kdunn@bsfllp.com 

Amy J. Mauser 

amauser@bsfllp.com 

BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 

1401 New York Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20005 

Telephone: (202) 237-2727 

Facsimile: (202) 237-6131 

Edward H. Takashima 

etakashima@bsfllp.com 

BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 

401 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 850 

Santa Monica, CA 90401 

Telephone: (310) 752-2400 

Facsimile: (310) 752-2490 

Attorneys for Non-Party APPLE INC. 

By: /s/Gary A. Bornstein 

Gary A. Bornstein 

Yonatan Even 

CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP 

Worldwide Plaza 

825 Eighth Avenue 

New York, NY 10019-7475 

Tel: (212) 474-1000 

Fax: (212) 474-3700 

gbornstein@cravath.com 

yeven@cravath.com 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 482 Filed 01/12/18 Page 12 of 14
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

28

12 

APPLE AND QUALCOMM'S JOINT STATUS REPORT 

No. 17-cv-0220-LHK-NMC, No. 17-md-2773-LHK-NMC 

Robert A. Van Nest 

Asim M. Bhansali 

Eugene M. Paige 

KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP 

633 Battery Street 

San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 

Tel: (415) 676-2289 

Fax: (415) 397-7188 

rvannest@keker.com 

abhansali@keker.com 

epaige@keker.com 

Richard S. Taffet 

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 

101 Park Avenue 

New York, NY 10178-0060 

Tel: (212) 309-6000 

Fax: (212) 309-6001 

richard.taffet@morganlewis.com 

Willard K. Tom 

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 

1111 Pennsylvania Ave. NW 

Washington, DC 20004-2541 

Tel: (202) 739-3000 

Fax: (202) 739 3001 

willard.tom@morganlewis.com 

Donn P. Pickett 

Geoffrey T. Holtz 

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 

One Market, Spear Street Tower 

San Francisco, CA 94105-1126 

Tel: (415) 442-1000 

Fax: (415) 442-1001 

donn.pickett@morganlewis.com 

geoffrey.holtz@morganlewis.com 

Attorneys for Qualcomm Incorporated

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 482 Filed 01/12/18 Page 13 of 14
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

28

APPLE AND QUALCOMM'S JOINT STATUS REPORT 

No. 17-cv-0220-LHK-NMC, No. 17-md-2773-LHK-NMC

FILER’S ATTESTATION 

I, Gary A. Bornstein, am the ECF user whose identification and password are being used 

to file this Joint Discovery Statement. In compliance with Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I hereby 

attest that the signatories on this document have concurred in this filing. 

/s/Gary A. Bornstein 

Gary A. Bornstein 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 482 Filed 01/12/18 Page 14 of 14