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

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT AND FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 26(f) CONFERENCE 

STATEMENT - 5:17-CV-0220-LHK

Jennifer Milici, D.C. Bar No. 987096 

J. Alexander Ansaldo, Va. Bar No. 75870 

Joseph R. Baker, D.C. Bar No. 490802 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20580 

(202) 326-2912; (202) 326-3496 (fax) 

jmilici@ftc.gov; jansaldo@ftc.gov; 

jbaker1@ftc.gov 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

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, New York 10019-7475 

Telephone: (212) 474-1000 

Facsimile: (212) 474-3700 

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 

Richard S. Taffet (pro hac vice) 

richard.taffet@morganlewis.com 

Willard K. Tom (pro hac vice) 

willard.tom@morganlewis.com 

Donn P. Pickett (SBN 72257) 

donn.pickett@morganlewis.com 

Geoffrey T. Holtz (SBN 191370) 

geoffrey.holtz@morganlewis.com 

One Market, Spear Street Tower 

San Francisco, CA 94105-1126 

Telephone: (415) 442-1000 

Facsimile: (415) 442-1001 

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 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT AND 

FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 

26(f) CONFERENCE STATEMENT 

DATE: April 19, 2017 

TIME: 2:00 PM PDT 

CTRM: Courtroom 8, 4th Floor 

JUDGE: Hon. Lucy H. Koh 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 71 Filed 04/12/17 Page 1 of 24
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

1 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT AND FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 26(f) CONFERENCE 

STATEMENT - 5:17-CV-0220-LHK

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16 and 26, as well as Civil Local 

Rules 16-9 and 16-10, Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission (“Plaintiff” or “FTC”) and Defendant 

Qualcomm Incorporated (“Defendant” or “Qualcomm”) have met and conferred and hereby 

submit this Joint Case Management and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) Conference 

Statement. 

I. JURISDICTION AND SERVICE 

The parties agree that this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this case 

pursuant to Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 53(b), and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337(a) 

and 1345. There are no issues pending regarding personal jurisdiction. Qualcomm does not plan 

to contest venue in this district. Qualcomm was properly served on January 20, 2017. 

II. FACTS 

A. PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENT 

The FTC filed its Complaint for Equitable Relief in this action on January 17, 

2017. The Complaint alleges that a course of conduct by Qualcomm violates Section 5(a) of the 

Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), and seeks a permanent injunction and other 

equitable relief. 

Qualcomm is a supplier of baseband processors, a key component of cellular 

phones, and has monopoly power in certain baseband processor markets. Qualcomm is also a 

holder of patents, including patents that it has declared essential to widely used cellular 

standards, and has committed to license these standard-essential patents (“SEPs”) on fair, 

reasonable, and non-discriminatory (“FRAND”) terms. 

The FTC’s Complaint alleges that Qualcomm has used its monopoly power in 

baseband processor markets to distort license negotiations for its patents. Among other things, 

Qualcomm has used its “no license-no chips” policy to successfully demand royalties that are 

higher than those that customers would otherwise negotiate, and that do not reflect assessments 

of patent royalties that a court or neutral arbiter would deem reasonable, including in light of 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 71 Filed 04/12/17 Page 2 of 24
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 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT AND FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 26(f) CONFERENCE 

STATEMENT - 5:17-CV-0220-LHK 

Qualcomm’s FRAND commitments. In some cases, Qualcomm has also used incentive 

payments to “close the gap” with customers that resist its license terms. The elevated royalties 

demanded by Qualcomm in exchange for continued access to Qualcomm’s baseband processors 

apply to all cellular phones made by a customer, even those that do not use Qualcomm 

processors. Qualcomm thus collects a “tax,” unrelated to the value of its patents, on its 

customers’ use of non-Qualcomm processors. This tax raises all-in prices to consumers, reduces 

demand for competitors’ processors, and reinforces Qualcomm’s monopoly power. 

Qualcomm’s competitors, unlike its customers, do not depend on Qualcomm for 

supply, and would thus be able to negotiate licenses to Qualcomm’s SEPs independent of a 

threatened supply disruption. But Qualcomm has shut off this path to a reasonable royalty rate by 

consistently refusing to license its cellular patents to its competitors. 

In the case of at least one major customer, Apple, Qualcomm agreed to provide 

partial royalty relief, but only so long as Apple exclusively used Qualcomm baseband 

processors. Qualcomm’s exclusive supply arrangement with Apple denied other baseband 

processor suppliers the benefits of working with a particularly important customer, further 

hampering their development into effective competitors.

The FTC anticipates that the following issues will be disputed: (a) whether 

Qualcomm has had a monopoly position, and OEMs limited other options, in certain baseband 

processor markets; (b) whether Qualcomm has used its position, along with a “no license-no 

chips” policy, to distort patent license negotiations and extract elevated royalties and other 

unreasonable terms; (c) whether Qualcomm’s refusal to license standard essential patents to 

competitors contributes to its ability to distort patent license negotiations and extract elevated 

royalties; (d) whether Qualcomm’s incentive payments to certain customers contribute to its 

ability to distort license negotiations; (e) whether Qualcomm’s agreements with Apple 

effectively prevented Apple from dealing with Qualcomm’s competitors; and (f) whether 

Qualcomm’s conduct has tended to hamper the ability of its competitors to compete in baseband 

processor markets or to otherwise distort competition. 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 71 Filed 04/12/17 Page 3 of 24
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 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT AND FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 26(f) CONFERENCE 

STATEMENT - 5:17-CV-0220-LHK 

B. DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT 

Qualcomm has invented, and continues to invent, technologies that are 

fundamental to modern cellular communications systems—including both SEPs and valuable 

non-essential patents. Qualcomm has two primary business units: Qualcomm Technology 

Licensing (“QTL”) and Qualcomm CDMA Technologies (“QCT”). QTL grants licenses under 

Qualcomm’s patented technologies to the makers of cellular devices, such as cell phones (which 

the Complaint refers to as original equipment manufacturers (“OEMs”)), in return for the 

payment of royalties and other consideration. QCT designs and sells components, such as 

modem chips, that OEMs use in manufacturing cellular devices. QCT does not have monopoly 

power in any modem chip market. 

Qualcomm’s patent portfolio is priced and licensed separately from the pricing 

and sale of QCT’s components. QTL seeks to commercialize the company’s patented 

technologies by entering into license agreements with all OEMs, regardless of whether those 

OEMs use QCT’s modem chips. That is because all cellular devices practice Qualcomm’s 

patented technologies, regardless of which company supplies the modem chip in the device. The 

royalties that QTL charges are “chip-neutral”; in other words, the royalty per device does not 

change depending on the OEM’s choice of component supplier. The royalties are compensation 

for Qualcomm’s patented technologies and not compensation for any physical components. No 

OEM licensee is ever required to purchase QCT components, but if they wish to purchase 

modem chips or other components from QCT, they may do so—and the components are priced 

competitively with components offered by QCT’s competitors. 

QCT does not sell modem chips to OEMs that do not have a license to 

Qualcomm’s cellular SEPs. By definition, unlicensed OEMs making standard-compliant devices 

infringe Qualcomm’s SEPs. If QCT did not have this practice, its sales would facilitate the 

infringement of Qualcomm’s patents and jeopardize the company’s ability to seek a return on its 

extensive R&D investments. This practice does not cause (and has not caused) royalties to be 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 71 Filed 04/12/17 Page 4 of 24
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 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT AND FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 26(f) CONFERENCE 

STATEMENT - 5:17-CV-0220-LHK 

“unreasonable” or to violate Qualcomm’s FRAND commitments. Rather, QTL’s royalty terms 

have been broadly consistent for almost three decades, irrespective of any changes in QCT’s 

share of modem chip sales. QTL’s first license agreements were executed before QCT sold a 

single modem chip, and many more were executed before QCT had an appreciable share of sales 

in relevant types of modem chips. QTL’s licensing terms did not change as QCT grew to 

become a major supplier of modem chips or as QCT’s share has fallen in the past few years. 

Rather than license at multiple levels of the supply chain, which would be 

inefficient, QTL licenses the manufacture and sale of cellular devices like phones and tablets, but 

not the manufacture and sale of individual components like modem chips. QTL neither asserts 

its patents against, nor seeks royalties from, component makers—nor does it use its patents to 

interfere with their business in any other way. 

Apple is a uniquely powerful buyer in the cellular industry, and it has used that 

power to extract extremely favorable terms from QCT for modem chips. The first four 

generations of the iPhone, launched from 2007 through 2010, used modem chips from a 

competing supplier. As a condition of considering QCT chips, Apple demanded from 

Qualcomm extraordinary incentive payments. This was in addition to very large investments by 

Qualcomm necessary to develop unique products to satisfy Apple’s demands. Nevertheless, 

Apple refused to provide QCT with any commitment as to the volume of chips it would procure. 

The parties ultimately agreed to an arrangement that provided Qualcomm some limited 

protection for its investments. But the agreements between Qualcomm and Apple did not require 

Apple to deal exclusively with QCT, as Apple demonstrated when it began sourcing chipsets 

from Intel while the agreement was still in effect. Nor did the agreements prevent any 

competing chip maker from gaining scale through the sale of modem chips to the hundreds of 

other OEMs that compete with Apple, including major OEMs such as Samsung, LG, HTC, 

Huawei and others. 

Qualcomm anticipates that the following factual issues will be disputed by the 

parties: (a) the relevant product markets; (b) whether Qualcomm has monopoly power in any 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 71 Filed 04/12/17 Page 5 of 24
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 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT AND FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 26(f) CONFERENCE 

STATEMENT - 5:17-CV-0220-LHK 

relevant product market; (c) whether Qualcomm’s practice of not selling modem chips to 

infringers has allowed Qualcomm to charge “elevated” royalties to OEMs; (d) whether 

Qualcomm’s royalties are “unreasonable”, including in light of Qualcomm’s FRAND 

commitments; (e) whether Qualcomm’s practice of not selling modem chips to infringers has 

caused the exclusion of competing modem chip suppliers; (f) whether Qualcomm’s incentive 

payments have caused the exclusion of competing modem chip suppliers; (g) whether 

Qualcomm’s practice of licensing the manufacture and sale of handsets but not the manufacture 

and sale of components has caused the exclusion of competing modem chip suppliers; 

(h) whether Qualcomm’s agreements with Apple amounted to exclusive dealing; (i) whether 

Qualcomm’s agreements with Apple foreclosed a substantial portion of any well-defined product 

market; (j) whether any competing modem chip supplier was able to meet Apple’s modem chip 

needs between 2011 and September 2016 and was foreclosed from doing so by Qualcomm’s 

agreements with Apple; (k) whether the four practices alleged in the Complaint have excluded 

competing modem chip suppliers or harmed consumers; and (l) whether Qualcomm has procompetitive justifications for the four practices alleged in the Complaint. 

III. LEGAL ISSUES 

PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENT: This action presents the following legal issues for 

determination: 

 Whether Qualcomm’s course of conduct constitutes unlawful maintenance of 

monopoly power in one or more markets for baseband processors in violation of 

Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (corresponding to a violation of 

Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2). See Compl. at 31 ¶ 147(a). 

 Whether Qualcomm’s licenses and other agreements with its customers constitute 

unreasonable restraints of trade in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 

U.S.C. § 45(a) (corresponding to a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 

U.S.C. § 1). See Compl. at 31 ¶ 147(b). 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 71 Filed 04/12/17 Page 6 of 24
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 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT AND FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 26(f) CONFERENCE 

STATEMENT - 5:17-CV-0220-LHK 

 Separate and apart from whether the above practices constitute unlawful 

maintenance of monopoly power or unreasonable restraints of trade, whether they 

harm competition and the competitive process in a manner that is not reached by 

the Sherman Act and therefore constitute unfair methods of competition in 

violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). See Compl. at 31 

¶ 147(c). 

DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT: Qualcomm anticipates that the following legal 

issues will be disputed by the parties: (a) whether the four practices alleged in the Complaint, 

separately or together, have led to the acquisition or maintenance of monopoly power in a 

relevant antitrust market; (b) whether Qualcomm’s incentive payments to certain OEMs and/or 

agreements with Apple constitute unlawful restraints of trade; (c) if Section 5 of the FTC Act 

prohibits conduct not prohibited by the Sherman Act, whether the four practices alleged in the 

Complaint, separately or together, constitute an unfair method of competition under Section 5 of 

the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45. 

IV. MOTIONS 

On April 3, 2017, Qualcomm filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 12(b)(6). The FTC’s response to that motion is due May 12, 2017, and Qualcomm’s reply is 

due June 2, 2017. The Court has scheduled argument on the motion for June 15, 2017. 

Should this case proceed to discovery, Qualcomm anticipates moving for 

summary judgment at an appropriate time. 

V. AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS 

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B), the FTC may amend its complaint by 

April 24, 2017. The FTC does not anticipate any amendments to its Complaint. 

VI. EVIDENCE PRESERVATION 

The parties certify that they have reviewed the Guidelines Relating to the 

Discovery of Electronically Stored Information, and that they met and conferred pursuant to Fed. 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 71 Filed 04/12/17 Page 7 of 24
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 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT AND FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 26(f) CONFERENCE 

STATEMENT - 5:17-CV-0220-LHK 

R. Civ. P. 26(f) on March 29, 2017 regarding reasonable and proportionate steps taken to 

preserve evidence relevant to the issues reasonably evident in this action. The parties further 

certify that such steps are being taken. 

VII. DISCLOSURES 

The parties have agreed to serve the information required by Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 26(a)(1) by April 12, 2017. The parties also stipulate that Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) sanctions 

will not be sought and should not be imposed if initial disclosures are supplemented in a timely 

fashion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e). 

VIII. DISCOVERY 

A. Discovery Propounded to Date 

No discovery has been propounded as part of this litigation to date. The FTC 

expects to serve its First Set of Requests for Production under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 on Qualcomm 

shortly. 

B. Timing of Discovery Commencement 

PLAINTIFF’S POSITION: The FTC’s position is that prompt resolution of this 

enforcement action is essential to accomplish the objective of restoring competition in the 

affected markets. Significant delay in the schedule impairs the FTC’s ability to obtain effective 

equitable relief, to the detriment of consumers. The FTC, therefore, opposes any stay in 

discovery pending resolution of Qualcomm’s motion to dismiss, and asks that the Court establish 

a discovery schedule that will permit the resolution of this action without unnecessary delay.

The federal rules do not provide for an automatic stay of discovery when a motion 

to dismiss is pending and courts in this Circuit look unfavorably upon requests for blanket stays. 

See, e.g., Rheumatology Diagnostics Lab., Inc. v. Aetna, Inc., No. 12-cv-05847-JST, 2013 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 61848, at *4-7 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2013). Courts have also rejected the argument 

that a government investigation is an adequate substitute for litigation discovery. See, e.g., SEC 

v. Jasper, 678 F.3d 1116, 1128-29 (9th Cir. 2012); SEC v. Wu, No. 11-cv-4988, 2016 WL 

4943000, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2016). The purpose of discovery in a pre-complaint 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 71 Filed 04/12/17 Page 8 of 24
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 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT AND FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 26(f) CONFERENCE 

STATEMENT - 5:17-CV-0220-LHK 

investigation is to determine whether there is reason to believe that the law has been violated. 

Additional discovery is merited to prove claims in court. While Qualcomm has produced a 

significant number of documents to the FTC, over two-thirds of those were copies of documents 

that Qualcomm had previously produced in other matters, and new documents were limited to a 

discrete number of custodians. Also, there is now a substantial time period for which Qualcomm 

has not produced documents, as custodial documents produced during the investigation were 

collected in the summer of 2015 and (for a limited set of custodians) March of 2016. The FTC is 

entitled to seek discovery in this case and Qualcomm has shown no good cause to delay the start 

of discovery. 

The FTC stands ready to meet and confer with Qualcomm and with MDL 

plaintiffs, and with Apple as this Court and the court hearing Apple’s case find appropriate, in an 

effort to identify and implement any appropriate means of coordinating discovery activities 

without unduly impairing or delaying proceedings in this action. 

DEFENDANT’S POSITION: Qualcomm requests that discovery be deferred 

until after the Court has ruled on Qualcomm’s pending Rule 12(b)(6) motion. This Court has 

“broad discretion to stay discovery pending the disposition of a dispositive motion”. Gibbs v. 

Carson, No. C-13-0860, 2014 WL 172187, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2014). The burdens of 

discovery in antitrust cases are an important consideration in the Court’s exercise of that 

discretion, which have often led courts to stay discovery pending decision on a motion to dismiss 

antitrust claims. See, e.g., In re Graphics Processing Units (GPU) Antitrust Litig., No. C-06-

07417, 2007 WL 2127577 (N.D. Cal. July 24, 2007) (staying discovering pending resolution of 

motions to dismiss and noting the “to allow antitrust discovery prior to sustaining a complaint 

would defeat one of the rationales of Twombly, at least when the discovery would be 

burdensome”).1

 1 See also Top Rank, Inc. v. Haymon, No. CV 15-4961, 2015 WL 9952887, at *2 (C.D. Cal. 

Sept. 17, 2015) (“Staying discovery in antitrust cases pending the resolution of a motion to 

dismiss may be particularly appropriate”); Actelion Pharms. Ltd v. Apotex Inc., No. 12-5743, 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 71 Filed 04/12/17 Page 9 of 24
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 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT AND FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 26(f) CONFERENCE 

STATEMENT - 5:17-CV-0220-LHK 

The particular circumstances of this case warrant deferring discovery, even more 

than in a typical antitrust case. Unlike the typical plaintiff, the FTC has already had over two 

years of extensive pre-Complaint discovery of Qualcomm as part of its non-public investigation. 

In that context, the FTC served on Qualcomm over 50 broad discovery “specifications”, each 

with multiple sub-specifications. In response, Qualcomm collected more than 20 million 

documents and produced to the FTC more than 1.6 million documents stretching back to 2006. 

Qualcomm produced documents from the files of 24 different custodians. In addition, the FTC 

obtained responses to extensive interrogatories and took investigational hearing testimony from 

Qualcomm’s most senior executives. The FTC also collected documents and took testimony 

from multiple third parties (the precise extent of that third-party discovery is not known to 

Qualcomm). Through this extensive pre-Complaint discovery, the FTC has had ample 

opportunity to develop and articulate its case. After such an extensive investigation, the FTC 

cannot credibly argue it has an urgent need for additional discovery. The FTC presumably filed 

its Complaint because it believed it had sufficient information to do so, and that Complaint 

should be evaluated under Rule 12(b)(6) before further discovery proceeds. 

“[P]roceeding to antitrust discovery can be expensive”. Bell Atl. Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 558 (2007). As the above numbers suggest, here it already has been 

burdensome and expensive for Qualcomm, requiring Qualcomm to dedicate a large team of 

lawyers to the FTC’s discovery requests for nearly two years. At the parties’ Rule 26(f) 

 

2013 WL 5524078, at *4 (D.N.J. Sept. 6, 2013) (granting a stay of discovery pending resolution 

of a motion to dismiss in an antitrust case); Nexstar Broad., Inc. v. Granite Broad. Corp., 

No. 1:11-CV-249, 2011 WL 4345432, at *3 (N.D. Ind. Sept. 15, 2011) (granting a stay of 

discovery pending a decision on a motion to dismiss and stating that “[c]ritically, this is an 

antitrust case, which directly invokes the Supreme Court’s concerns in Twombly about 

burdensome and expensive discovery”); DSM Desotech Inc. v. 3D Sys. Corp., No. 08 CV 1531, 

2008 WL 4812440, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 28, 2008) (granting a stay of discovery in an antitrust 

case pending a decision on a motion to dismiss); Rio Grande Royalty Co. v. Energy Transfer 

Partners, L.P., No. H-08-CV-0857, 2008 WL 8465061, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 11, 2008) 

(granting a stay of discovery in an antitrust case pending a decision on a motion to dismiss). 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 71 Filed 04/12/17 Page 10 of 24
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 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT AND FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 26(f) CONFERENCE 

STATEMENT - 5:17-CV-0220-LHK 

conference, the FTC indicated that it intends to seek additional burdensome discovery, including 

the production of documents from additional custodians and from time periods both pre-dating 

and post-dating the existing production. Although Qualcomm does not yet know the precise 

scope of the additional discovery that the FTC will seek, it anticipates based on its experience so 

far that this additional discovery, if allowed, will impose additional extraordinary expenses. 

Those expenses would be wasted if the FTC’s Complaint cannot survive a motion to dismiss. 

C. Scope of Anticipated Discovery 

PLAINTIFF’S POSITION: The FTC will seek documentary and testimonial 

discovery from Qualcomm regarding, among other things, (1) Qualcomm’s supply and licensing 

agreements; (2) negotiations with actual and prospective customers and licensees; 

(3) Qualcomm’s policies and practices related to product sales; (4) Qualcomm’s policies and 

practices related to licensing; (5) the development and adoption of cellular standards; 

(6) Qualcomm’s commitments to license standard essential patents on fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory (“FRAND”) terms; (7) the meaning and importance of FRAND commitments for 

standard essential patents; (8) baseband processor markets; (9) Qualcomm’s market power; 

(10) barriers to entry and expansion in baseband processor markets, and (11) the effects of 

Qualcomm’s policies and practices on competition, innovation, and consumers. 

The FTC also intends to seek documentary and testimonial discovery from nonparties, including (1) Qualcomm’s current and former customers and licensees, and other nonparties that are or have been engaged in the design, manufacture, and sale of cellular 

communications equipment; (2) non-parties that are or have been engaged in the design, 

manufacture, or sale of baseband processors; (3) non-party holders of declared standard-essential 

patents; and (4) cellular network operators.

The FTC further anticipates that this case will involve significant expert 

discovery. 

DEFENDANT’S POSITION: If Qualcomm’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion is denied or 

if discovery proceeds prior to a ruling on the motion, Qualcomm anticipates seeking discovery 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 71 Filed 04/12/17 Page 11 of 24
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 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT AND FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 26(f) CONFERENCE 

STATEMENT - 5:17-CV-0220-LHK 

from the FTC of, among other things, (a) documents relating to the FTC’s nonpublic 

investigation of Qualcomm, including documents the FTC sent to, or received or collected from, 

third parties; (b) documents relating to substantive matters at issue in the litigation, such as the 

licensing of standard-essential patents; and (c) testimony the FTC obtained from third parties. 

Qualcomm also anticipates taking discovery of relevant third parties in the cellular industry. 

Qualcomm further anticipates that this case will involve extensive expert discovery. 

D. Protective Order 

The parties agree that a protective order is necessary to safeguard confidential and 

competitively sensitive information of Qualcomm and of non-parties. The parties have 

tentatively agreed to submit a proposed Protective Order to the Court by April 26, 2017. 

PLAINTIFF’S POSITION: The FTC recognizes that it may be appropriate and 

efficient to have a single protective order covering this action and other actions, including the 

MDL and the Apple action, and is prepared to meet and confer with counsel for Qualcomm, 

counsel for MDL plaintiffs, and counsel for Apple at the Court’s direction. 

DEFENDANT’S POSITION: Qualcomm recognizes the advisability of 

coordinating appropriate matters where feasible, but believes it is premature to assess the 

appropriateness and feasibility of a protective order that includes more than the instant case. 

Qualcomm proposes to discuss coordination and other discovery matters with the appropriate 

parties in due course. 

E. Proposed Limitations or Modifications to the Discovery Rules 

Depositions. The parties agree that relief from the limitation on the number of 

depositions set forth in Rule 30(a)(2) is necessary and appropriate, but believe it is premature to 

set a precise limit on the number of depositions at this time. The parties agree to work in good 

faith to negotiate a stipulated deposition protocol to govern depositions in this action. 

Interrogatories. The parties agree that no more than 20 interrogatories may be 

served on any named party. 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 71 Filed 04/12/17 Page 12 of 24
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 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT AND FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 26(f) CONFERENCE 

STATEMENT - 5:17-CV-0220-LHK 

Previously Produced Qualcomm Documents. The parties agree that all 

documents and associated privilege logs previously produced by Qualcomm to the FTC in the 

course of the FTC’s investigation of Qualcomm, FTC File No. 141-0199, shall be deemed 

produced in this action upon entry of a Protective Order in this action. 

Document Subpoenas to Non-Parties. The parties agree as follows with respect to 

non-parties producing materials in response to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 document subpoenas in this 

action. The issuing party shall request that non-parties simultaneously produce materials to both 

Plaintiff and Defendant. If, notwithstanding such request, the non-party does not produce the 

materials to both sides, the issuing party shall provide a copy of all materials to the other side 

within five (5) calendar days after receipt of the materials from the non-party. Any party that 

does not have access to substantially all materials that have been provided by a non-party for at 

least thirty (30) calendar days before any deposition of that non-party may elect to have the 

deposition postponed until the party has had access to the materials for at least thirty (30) 

calendar days. If a party modifies or extends the time to respond to a Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 

document subpoena in writing, it shall simultaneously provide that written extension, 

modification, or explanation to the other party. 

Authenticity Presumptions. Documents produced by non-parties from the nonparties’ files shall be presumed to be authentic within the meaning of Fed. R. Evid. 901. 

Documents produced by Qualcomm either in response to document requests in this action or in 

the course of the FTC’s pre-Complaint investigation, FTC File No. 141-0199, shall be presumed 

to be authentic within the meaning of Fed. R. Evid. 901. If a party serves a specific good-faith 

written objection to the authenticity of a document that it did not produce from its files, the 

presumption of authenticity will no longer apply to that document. Any objection to a 

document’s authenticity must be provided with (or prior to) the exchange of objections to trial 

exhibits. The parties will promptly meet and confer to attempt to resolve any objection. The 

Court will resolve any objections that are not resolved through this means or through the 

discovery process. 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 71 Filed 04/12/17 Page 13 of 24
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

13 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT AND FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 26(f) CONFERENCE 

STATEMENT - 5:17-CV-0220-LHK 

Expert Discovery. The parties agree that expert disclosures, including each side’s 

expert reports, shall comply with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2), 

except as modified herein. Neither side must preserve or disclose, including in expert deposition 

testimony, the following documents or materials: (i) any form of communication or work product 

shared between any of the parties’ in-house or outside litigation counsel and such party’s 

expert(s) or consultant(s), or between any of such party’s experts or consultants themselves; 

(ii) any form of communication or work product shared between an expert and persons assisting 

the expert; (iii) expert’s notes, unless they are expressly relied upon and/or cited in support of an 

opinion or fact; or (iv) drafts of expert reports, analyses, or other work product. The parties shall 

disclose the following materials in connection with all expert reports: (a) a list by Bates number 

of all documents relied upon by the testifying expert(s); (b) copies of any materials relied upon 

by the expert not previously produced; and (c) for any calculations appearing in the report, all 

data and programs underlying the calculation, including all programs and codes necessary to 

recreate the calculation from the initial (“raw”) data files. 

Service. Service of any documents not filed via ECF, including pleadings, 

discovery requests, subpoenas for testimony or documents, expert disclosure, and delivery of all 

correspondence, whether under seal or otherwise, shall be by email to all attorneys for the 

receiving party then appearing on the ECF docket, at the email addresses listed thereon. In the 

event the volume of served materials is too large for email and requires electronic data transfer 

by file transfer protocol or a similar technology, or overnight delivery, the serving party will 

telephone or email the other side’s principal designee when the materials are sent to provide 

notice that the materials are being served. For purposes of calculating discovery response times 

under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, electronic delivery shall be treated the same as hand 

delivery. 

PLAINTIFF’S POSITION: The FTC requests that the Court order that any 

pleading or document filed or served after 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time on any day, or at any time on a 

weekend or a Federal holiday, shall be deemed to be filed or served on the next business day. 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 71 Filed 04/12/17 Page 14 of 24
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

14 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT AND FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 26(f) CONFERENCE 

STATEMENT - 5:17-CV-0220-LHK 

DEFENDANT’S POSITION: Defendant objects and requests that filing times be 

governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Civil Local Rules of the Northern 

District of California. Civil Local Rule 5-1(e)(4) provides that electronic filings of documents 

completed “prior to midnight” are “considered timely filed that day”. 

Information Not Subject to Discovery. The parties have met and conferred in an 

effort to agree on categories of documents that are highly likely to be subject to a privileged or 

protected status, and that therefore may be exempted from retention and logging obligations in 

discovery. The parties have not yet reached agreement, and intend to continue those discussions. 

F. Report on Planned Stipulated E-Discovery Order 

The parties are continuing to discuss a Stipulated Electronically Stored 

Information (ESI) [Proposed] Order. 

G. Proposed Discovery Plan 

The parties’ respective proposals regarding the timing of discovery are set forth in 

Exhibit A. 

H. Current Discovery Disputes 

To date, the parties have not identified any discovery disputes other than the issue 

noted above as to whether discovery should commence prior to the Court’s ruling on 

Qualcomm’s motion to dismiss. 

IX. CLASS ACTIONS 

There is no proposed class at issue in this matter. 

X. RELATED CASES 

The parties respectfully refer this Court to the schedule of related actions, 

attached hereto as Exhibit B. 

There is a proceeding pending before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation 

(“JPML”), In re Qualcomm Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 2773, which addressed a case filed by 

Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) against Qualcomm in the Southern District of California, where 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 71 Filed 04/12/17 Page 15 of 24
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

15 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT AND FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 26(f) CONFERENCE 

STATEMENT - 5:17-CV-0220-LHK 

Qualcomm is headquartered; and putative consumer class actions filed against Qualcomm in this 

Court and in the Southern District of California. On April 5, 2017, the JPML transferred certain 

of the putative consumer class actions to this Court; on April 7, 2017, the JPML issued 

conditional transfer orders referring the tag-along consumer actions to this Court. The JPML did 

not transfer the case filed by Apple, which remains pending in the Southern District of 

California. 

PLAINTIFF’S POSITION: Outside the United States, Qualcomm is currently the 

subject of publicly disclosed proceedings that the FTC believes are also appropriately brought to 

the Court’s attention as related “proceedings pending before . . . another court or administrative 

body.” See N.D. Cal. Standing Order for All Judges of the Northern District of California – 

Contents of Joint Case Management Statement ¶ 10. Proceedings initiated by the European 

Commission and Korea Fair Trade Commission involve conduct that is similar or related to the 

conduct alleged in the Complaint, evidence that could overlap with evidence in this action, and 

potential remedies that could overlap with equitable relief that the Court may find appropriate 

should the FTC prove the violations alleged in the Complaint.2

DEFENDANT’S POSITION: Qualcomm believes the foreign regulatory 

proceedings identified above, which are proceeding under foreign legal regimes, are not relevant 

to the Court’s determination of the instant matter under United States law, and that the FTC has 

included them in this Case Management Statement to create prejudice rather than to assist the 

Court in the management of this litigation and avoid “unduly burdensome duplication of labor 

and expense”. See Civil Local Rule 3-12(a)(2) (defining Related Cases). 

 2

 Proceedings before the European Commission are ongoing. Qualcomm has announced that 

it has appealed and sought a stay of a remedial order issued by the Korea Fair Trade 

Commission. 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 71 Filed 04/12/17 Page 16 of 24
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

16 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT AND FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 26(f) CONFERENCE 

STATEMENT - 5:17-CV-0220-LHK 

XI. RELIEF 

PLAINTIFF’S POSITION: The Complaint seeks equitable relief in the form of 

entry of judgment against Qualcomm declaring, ordering, and adjudging (1) that Qualcomm’s 

course of conduct violates Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a); (2) that Qualcomm is 

permanently enjoined from engaging in its unlawful conduct; and (3) that Qualcomm is 

permanently enjoined from engaging in similar and related conduct in the future. The Complaint 

also seeks such other equitable relief as the Court finds necessary to redress and prevent 

recurrence of the violations of the FTC Act alleged in the Complaint. See Compl. at 32 (Prayer 

for Relief). 

DEFENDANT’S POSITION: Qualcomm seeks judgment dismissing all claims 

against it. Qualcomm believes the FTC’s statement of the relief sought is insufficiently detailed 

and that Qualcomm and the Court are entitled to a clearer understanding of the conduct sought to 

be enjoined and any other relief requested. 

XII. SETTLEMENT AND ADR 

The parties have not engaged in formal settlement discussions since the 

commencement of this action. The parties have met and conferred regarding ADR and 

determined that ADR would be premature at this time. The parties have also complied with Civ. 

L.R. 16-8(b) and ADR L.R. 3-5 and have each filed an ADR Certification form and jointly filed 

a Notice of Need for an ADR Phone Conference with the ADR Clerk. Dkt. Nos. 62, 63 and 64. 

A call with the ADR clerk has not yet been scheduled. 

XIII. CONSENT TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR ALL PURPOSES 

On January 26, 2017, the FTC filed a declination to proceed before a Magistrate 

Judge for all future proceedings. Dkt. No. 24. 

XIV. OTHER REFERENCES 

The parties agree this case is not suitable for reference to binding arbitration, a 

special master or the JPML. As described in Paragraph 10 above, there is a pending JPML 

proceeding involving a number of related cases. 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 71 Filed 04/12/17 Page 17 of 24
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

17 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT AND FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 26(f) CONFERENCE 

STATEMENT - 5:17-CV-0220-LHK 

XV. NARROWING OF ISSUES 

The parties do not seek bifurcation of any issues. The parties will consider issues 

that can be narrowed by agreement or by motion, as well as potential means to expedite the 

presentation of evidence at trial. 

XVI. EXPEDITED TRIAL PROCEDURE 

The parties agree that this case is not suitable for handling under the Expedited 

Trial Procedure of General Order No. 64. 

XVII. PROPOSED CASE SCHEDULE 

The parties’ respective proposals regarding the case schedule are set forth in 

Exhibit A. 

XVIII. TRIAL 

The parties agree that a bench trial is required. At this point, the parties are 

unable to estimate the necessary length of any trial. 

XIX. DISCLOSURE OF NON-PARTY INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS 

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-15, Qualcomm has filed its Certificate of 

Interested Entities or Persons, which states that as of the date of filing, Qualcomm Incorporated 

has no parent corporation, and no publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of its stock, and 

that no party other than the named parties has a “financial interest” as defined in the Civil Local 

Rule.3

XX. PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT 

All attorneys of record have reviewed the Guidelines for Professional Conduct for 

the Northern District of California. 

 3

 Qualcomm notes that the following companies have been named in the Complaint: Apple 

Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. (Ltd.), Intel Corporation and MediaTek, Inc. 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 71 Filed 04/12/17 Page 18 of 24
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

18 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT AND FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 26(f) CONFERENCE 

STATEMENT - 5:17-CV-0220-LHK 

XXI. OTHER ISSUES 

The parties have not identified any other issues to address with the Court at this 

time. 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 71 Filed 04/12/17 Page 19 of 24
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

19 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT AND FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 26(f) CONFERENCE 

STATEMENT - 5:17-CV-0220-LHK 

Dated: April 12, 2017 /s/ Jennifer Milici ___________

JENNIFER MILICI 

Bureau of Competition 

Attorney for Plaintiff Federal Trade 

Commission 

Dated: April 12, 2017 /s/ Gary A. Bornstein ___________

Gary A. Bornstein 

Yonatan Even 

CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP 

Worldwide Plaza 

825 Eighth Avenue 

New York, NY 10019 

Tel: (212) 474-1000 

Fax: (212) 474-3700 

gbornstein@cravath.com 

yeven@cravath.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 71 Filed 04/12/17 Page 20 of 24
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

Exhibit A 

1 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT AND FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 26(f) CONFERENCE 

STATEMENT - 5:17-CV-0220-LHK

Parties’ Proposed Discovery Plan and Schedule for FTC Action Only

Event Plaintiff’s Position Defendant’s Position 

Commencement of Fact 

Discovery 

Immediate Following the resolution of 

the Motion to Dismiss 

Deadline for Defendant’s 

Response to the Complaint 

April 3, 2017 April 3, 2017 

Rule 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures April 12, 2017 April 12, 2017 

Protective Order April 26, 2017 April 26, 2017 

Deadline for Plaintiff to File 

Opposition to Rule 12 Motion 

May 12, 2017 

(per stipulated order) 

May 12, 2017 

(per stipulated order) 

Deadline for Defendant to File 

Reply in Support of Rule 12 

Motion 

June 2, 2017 

(per stipulated order) 

June 2, 2017 

(per stipulated order) 

Hearing on Defendant’s Rule 12 

Motion 

June 15, 2017 June 15, 2017 

Close of Fact Discovery March 30, 2018 

(12 months) 

November 1, 2018 

(15 months from 

hypothetical decision on 

motion to dismiss) 

Plaintiff’s Rule 26(a)(2) Merits 

Expert Reports 

April 20, 2018 

(3 weeks) 

November 30, 2018 

(1 month) 

Defendant’s Merits Expert 

Reports 

May 25, 2018 

(5 weeks) 

February 1, 2019 

(2 months) 

Plaintiff’s Merits Expert Rebuttal 

Reports and Commencement of 

Expert Depositions 

June 22, 2018 

(4 weeks) 

March 1, 2019 

(1 month) 

End of Expert Depositions & 

Close of Expert Discovery 

July 20, 2018 

(4 weeks) 

April 1, 2019 

(1 month) 

Last day to file Summary 

Judgment and Daubert Motions 

August 10, 2018 

(3 weeks) 

May 1, 2019 

(1 month) 

Summary Judgment Oppositions September 21, 2018 

(6 weeks) 

June 14, 2019 

(6 weeks) 

Summary Judgment Replies October 12, 2018 

(3 weeks) 

July 15, 2019 

(1 month) 

Hearing on Summary Judgment 

and Daubert Motions 

TBD by the Court TBD by the Court 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 71 Filed 04/12/17 Page 21 of 24
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 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT AND FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 26(f) CONFERENCE 

STATEMENT - 5:17-CV-0220-LHK 

Event Plaintiff’s Position Defendant’s Position 

Pretrial Disclosures November 16, 2018 

(5 weeks) 

August 30, 2019 

(6 weeks) 

Pretrial Conference TBD (~6 weeks after 

pretrial disclosures) 

TBD (~6 weeks after 

pretrial disclosures) 

Trial TBD (~2 weeks after 

pretrial conference) 

TBD (~2 weeks after 

pretrial conference) 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 71 Filed 04/12/17 Page 22 of 24
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

Exhibit B 

1 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT AND FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 26(f) CONFERENCE 

STATEMENT - 5:17-CV-0220-LHK

Schedule of Related Actions

The parties have identified the following matters as related to the present action. 

Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 3-12 and 7-11, plaintiffs in Bornstein et al. v. Qualcomm Incorporated, 

No. 17-cv-0234 (N.D. Cal.), administratively moved before this Court to relate a number of these 

actions pending in the Northern District of California for transfer and reassignment. This Court 

has granted each such motion. For the Court’s reference, the actions that have been 

administratively related are identified below. 

Case Name Docket No. Related in N.D. Cal. 

Bornstein et al. v. Qualcomm Incorporated 17-0234 (N.D. Cal.) Yes (D.E. 36) 

Stromberg et al v. Qualcomm Incorporated 17-0304 (N.D. Cal.) Yes (D.E. 36) 

McMahon v. Qualcomm Incorporated 17-0372 (N.D. Cal.) Yes (D.E. 36) 

Boardsports School LLC v. Qualcomm 

Incorporated 17-0398 (N.D. Cal.) Yes (D.E. 36) 

Benad et al. v. Qualcomm Incorporated 17-0440 (N.D. Cal.) Yes (D.E. 36) 

Key v. Qualcomm Incorporated 17-0442 (N.D. Cal.) Yes (D.E. 47) 

Ewald et al v. Qualcomm Incorporated 17-0565 (N.D. Cal.) Yes (D.E. 47) 

Davis et al v. Qualcomm Incorporated 17-0604 (N.D. Cal.) Yes (D.E. 48) 

Esteban v. Qualcomm Incorporated 17-0622 (N.D. Cal.) Yes (D.E. 48) 

Housenick et al. v. Qualcomm Incorporated 17-0675 (N.D. Cal.) Yes (D.E. 52) 

Ervin v. Qualcomm Incorporated 17-0713 (N.D. Cal.) Yes (D.E. 52) 

Carney v. Qualcomm Incorporated 17-0743 (N.D. Cal.) Yes (D.E. 52) 

Tada et al v. Qualcomm Incorporated 17-0762 (N.D. Cal.) Yes (D.E. 52) 

Crutcher et al. v. Qualcomm Incorporated 17-0766 (N.D. Cal.) Yes (D.E. 58) 

Kiefer et al v. Qualcomm Incorporated 17-0785 (N.D. Cal.) Yes (D.E. 52) 

Zatlin et al v. Qualcomm Incorporated 17-0938 (N.D. Cal.) Yes (D.E. 57) 

Ackerman et al v. Qualcomm Incorporated 17-1080 (N.D. Cal.) Yes (D.E. 57) 

Dietrich v. Qualcomm Incorporated 17-1093 (N.D. Cal.) Yes (D.E. 57) 

Espinosa et al v. Qualcomm Incorporated 17-1112 (N.D. Cal.) Yes (D.E. 57) 

Hallahan v. Qualcomm Incorporated 17-1231 (N.D. Cal.) Yes (D.E. 59) 

McDevitt et al. v. Qualcomm Incorporated 17-1244 (N.D. Cal.) Yes (D.E. 59) 

Kurzon v. Qualcomm Incorporated 17-1271 (N.D. Cal.) Yes (D.E. 59) 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 71 Filed 04/12/17 Page 23 of 24
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 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT AND FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 26(f) CONFERENCE 

STATEMENT - 5:17-CV-0220-LHK 

Case Name Docket No. Related in N.D. Cal. 

Nagy et al. v. Qualcomm Incorporated 17-1274 (N.D. Cal.) Yes (D.E. 59) 

Acosta et al. v. Qualcomm Incorporated 17-1591 (N.D. Cal.) No 

Miller v. Qualcomm Incorporated 17-0147 (S.D. Cal.) No 

Mackay et al. v. Qualcomm Incorporated 17-0148 (S.D. Cal.) No 

Schwartz et al. v. Qualcomm Incorporated 17-0166 (S.D. Cal.) No 

Hadnett v. Qualcomm Incorporated 17-0197 (S.D. Cal.) No 

Carroll et al. v. Qualcomm Incorporated 17-0216 (S.D. Cal.) No 

Rotman et al v. Qualcomm Incorporated 17-0260 (S.D. Cal.) No 

Herrera et al v. Qualcomm Incorporated 17-0273 (S.D. Cal.) No 

Frederick et al v. Qualcomm Incorporated 17-0377 (S.D. Cal.) No 

Kreuzer v. Qualcomm Incorporated 17-0526 (S.D. Cal.) No 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 71 Filed 04/12/17 Page 24 of 24