JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

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

and 5:17-md-02773-LHK-NMC

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

Counsel Listed on Signature Page

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

vs.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, a Delaware 

corporation,

Defendant.

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

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT 

STATEMENT

DATE: April 24, 2018

TIME: 2:00 PM PST

CTRM: Courtroom 8

JUDGE: Hon. Lucy H. Koh

IN RE QUALCOMM ANTITRUST 

LITIGATION Case No. 5:17-MD-02773-LHK-NMC

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 705 Filed 04/23/18 Page 1 of 22
1 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

Case Nos. 5:17-cv-00220-LHK-NMC

and 5:17-md-02773-LHK-NMC

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

Pursuant to the Court’s April 6, 2018 Case Management Order (ECF No. 678), Plaintiff 

Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC”) and the MDL Plaintiffs (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) and

Defendant Qualcomm Incorporated (“Qualcomm”) (collectively, the “Parties”) have met and 

conferred and hereby submit this Joint Case Management Statement.

I. MOTIONS

Since filing the April 3, 2018 Case Management Statement (ECF No. 672), the Parties 

have engaged in the following motion practice:

A. FTC’s Dispute with Qualcomm Regarding Qualcomm’s Assertions of 

Privilege 

On April 5, 2018, the FTC and Qualcomm submitted a joint discovery statement in which 

the FTC moved to compel Qualcomm’s production of documents regarding its patent ratings and 

metrics. (ECF No. 673.) Judge Cousins denied the FTC’s motion to compel. (ECF No. 691.) 

The FTC states that it is determining whether to seek review of Judge Cousins’s ruling. 

B. Qualcomm’s Dispute with the FTC Regarding the FTC’s Interrogatory 

Responses 

On April 12, 2018, the FTC and Qualcomm submitted a joint discovery statement in 

which Qualcomm moved to compel the FTC’s responses to Qualcomm’s Interrogatories 14-20. 

(ECF No. 682.) The FTC had objected to Interrogatories 14 and 15 on the grounds that they were 

disproportionate and sought premature expert discovery and based on the FTC’s contention that 

Qualcomm had exceeded the limit of 20 interrogatories set by this Court’s April 19, 2017 Case 

Management Order (ECF No. 75.) The FTC did not serve any objections or responses to 

Interrogatories 16-20 within the 30-day deadline, stating that Qualcomm had exceeded the 20-

interrogatory limit. Judge Cousins found that Interrogatories 14 and 15 were “a little bit 

cumulative to [Interrogatories] 6 and 13,” but that “they’re also a little bit different. So I am order 

them – I’m ordering them to be answered” by the same day on which the FTC serves its opening 

expert reports. Judge Cousins further found that the FTC had not waived its objections to 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 705 Filed 04/23/18 Page 2 of 22
2

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

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

and 5:17-md-02773-LHK-NMC

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

Interrogatories 16-20,1 but nonetheless granted Qualcomm’s motion to compel with respect to 

Interrogatories 18 and 19, ordering the FTC to provide responses to those Interrogatories by April 

25, 2018. Judge Cousins denied Qualcomm’s motion with respect to Interrogatories 16, 17, and 

20, finding that they were “cumulative and not proportional” to the needs of the case.

2 (Id.) 

II. PARTY DISCOVERY

A. Written Discovery

The Parties have not served any new requests for written discovery since the April 3, 2018 

Case Management Statement. (ECF No. 672.)

MDL Plaintiffs’ Position

The parties are meeting and conferring regarding Qualcomm’s responses to MDL 

Plaintiffs’ Third Set of Interrogatories. Qualcomm failed to serve its Third Set of Interrogatories 

to MDL Plaintiffs in accordance with the parties’ agreement. However, MDL Plaintiffs agreed to 

respond to the Interrogatories by April 30, 2018.

Qualcomm’s Position

On April 5, 2018, MDL Plaintiffs asked Qualcomm to meet and confer regarding 

Qualcomm’s responses to Plaintiffs’ Third Set of Interrogatories. Qualcomm responded the next 

day with its availability the following week. Plaintiffs did not respond or otherwise follow up 

until today, when they asked what times Qualcomm could meet and confer this week. 

Qualcomm served its Third Set of Interrogatories to MDL Plaintiffs on February 28, 2018. 

Plaintiffs stated that they would respond to those Interrogatories by April 30.

B. Qualcomm’s Re-Review and Production of Documents Pursuant to Judge 

Cousins’ March 30, 2018 Order

On April 11, 2018, Qualcomm completed re-review of approximately 4,200 documents 

previously withheld or redacted from the files of Dr. Paul Jacobs, pursuant to the first re-review 

 1 4/18/2018 Hr’g Tr. 21:10-15, 23:13-15. 2 Id. 23:19-20.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 705 Filed 04/23/18 Page 3 of 22
3

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

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

and 5:17-md-02773-LHK-NMC

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

deadline set by Judge Cousins on March 30, 2018.3 Qualcomm has approximately 105,000 

documents remaining to re-review. (ECF No. 688 at 2). Roughly 51,000 of those documents 

were authored, sent, or received by Mr. Aberle (id. at 3), and the results of the re-review of Mr. 

Aberle’s documents will be provided to Plaintiffs on May 2 pursuant to this Court’s April 6, 2018 

order. (ECF No. 678.)

4

 

Plaintiffs’ Position5

The results of Qualcomm’s review of ~4,200 documents related to Dr. Jacobs are: 

• Qualcomm produced 61.9% of the documents previously withheld in their entirety 

(1,438 of 2,323 withheld documents);6

• Of the previously redacted documents, Qualcomm eliminated or reduced redactions 

for approximately 38.4% (749 of 1,946 redacted documents).

7

These results confirm that Qualcomm has systematically advanced unsupportable privilege 

claims over thousands of documents from its top executives, many of whom are key trial 

witnesses. 

 3 On March 30, 2018, Judge Cousins ordered Qualcomm to re-review by July 1, 2018, all 

redacted and withheld documents involving ten employees selected by Plaintiffs, excluding only 

“(1) documents involving outside counsel as an author, sender, or recipient; (2) privilege log 

entries that identify a specific litigation or investigation; (3) documents Qualcomm has already rereviewed; (4) documents that consist only of communications between Qualcomm in-house 

counsel without any involvement of Qualcomm business executives.” (ECF Nos. 653 at 1-2, 664 

at 2). Judge Cousins ordered the parties to submit status reports on April 16, May 16, June 18 

and July 16, 2018, as to the progress of the privilege re-review. (ECF No. 664 at 2.) In each of 

these reports, MDL Plaintiffs and the FTC “may request in camera review of up to 50 document 

families,” provided that they have first met and conferred with Qualcomm about those document 

families. (Id.)

4 Judge Cousins granted Qualcomm’s request to waive an April 25 interim production deadline 

(ECF No. 692). Plaintiffs did not oppose this request based on an agreement between the parties.

5 In its section below, Qualcomm asserts facts about Apple’s privilege log and review as a “point 

of reference.” Apple is not a party to this filing and has not had an opportunity to review or 

respond to these assertions. 6 See ECF No. 688 at 4 (calculations based on statistics provided by Qualcomm in ECF No. 688). 

Qualcomm provided more specific log entries for the remainder (885 documents) pursuant to 

Judge Cousins’ Order. 

7 See id. 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 705 Filed 04/23/18 Page 4 of 22
4

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

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

and 5:17-md-02773-LHK-NMC

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

On April 16, 2018, the Parties submitted a Joint Status Report regarding the progress of 

Qualcomm’s re-review to Judge Cousins. (ECF No. 688.) The Re-Review Order provides that in 

each status report, Plaintiffs “may collectively request in camera review for up to 50 document 

families. ” (MDL ECF No. 427.) On April 16, 2018, Plaintiffs identified to Qualcomm eight log 

entries from the April 11 re-review production that Plaintiffs contend, when considered along 

with the non-redacted content of the redacted documents, fail to support a privilege assertion. 

During a meet and confer on April 16, 2018 following that identification, Plaintiffs offered to 

discuss the log entries on a subsequent phone call that day after Qualcomm had additional time to 

review the entries. Qualcomm never attempted to schedule an additional call to discuss the 

identified entries. Plaintiffs requested that Judge Cousins review those identified documents in 

camera. (ECF No. 688 at 5-6.) Judge Cousins has set a discovery status hearing for May 2, 2018 

to address any remaining issues related to Qualcomm’s April 11 production. (ECF No. 692.)

Qualcomm’s Position

Qualcomm continues the process of re-reviewing documents pursuant to Judge Cousins’s

Order Regarding Privilege Re-Review for Qualcomm and Apple. (MDL ECF 427.) Qualcomm 

is devoting enormous attorney resources to the re-review process in order to meet the deadlines 

set by the Court. Because almost 50% of the total documents involve Mr. Aberle, Qualcomm’s 

re-review will be heavily concentrated at the beginning of the re-review period. (ECF No. 664.)

On April 16, 2018, the Parties submitted a Joint Status Report regarding the progress of 

Qualcomm’s re-review to Judge Cousins. (ECF No. 688.) The Re-Review Order provides that in 

each status report, Plaintiffs “may collectively request in camera review for up to 50 document 

families. The status report must certify that counsel for the parties have met and conferred in 

person or by phone in an effort to resolve the privilege disputes for any document submitted in 

camera.” (MDL ECF No. 427.) To make this certification, Qualcomm requested that Plaintiffs 

identify any documents they intended to submit for in camera review by the end of the day on 

Friday, April 13. (ECF No. 688 at 2.) Plaintiffs responded that “there is no further conversation 

to be had. We will identify 50 of those documents and there will be a dispute about those 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 705 Filed 04/23/18 Page 5 of 22
5

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

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

and 5:17-md-02773-LHK-NMC

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

documents.” While the Parties did have a phone conversation on the afternoon of April 16 (the 

day the Joint Status Report was due to the Court), Plaintiffs did not provide Qualcomm with a list 

of in camera documents until minutes before the call. (ECF No. 688 at 2.) Because Plaintiffs did 

not identify the documents they intended to propose for in camera review meaningfully in 

advance of the meet and confer call and the subsequent filing of the joint report to the Court, the 

parties were unable to meet and confer in any meaningful way regarding the in camera

documents. (ECF No. 688 at 5-6.)

In its first production pursuant to the Re-Review Order, Qualcomm produced certain 

previously withheld or redacted documents involving Dr. Paul Jacobs with reduced or no 

redactions. (ECF No. 688 at 1.) The numbers Plaintiffs provide above overstate the extent to 

which Qualcomm has “reversed” privilege calls because they include documents that remain 

privileged in part, but where Qualcomm unredacted other portions of the document, and because 

they include documents with content that was previously produced to Plaintiffs without 

redactions elsewhere in Qualcomm’s production. Nevertheless, the results of this re-review 

demonstrate that Qualcomm is acting in good faith to ensure that each document is re-reviewed 

diligently. Conversely, Plaintiffs’ unspoken suggestion that Qualcomm intentionally “advanced 

unsupportable privilege claims” is without foundation. Unlike in many privilege reviews, the 

majority of the documents here involve lawyers acting in dual roles—both lawyer and business 

person—and involve unusually challenging privilege issues arising from the nature of a licensing 

business, where legal issues arise much more often than in most other businesses. When coupled 

with the sheer volume of documents to be reviewed (approximately 7.9 million documents) and 

the tight schedule, and the resulting need to rely on outside contract attorneys (at times, over 400

full-time attorneys), mistakes are to be expected. Indeed, throughout Qualcomm’s re-review 

efforts, the “reversal” rate has consistently been much lower for documents from the preComplaint investigation by the FTC, when Qualcomm had more time to prepare its privilege log, 

than for documents collected and reviewed for the first time to respond to requests made in this 

litigation. Further, to put the scope of the issue in context, Qualcomm has to date produced only 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 705 Filed 04/23/18 Page 6 of 22
6

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

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

and 5:17-md-02773-LHK-NMC

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

about 14,000 documents after privilege re-reviews, which are dwarfed by the overall size of 

Qualcomm’s production in these coordinated cases (over 4.3 million documents), and many of the 

documents produced after re-review contain information that was already previously produced to 

Plaintiffs in other documents in the production. As a point of reference, Apple’s original 

privilege log in response to Qualcomm’s subpoenas in these actions contained approximately 

420,000 entries. After re-review, Apple removed approximately 260,000 entries from the log. 

And even on the revised log, Qualcomm has so far challenged 2,530 entries, and Apple has 

reversed its privilege calls on 2,370 of them (or 93%). By contrast, it is easy for the FTC and 

MDL Plaintiffs to criticize Qualcomm, as neither has significant documents to produce; indeed, 

the MDL Plaintiffs have no privilege log at all.

C. Other Document Discovery Issues

1. The FTC’s Request for Custodial and Other Documents Relating to 

Broadcom’s Proposed Takeover of Qualcomm.

FTC’s Position

On January 30, 2018, the FTC served its Second Set of Requests for Production to 

Qualcomm, seeking, among other things, documents relating to Broadcom’s then-ongoing 

attempt to acquire Qualcomm via hostile takeover. The FTC’s request is narrow in scope, 

primarily seeking documents created, sent, or received by Qualcomm’s Board of Directors and a 

limited number of Qualcomm senior executives. On March 1, 2018 Qualcomm served its 

objections, stating, “Qualcomm will not produce documents in response to this Request, except 

for documents submitted to the FTC pursuant to the Hart-Scott-Rodino (“HSR”) Act on 

December 26, 2017, subject to the entry of appropriate amendments to the Protective Order.” 

During subsequent meet and confer discussions, Qualcomm confirmed that it would not produce 

responsive documents unless the Protective Order were modified to prevent Apple’s outside 

counsel from viewing any documents Qualcomm produced in response to the request. The FTC 

attempted, but failed, to secure Apple’s counsel’s agreement to this condition. On April 10, 2018 

the FTC informed Qualcomm that it should either produce responsive documents or seek an 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 705 Filed 04/23/18 Page 7 of 22
7

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

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

and 5:17-md-02773-LHK-NMC

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

appropriate modification of the Protective Order, and on April 11 provided Qualcomm with the 

FTC’s half of a joint discovery statement. 

On April 15, 2018, Qualcomm offered to produce “promptly” a copy of Qualcomm’s HSR

filing, without a modification to the Protective Order. Qualcomm produced the HSR filing on 

April 20. During a subsequent meet and confer, Qualcomm offered to provide certain additional 

Board documents related to the Broadcom proposal, but stated it will oppose any further requests 

for responsive materials, including any custodial collections. As of the date of this filing, 

Qualcomm has not provided the FTC with any such Board documents. While the FTC believes a 

custodial collection from a limited number of senior executives is appropriate, it has agreed to 

review a sample of the documents Qualcomm consented to producing and evaluate whether such 

documents provide the necessary information. The FTC reserves the right to seek additional 

documents if it deems the HSR and Board documents are insufficient.

Qualcomm’s Position

One of the requests in the FTC’s Second Set of Requests for Production to Qualcomm 

seeks “[a]ll documents relating to any Broadcom M&A Proposal” that were created or sent to 

Qualcomm’s Board of Directors or a list of ten senior executives, as well as any documents 

relating to any Broadcom M&A proposal that reflect “Qualcomm’s valuation of its own business” 

or “the financial impact of any changes in business strategy that might be implemented postacquisition”. These broad requests, served while Broadcom’s offer to acquire Qualcomm was 

still pending, seek highly confidential business information that is neither relevant to any claim or 

defense nor proportional to the needs of the case. Given the tangential nature of these broad 

Requests, the late stage of discovery when these Requests were served (i.e., well into the 

deposition period), and the extraordinarily sensitive nature of these documents during the 

pendency of a hostile takeover bid, Qualcomm objected to the FTC’s Requests. Nonetheless, 

Qualcomm advised the FTC on a February 27, 2018 meet-and-confer that it would produce its 

Hart-Scott-Rodino (“HSR”) filing relating to Broadcom’s offer, provided that the production 

would be made to the FTC and MDL Plaintiffs only—which would require a modification of the 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 705 Filed 04/23/18 Page 8 of 22
8

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

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

and 5:17-md-02773-LHK-NMC

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

Coordination Order that would prevent production of the documents to counsel for Apple and the 

Contract Manufacturers in the coordinated litigation in the Southern District of California. (ECF 

No. 513.) Qualcomm insisted on such a modification because Qualcomm had sound basis to 

believe that Apple was in communication with Broadcom regarding its proposed hostile takeover, 

including based on public statements made by Broadcom itself. Notably, the FTC also served 

Broadcom with a subpoena requesting similar documents, and on February 20, 2018, Broadcom 

informed the FTC that Broadcom would not produce any documents responsive to the subpoena. 

The FTC did not take action to pursue that subpoena any further.

The FTC did not raise the Requests with Qualcomm again until March 19, 2018. 

In the meantime, the sensitivity of the information the FTC requested was further 

highlighted on March 5, 2018, when the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States 

(“CFIUS”) “identified potential national security concerns” with Broadcom’s bid, including that 

“changes to Qualcomm’s business model would likely negatively impact the core R&D 

expenditures of national security concern.”8

 Based on the investigation and recommendation of 

CFIUS, on March 14, 2018, pursuant to authority granted under Section 721 of the Defense 

Production Act of 1950, 50 U.S.C. § 4565, the President ordered Broadcom to, among other 

things, “immediately and permanently abandon the proposed takeover”.9

It was not until April 10, 2018, that the FTC re-raised its Requests for takeover-related 

materials. The FTC advised Qualcomm that the FTC had been unable to persuade Apple and the 

CMs to agree to a modification of the Coordination Order that would allow Qualcomm to produce 

documents relating to Broadcom’s offer in the Northern District Actions only. On April 11, 

2018, the FTC provided Qualcomm with its portion of a Joint Discovery Statement, identifying 

for the first time a single purportedly relevant statement made in an investor presentation filed 

 8 March 5, 2018 Letter from Aimen N. Mir re: CFIUS Case 19-036, Broadcom Limited 

(Singapore)/Qualcomm Incorporated

9 March 12, 2018 Presidential Order Regarding the Proposed Takeover of Qualcomm 

Incorporated by Broadcom Limited.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 705 Filed 04/23/18 Page 9 of 22
9

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

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

and 5:17-md-02773-LHK-NMC

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

with the SEC on February 9, 2018 (and available to the FTC since that time). Based on this 

single statement, the FTC requested invasive custodial searches of Qualcomm’s ten most senior

executives for “[a]ll documents relating to any Broadcom M&A proposal” reflecting the 

“valuation of Qualcomm’s own business” and the “financial impact of any changes in business 

strategy”. 

Given the withdrawal of Broadcom’s hostile takeover bid, Qualcomm informed the FTC 

on April 15, 2018 that it would no longer seek a revision to the Coordination Order. Following 

an April 16, 2018 meet-and-confer, the Parties agreed that Qualcomm would produce (1) its HSR 

filing and (2) any materials provided to the Board in connection with the February 9, 2018 

investor presentation identified by the FTC (subject to Qualcomm’s need to first confer with its 

CFIUS counsel to ensure compliance with its obligations to CFIUS and under the President’s 

Order). On April 20, 2018, Qualcomm produced the HSR filing. Qualcomm continues to search 

for and review materials relating to the February 9, 2018 investor presentation identified by the 

FTC, and expects to produce additional documents this week. If any dispute remains concerning 

this issue following Qualcomm’s production and any subsequent meet and confer, Qualcomm 

believes that the appropriate course would be for the Parties to submit the dispute to Magistrate 

Judge Cousins in a Joint Discovery Statement. 

2. Plaintiffs’ Requests for Qualcomm to Collect and Produce Additional

Documents and Data from Shared Databases 

MDL Plaintiffs have been meeting and conferring with Qualcomm since March 23 

regarding Qualcomm’s production of materials from databases and other shared folders. To 

address these issues, on April 19, the MDL Plaintiffs made a proposal to Qualcomm where 

Qualcomm would 1) collect and produce certain materials on Qualcomm’s shared databases that 

the MDL Plaintiffs assert contain relevant materials; 2) produce certain additional transactional 

data with relevant metrics tracked by Qualcomm; 3) submit written answers to questions

regarding Qualcomm’s document collection efforts that Qualcomm’s corporate representative

was unable to answer, including questions to which she responded “I don’t know” and I’m not 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 705 Filed 04/23/18 Page 10 of 22
10

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

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

and 5:17-md-02773-LHK-NMC

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

aware”; and 4) provide additional information regarding the shared databases that Qualcomm 

uses, such as folder structures for the Reactor and Good servers.

The MDL Plaintiffs and Qualcomm had a meet and confer on these issues on April 23, 

2018. The MDL Plaintiffs and Qualcomm reached agreement on several specific document 

collection issues. In particular, Qualcomm agreed to produce materials requested by the MDL 

Plaintiffs that were stored under licensee specific subfolders on a shared Qualcomm database—

some of which were already produced today—as well as produce news summaries from an 

internal Qualcomm website that MDL Plaintiffs believe is related to competition in the baseband 

processor market. The MDL Plaintiffs also narrowed their request for certain materials based on 

representations by Qualcomm about the burden posed by such collections. Qualcomm stated that 

it was doing additional fact-gathering interviews in response to the MDL Plaintiffs recent 

requests, including for files stored on shared databases that Plaintiffs believe are used by QCT 

Finance and QTL Finance, as well as the availability of transactional data that includes relevant 

data on chipset product tiers, features, and costs. The MDL Plaintiffs’ position is that Plaintiffs’ 

requests for production of documents specifically sought such transactional data and it is of 

particular importance in this litigation because it relates to key topics such as Qualcomm’s market 

power and Plaintiffs’ estimates of damages. 10 

The MDL Plaintiffs are also preparing a written list of the numerous questions that, in 

their view, Qualcomm’s designated corporate representative on Qualcomm’s document collection 

was unable to answer at her deposition, and Qualcomm will consider how to address these 

questions. The parties agreed to continue to meet and confer on these issues in the coming days. 

 10 See e.g., Plaintiffs First Set of Requests for Production of Documents, Request 4 (requesting 

transactional data that included a description of the product and compatible cellular standards); 

Request 5 (requesting transactional data sufficient to identify each cost incurred by Qualcomm in 

manufacturing, selling, and distributing modem chipsets). 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 705 Filed 04/23/18 Page 11 of 22
11

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

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

and 5:17-md-02773-LHK-NMC

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. The MDL Plaintiffs’ Failure to Produce Documents Concerning Proposed 

Alternative Class Representatives. 

At the depositions of “alternate” class representatives Leonidas Miras and James Clark, 

Qualcomm requested that MDL Plaintiffs produce additional documents. 

Plaintiffs’ Position

Shortly following the depositions of these alternate class representatives, on April 6, 2018, 

MDL Plaintiffs produced the documents requested by Qualcomm on April 6, 2018, with a cover 

letter indicating the production “contains additional documents produced by plaintiffs’ alternate 

class representatives James Clark and Leonidas Miras . . . .” Plaintiffs also agreed to produce (1) 

any documents relating to Mr. Miras’ insurance claims and previous phones; (2) Mr. Clark’s 

Amnesty International phone; and (3) Mr. Clark’s replacement Samsung device, to the extent they 

exist. Qualcomm contends MDL Plaintiffs have failed to produce additional responsive 

documents, but MDL Plaintiffs are not aware of any additional responsive documents in Mr. 

Miras’ or Mr. Clark’s possession that have not been produced. Qualcomm requested a meet and 

confer on April 20, and MDL Plaintiffs have agreed to meet and confer with Qualcomm, though 

they are unaware of the additional claimed deficiencies.

Qualcomm’s Position

At the depositions of “alternate” class representatives Leonidas Miras and James Clark, 

Qualcomm learned that MDL Plaintiffs had failed to produce numerous responsive documents 

related to these witnesses. MDL Plaintiffs assured Qualcomm that they would produce additional 

documents including Mr. Miras’ insurance records for his cellular devices and documents related 

to Mr. Miras’ previous cellular devices. On April 6, 2018, MDL Plaintiffs produced emails Mr. 

Miras received from insurance carrier Asurion showing that Mr. Miras has access to an “Online 

Claim Center” where he can “[d]ownload any necessary forms or documents.” See, e.g., 

MIRAS_00000331. They produced no other records of Mr. Miras’ insurance claims or policies. 

On April 20, Qualcomm emailed MDL Plaintiffs asking them whether they intended to produce 

any additional responsive documents, including the insurance claims documents which Mr. Miras 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 705 Filed 04/23/18 Page 12 of 22
12

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

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

and 5:17-md-02773-LHK-NMC

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

evidently can access via the Online Claim Center.11 Qualcomm was still waiting for a response 

as of the April 23 meet and confer. MDL Plaintiffs were not prepared to address this issue on the 

meet and confer. They promised to follow up but still have not responded to Qualcomm’s request 

for the insurance records. 

D. Depositions

1. Individual Depositions

Almost all depositions of current or former Qualcomm employees have concluded. The 

sole exception is Jeffrey Altman, with respect to whom the Court approved an out-of-time 

deposition on February 20, 2018. (ECF No. 580). The Parties will meet and confer regarding reopening of depositions following the completion of Qualcomm’s privilege re-review.

Plaintiffs’ Position

Plaintiffs will likely need to re-open the deposition of Dr. Paul Jacobs based on Dr. 

Jacobs’s refusal to answer questions about his plans to purchase Qualcomm and his assessment of 

Qualcomm’s business model following his departure from Qualcomm’s Board of Directors. 

Counsel for Dr. Jacobs repeatedly instructed the witness not answer questions concerning these

topics, including Dr. Jacobs’s own view of Qualcomm’s business model since his departure and

limitations of that model in a public company structure, and communications with investment 

banks about Qualcomm’s business model, on the grounds that such testimony would constitute 

“unretained expert testimony” and invade Dr. Jacobs’s privacy. Counsel for Qualcomm also 

objected to this line of questioning. Testimony regarding Qualcomm’s business model, and the 

value of retaining that model, is highly relevant. Of note, Dr. Jacobs was identified as a person 

with knowledge in Qualcomm’s Rule 26 disclosures, including specifically on the issue of 

corporate strategy. The objections by Qualcomm’s and Dr. Jacobs’ counsel are not a basis for 

withholding such testimony.

Qualcomm’s Position

 11 4/20/2018 email from J. Friley to A. Bonn.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 705 Filed 04/23/18 Page 13 of 22
13

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

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

and 5:17-md-02773-LHK-NMC

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

At Dr. Jacobs’s deposition, the FTC posed certain questions concerning his potential bid 

to acquire Qualcomm. Dr. Jacobs’s individually retained counsel objected to these questions and 

directed Dr. Jacobs not to answer them. Qualcomm takes no position on the propriety of those 

instructions. Qualcomm, for its part, believes that deposition testimony on this topic is neither 

relevant nor proportional to the needs of this case, and objected to the questioning accordingly, 

but Qualcomm’s counsel never instructed Dr. Jacobs not to respond to questions on this topic.

12

2. Rule 30(b)(6) Depositions

On April 13, 2018, MDL Plaintiffs conducted the deposition of Pamela Schieffelin, who 

was designated as Qualcomm’s corporate designee for Topic 11 of MDL Plaintiff’s Rule 30(b)(6) 

notice as detailed above. On April 16, 2018, Plaintiffs conducted the deposition of Liren Chen, 

who was designated as Qualcomm’s corporate designee for Topics 6-8 (excluding the portions 

related to “value”) and 10 of the FTC’s Rule 30(b)(6) notice; and Topics 4 (excluding the 

portions related to “value”) and 10 of MDL Plaintiff’s Rule 30(b)(6) notice. On April 17-18, 

2018, MDL Plaintiffs conducted the deposition of Alex Katouzian, who was designated as 

Qualcomm’s corporate designee for Topic 3 of MDL Plaintiff’s Rule 30(b)(6) notice. On April 

15, 2018 Qualcomm informed Plaintiffs that it would substitute Fabian Gonell for Derek Aberle 

as its corporate designee for Topics 6-8 (related to “value”) and 10 of the FTC’s Rule 30(b)(6) 

notice, and Topics 4 (related to “value”), 5, 6, 7, and 9 of MDL Plaintiff’s Rule 30(b)(6) notice. 

Plaintiffs conducted the deposition of Mr. Gonell on April 20, 2018.

On April 5, 2018, Qualcomm provided the FTC with written responses to certain 

questions from the FTC related to Topic 11 of the FTC’s Rule 30(b)(6) notice in lieu of a 

deposition on that topic. On April 6, 2018, Qualcomm offered to make two witnesses available on 

 12 In the Southern District litigation, Apple has served on Dr. Jacobs a subpoena for documents 

regarding his contemplated bid for Qualcomm, and Dr. Jacobs, through his individually retained 

counsel, has objected to that subpoena. Qualcomm understands that counsel for Apple and 

counsel for Dr. Jacobs continue to discuss that subpoena, and that prior to Dr. Jacobs’s 

deposition, they agreed to defer any questioning on this topic pending resolution of their 

differences concerning the subpoena (either by agreement or by the Southern District court). 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 705 Filed 04/23/18 Page 14 of 22
14

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

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

and 5:17-md-02773-LHK-NMC

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

April 11 for follow –up questions relating to Qualcomm’s written responses. On April 10, the 

FTC stated that it was “still reviewing the written responses” but did not “anticipate seeking 

deposition testimony on these issues” and agreed to “release the April 11 date”. 

MDL Plaintiffs’ Position

On April 20, 2018, MDL Plaintiffs provided Qualcomm with written questions related to 

topics 1, 2 and 8 of MDL Plaintiffs’ 30(b)(6) notice in lieu of a deposition on those topics. 

Though MDL Plaintiffs believe the written questions are proper, MDL Plaintiffs subsequently 

offered a compromise proposal to Qualcomm on April 22nd whereby Qualcomm would designate 

certain portions of Alex Katouzian’s transcript as to Topics 1 and 2 of MDL Plaintiffs’ 30(b)(6) 

deposition notice, and Qualcomm would answer a subset of written questions as to Topics 1, 2, 

and 8. MDL Plaintiffs have not yet heard back from Qualcomm regarding this proposal.

Qualcomm’s Position

At the March 22, 2018 Case Management Conference, the MDL Plaintiffs represented to 

the Court that the MDL Plaintiffs would “absolutely” narrow Topics 1, 2 and 8 from the vastly 

overbroad topics presented to the Court at the time. (3/22/2018 Hrg. Tr. 71:7-18.) Accordingly, 

the Court allowed the MDL Plaintiffs “to provide specific, narrow questions”. (ECF No. 403 at 

2.) 

On April 20, 2018, the MDL Plaintiffs sent Qualcomm 78 questions, many containing 

dozens of subparts, for a total of nearly 1000 individual inquiries purportedly covering Topics 1, 

2, and 8. On April 22, following Qualcomm’s request to meet and confer about the overbreadth of 

MDL Plaitniffs’ proposal, the MDL Plaintiffs offered a revised list of questions. The revised list 

(including all subparts) still comprises over 500 questions, many of which Qualcomm believes to 

be vague and overbroad, unduly burdensome, outside the scope of the deposition topics, and 

inconsistent with the Court’s Order. Nonetheless, Qualcomm is still in the process of assessing 

the revised list and expects to meet-and-confer on this issue with the MDL Plaintiffs in short 

order.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 705 Filed 04/23/18 Page 15 of 22
15

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

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

and 5:17-md-02773-LHK-NMC

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

III. THIRD-PARTY DISCOVERY

A. Document Production

The vast majority of third parties subpoenaed have completed their document productions 

in this case. Certain third parties are still producing small volumes of documents. 

B. Depositions

The parties concluded depositions of third-party witnesses on April 20. 

MDL Plaintiffs’ Position

MDL Plaintiffs also intend to participate in the deposition of Tim Cook, which was 

noticed by Qualcomm in the S.D. Cal. litigation for June 27, 2018. The Coordination Order 

provides “that “[d]epositions subpoenaed, noticed, and/or taken in any of the Pending Cases shall 

be treated as if they were noticed and taken in each Pending Case, except insofar as a deposition 

relates solely to claims concerning the Patents-in-Suit in the SD Cal Litigation.” As Mr.

Takashima clarified in a January 30, 2018 email to Qualcomm, “Mr. Cook’s deposition would not 

relate solely to claims concerning the Patents-in-Suit in the SD Cal Litigation.” Accordingly, 

MDL Plaintiffs are entitled to attend the deposition, ask questions, and raise objections. See Dkt. 

305 (Case No. 5:17-md-02773-LHK) at ¶ 11.

Furthermore, Apple indicated that Tim Cook would be made available for deposition 

February 22, 2018 and February 28, 2018 in the N.D. Cal. and S.D. Cal. actions. Both the FTC 

and MDL Plaintiffs confirmed the February 22, 2018 and February 28, 2018 dates. See J. 

Ansaldo email to E. Takashima dated February 5, 2018; K. Pachman email to E. Takashima dated 

February 5, 2018. It was only after Qualcomm unilaterally refused to participate in Tim Cook’s 

deposition before close of discovery in the MDL Plaintiffs’ case that the parties scheduled Mr. 

Cook’s deposition for June 27, 2018. 

Qualcomm’s Position

Qualcomm notes that the MDL Plaintiffs did not notice Mr. Cook’s deposition during the 

fact discovery period in this case. Qualcomm will not object to the MDL Plaintiffs’ participation 

in the deposition of Mr. Cook, subject to Qualcomm having sufficient time (i.e., up to 7 hours) to 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 705 Filed 04/23/18 Page 16 of 22
16

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

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

and 5:17-md-02773-LHK-NMC

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

depose Mr. Cook.

IV. ADR

The Parties have not engaged in any ADR conferences since the April 3, 2018 Case 

Management Statement. (ECF No. 672.) The next ADR conference is scheduled for August 7, 

2018.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 705 Filed 04/23/18 Page 17 of 22
17

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

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

and 5:17-md-02773-LHK-NMC

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

Dated: April 23, 2018

Respectfully submitted,

By:

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

 /s/ Jennifer Milici

Jennifer Milici

Wesley G. Carson

J. Alexander Ansaldo

Joseph R. Baker

Elizabeth A. Gillen

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20580

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

jmilici@ftc.gov 

Attorneys for Federal Trade Commission

SUSMAN GODFREY LLP

 /s/ Kalpana Srinivasan

Kalpana Srinivasan

Marc M. Seltzer

Steven G. Sklaver

Amanda Bonn

Oleg Elkhunovich

Krysta Kauble Pachman

SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.

1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400

Los Angeles, CA 90067

Telephone: (310) 789-3100

Facsimile: (310) 789-3006

Email: ksrinivasan@susmangodfrey.com

Email: mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com

Email: ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com

Email: abonn@susmangodfrey.com

Email: oelkhunovich@susmangodfrey.com

Email: kpachman@susmangodfrey.com

Joseph Grinstein

SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.

1000 Louisiana Street # 5100

Houston, TX 77002

Telephone: (713) 651-9366

Facsimile: (713) 654-6666

Email: jgrinstein@susmangodfrey.com

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 705 Filed 04/23/18 Page 18 of 22
18

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

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

and 5:17-md-02773-LHK-NMC

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

Joseph W. Cotchett

Adam J. Zapala

Brian Danitz

Mark F. Ram

Michael Montaño

COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP

840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200

Burlingame, CA 94010

Telephone: (650) 697-6000

Facsimile: (650) 697-0577

Email: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com

Email: azapala@cpmlegal.com

Email: bdanitz@cpmlegal.com

Email: mram@cpmlegal.com

Email: mmontano@cpmlegal.com

Plaintiffs’ Interim Co-Lead Counsel

Dated: April 23, 2018

By:

HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO 

LLP

/s/ Steve W. Berman

Steve W. Berman

HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO 

LLP

1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300

Seattle, WA 98101

Telephone: (206) 268-9320

Facsimile: (206) 623-0594

Email: steve@hbsslaw.com

Jeff D. Friedman (173886)

Rio S. Pierce (298297)

HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO 

LLP

715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202

Berkeley, CA 94710

Telephone: (510) 725-3000

Facsimile: (510) 725-3001

Email: jefff@hbsslaw.com

Email: riop@hbsslaw.com

Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 705 Filed 04/23/18 Page 19 of 22
19

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

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

and 5:17-md-02773-LHK-NMC

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

Dated: April 23, 2018

By:

CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP

 /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

Robert A. Van Nest

Asim M. Bhansali

Eugene M. Paige

Justina Sessions

David W. Rizk

Alexander Dryer

KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP

633 Battery Street

San Francisco, CA 94111-1809

Telephone: (415) 391-5400

Facsimile: (415) 397-7188

rvannest@keker.com

abhansali@keker.com

epaige@keker.com

jsessions@keker.com

drizk@keker.com

adryer@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

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 705 Filed 04/23/18 Page 20 of 22
20

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

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

and 5:17-md-02773-LHK-NMC

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

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 Defendant Qualcomm 

Incorporated

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 705 Filed 04/23/18 Page 21 of 22
21

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

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

and 5:17-md-02773-LHK-NMC

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

FILER’S ATTESTATION

I, Jennifer Milici, am the ECF user whose identification and password are being used to 

file this Joint Case Management 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/ Jennifer Milici

Jennifer Milici

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 705 Filed 04/23/18 Page 22 of 22