Litigation

Status Conference Today in Qualcomm, Inc. v. Broadcom Corp. Regarding Discovery Plan and Further Proceedings

By reston, Gates and Ellis

On March 20, 2008, the court convened a status hearing and counsel reported their progress toward developing the CREDO protocol ordered by the court.  The court also conferred with the parties regarding the status of the case in light of Judge Brewster’s March 5, 2008 Order Remanding in Part Order of Magistrate Court re Motion for Sanctions Dated 1/07/08.  Because Judge Brewster vacated the 1/07/08 Sanctions Order to the extent it required the named Responding Attorneys to participate in the CREDO project, the Magistrate Judge observed that only Qualcomm remained responsible for completing the protocol.  Thus, the court ordered Qualcomm to submit a final version of the CREDO protocol by Thursday, April 10, 2008.  (If it was filed by the court's deadline, the protocol does yet not appear to be publicly available.)

On April 2, 2008, counsel for the Responding Attorneys and Broadcom submitted their Proposed Discovery Plan in preparation for the evidentiary hearing on attorney sanctions ordered by the District Judge.

Also on April 2, 2008, the court held a telephonic status conference in which counsel for the Responding Attorneys, Qualcomm and Broadcom participated.  During the conference, the court discussed with counsel the “Discovery Plan Jointly Proposed by the Responding Attorneys and Broadcom.”  The court ordered the parties to present their requests for documents to each other, and serve subpoenas duces tecum upon third parties for the production of documents, on or before April 11, 2008.

The court is holding a status hearing today, April 22, 2008 at 10:30 a.m. to address the status of this document production and further scheduling in light of this production.

Other developments in the case include Qualcomm’s motion for clarification of the District Judge’s March 5, 2008 ruling remanding the attorney sanctions issue to the Magistrate Judge.  Qualcomm asks that the court clarify the scope of attorney-client privileged material that will be permitted in further proceedings, and the manner in which discovery proceedings will be conducted.

View Qualcomm’s Motion Regarding Remand Proceedings here.

Broadcom and the Responding Attorneys have opposed Qualcomm’s motion, arguing that it improperly seeks to exclude Broadcom from the Remand Proceedings, and that the restrictions Qualcomm proposes on discovery are unduly narrow and would prevent the Responding Attorneys from defending themselves fully.  They also oppose Qualcomm’s proposal that the proceedings be sealed, since that would prevent the Responding Attorneys from responding publicly to accusations that Qualcomm itself made through publicly-filed declarations and briefs.

View Broadcom’s Response here.
View the Response of Batchelder, et al. here (Responding Attorney Patch joined).
View Young’s Response here.
View Bier’s Response here.

Full post as published by eDiscovery Law on April 22, 2008 (boomark / email).