Free Motion to Supplement - District Court of Arizona - Arizona


File Size: 129.0 kB
Pages: 3
Date: August 12, 2008
File Format: PDF
State: Arizona
Category: District Court of Arizona
Author: unknown
Word Count: 724 Words, 4,582 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/azd/33764/854-4.pdf

Download Motion to Supplement - District Court of Arizona ( 129.0 kB)


Preview Motion to Supplement - District Court of Arizona
Case 2:03-cv-00597-I\/IHI\/I Document 854-4 Filed 08/12/2008 Page 1 013

Maximilian A. Grant 555 Eleventh Street, N.W., Suite 1000
Direct: (202) 637-2267 Washington, D.C. 20004-1304
[email protected] Tel: (202) 637-2200 Fax: (202) 637-2201
www.Iw.com
FIRM /Ai=FiuATE oFi=ici2s
I- H A M Kl N S LLP Boston New Jersey
Brussels New York
Chicago Northern Virginia
Frankfurt Orange County
Hamburg Paris
D€C€H1b€I` 23, Hong Kong San Diego
London San Francisco
Los Angeles Silicon Valley
Milan Singapore
Moscow Tokyo
Washington, D.C.
FileNo. 0000000000
James W. Gould
Morgan & Finnegan, L.L.P.
3 World Financial Center
New York, NY 10281-2101
Re: Bard v. Gore, No. CIV-03-0597-PHX-MHM
Dear Mr. Gould:
Here is Bard’s understanding of the agreement reached concerning
supplementation of damages documents. I will call you on Monday to confer with you and/or to
confirm whether this is also Gore’s understanding. We recommend moving the production date
from January 14 to February 7 to ensure that both sides have sufficient time to ensure their
production is complete.
1. The parties will supplement production of "financial documents" twice: once on
February 7, 2005 (current through September 30, 2004) and again 60 days prior to
the trial date set by the Court (through the most current quarter). By "financial
documents," the parties mean: electronic and hard copy versions of the financial
documents/data produced to date, in the form produced to date, including (i)
foreign and domestic sales, in units and dollars, by product and by country for all
Gore products accused of infringement and all products Bard contends are
covered by the ‘ 135 patent, (ii) periodic reports on profits and costs.
2. The parties will supplement/produce "licensing documents" on February 7, 2005
(current through September 30, 2004). By "licensing documents," the parties
mean: (i) all non-privileged Gore documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ document
requests nos. 41 and 52; (ii) all non—privi1eged Bard documents relating to
licensing of the ‘ 135 patent.
3. The parties will supplement production of "marketing documents" on February 7,
2005 (current through September 30, 2004). By "marketing documents" Gore
means documents responsive to its document request nos. 120, 121 and 123. By
"marketing materials" Bard means:
Case 2:03-cv-00597-I\/IHI\/I Document 854-4 Filed 08/12/2008 Page 2 of 3

December 23, 2004
Page 2
LATHAM&WATKl NSLLP
(a) Any “marketing" or "strategy" plans or proposals for the accused
products and any business units that sell the accused products.
Examples include deposition exhibits 239, 242, 248, 249 and 252.
(b) Any budgets for the business units of the company relating to the
accused products. An example is deposition exhibit 231.
(c) Exemplars of marketing materials and advertising directed to
doctors or hospitals relating to the accused products and released
since the date on which Gore’s existing production was completed.
An example is deposition exhibit 243.
(d) Documents that analyze competitors or teach salespeople how to
compete against competitors.
(e) Internal market analysis. Examples include deposition exhibits
225 and 251.
(f) Mid-year, one—year or multi—year plans, or review for products,
lines of products or business units of the accused products,
including any "longterm" plans. An example is deposition exhibit
253.
(g) Launch plans. An example is deposition exhibit 250.
(h) Aggregated sales force reports that discuss “wins and losses" at the
district or regional, national or global levels.
(i) Compensation plans like that marked as deposition exhibit 237.
Qi) The annual "sales and marketing plans" and annual "business plan
reviews" that Gore’s 30(b)(6) witnesses, Susan Boothe, testified
exist, including any "business reviews" that Gore witness David
Abeyta testified exist.
lf you have any questions, lets please discuss them on Monday by phone.
Tru you , /r/`
.¤4r j ,
fx
Maximilian A. ant i
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
cc: Service List (Fax)
S. Cherny; M. Rawlinson; E. Longo; J. Polese; J. Griffith (PDF)
Case 2:03-cv-00597-I\/IHI\/I Document 854-4 Filed 08/12/2008 Page 3 of 3

EXHIBIT C

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM

Document 854-4

Filed 08/12/2008

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM

Document 854-4

Filed 08/12/2008

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM

Document 854-4

Filed 08/12/2008

Page 3 of 3