146 2

Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document146-2 Filed03/07/13 Page1 of 54
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
TELEPHONIC HEARING BEFORE JUDGE VAUGHN WALKER - 02/21/2013 Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document146-2 Filed03/07/13 Page5 of 54 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 NOGARA REPORTING SERVICE 5 Third street, Suite 415 San Francisco, California 94903 (415)398-1889 REPORTED BY: DEBORAH FUQUA, CSR #12948 Defendants. ____________________________/ Telephonic Conference Hon. Vaughn R. Walker Thursday, February 21, 2013 vs. STMICROELECTRONICS, N.V., et al., RAMBUS, INC., Plaintiff, No. C-10-5449 RS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ---o0o---
<< NOGARA REPORTING SERVICE >>
TELEPHONIC HEARING BEFORE JUDGE VAUGHN WALKER - 02/21/2013 Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document146-2 Filed03/07/13 Page6 of 54 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 at K&L Gates shall, not later than -- and, again, we'll determine what date should be inserted -- shall submit under penalty of perjury a declaration that states, A, instructions on the means to preserve documents responsive to Request for Production served July 8, 2011, Nos. 4, 5, 8, 14, and 31 were conveyed to STMicro together with instructions on appropriate means of complying with the foregoing document requests, and, B, to the best of counsels' knowledge, STMicro has fully complied with its discovery obligations in response to the foregoing Request for Production. Now, Mr. Detre and Mr. Gratzinger, you've been dealing with counsel for STMicro for some period of time. The blanks in what I proposed are with respect Do
to how much time they should be given to respond. you have a suggestion? MR. GRATZINGER: concern. Well, your Honor, here's my
And I apologize if it's not a -- if it's a
slightly longer answer than what you were hoping for. But what I see as a problem here is that the parties have, apparently, a very different understanding of what it means to comply with these requests. I believe that ST- -- Ms. Chow's letter suggests that they believe that they have done a diligent search. And our responsive letter points out
TELEPHONIC HEARING BEFORE JUDGE VAUGHN WALKER - 02/21/2013 Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document146-2 Filed03/07/13 Page7 of 54 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 the many ways in which they have not. And what I'm afraid is we may get back these declarations and we may get them back promptly, but the underlying dispute of what it means that a diligent search was made and no additional documents exist, that dispute will remain. And therefore, your Honor, while I think that this type of declaration is very appropriate, I think it would be preferable if your Honor would give STMicro some guidance as to what a reasonable search looks like, for example, very basic things, like it needs to cover all of the accused products, or, "If you're complying with a request for all documents applying to Rambus, you need to search for the word 'Rambus.'" I'm afraid without incorporating some of the minimal guidelines for reasonable search that we've put in our letter that we're not going to move the ball forward. And that's of great concern to us with that
discovery ending not -- in the not-to-distant future. THE COURT: Well, that's certainly a legitimate But here's my thinking.
concern, Mr. Gratzinger.
Number one, it appears that we may be moving to a point at which there will be a motion on your part for sanctions for failure to comply with discovery obligations. That requires a specific court order.
10
TELEPHONIC HEARING BEFORE JUDGE VAUGHN WALKER - 02/21/2013 Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document146-2 Filed03/07/13 Page8 of 54 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 And what I propose is a court order with some specificity so that, if there is not adequate compliance, that appropriate sanction can be imposed. Secondly, none of this in any way forecloses a discussion with STMicro about what is an appropriate response to these discovery requests. And what you
propose is not in the least foreclosed by an order directing the submission of the declarations that I have outlined. And it may be that requiring these declarations is what is necessary in order to engage STMicro in that kind of a discussion. It's essentially
impossible to have a discussion with them at the present. After all, they are not here, and their
counsel are not here. MR. GRATZINGER: Fair enough, your Honor. I think
I understand better your thinking on this, and I appreciate that. If that's the structure that you have in mind, I think that the response dates for these declarations should be relatively quick. I'm not terribly hopeful
that STMicro is going to undertake a major new document collection effort in advance of providing these declarations. If they tell us that they intend to do so,
11
EXHIBIT C
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS REQUEST NO.1:

Documents sufficient to identify any Accused STMicro Product made, used, imported into, sold, or offered for sale in the United States, including documents identifying different models of such Accused STMicro Products.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 9
REQUEST NO.2:
Five (5) samples of each and every Accused STMicro Product made, used, imported into, sold, or offered for sale in the United States, including any associated materials normally accompanying the product, such as user manuals or installation instructions.
10 11
12
REQUEST NO.3:
Complete design specifications for each and every Accused STMicro Product made, used, imported into, sold, or offered for sale in the United States.
13 14 15 16
REQUEST NO.4:
All documents relating to the conception, design, development, implementation, testing, and manufacturing of Accused STMicro Products, including but not limited to specifications, schematics, block diagrams, data sheets, layouts, databases, depictions, photographs, simulations, test protocols, test results, manuals, journals, notes, and notebooks.
17
18 19
REQUEST NO.5:
All documents relating to the standardization of the features, functions, or specifications of the DRAM Memory Controllers of the Accused STMicro Products, including but not limited to documents related to decisions regarding what features, functions, or specifications to include in the DRAM Memory Controllers of the Accused STMicro Products.
20
21
22
23 24 25
REQUEST NO.6:
All documents relating to the theory of operation, method or manner of operation, or function of each Accused STMicro Product.
26
27 28
FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION FROM RAMBUS TO STMICRO CASE NO. 3:10-CV-05449 RS
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
REQUEST NO.7:
All documents and things demonstrating that any of STMicro's Accused Products are designed to be compatible with memory devices that comply with any revision, iteration, or addendum of JEDEC Standard No. 21-C, JEDEC Standard JESD79, JEDEC Standard JESD79-2, JEDEC Standard JESD79-3, JEDEC Standard JESD209, JEDEC Standard JESD209-2, JEDEC Standard JESD208, or JEDEC Standard JESD212.
REQUEST NO.8:
All documents that relate to design meetings and/or discussions for Accused STMicro Products, including but not limited to all notes, agendas, minutes, reports, action item lists, management summaries, and assignment lists relating to the design of Accused STMicro Products.
REQUEST NO.9:
Documents sufficient to identify third parties contacted, consulted, hired, and/or retained that have worked with STMicro or with another third party on STMicro's behalf on the conception, design, development, implementation, testing, marketing, manufacturing, or distribution of any Accused STMicro Product.
REQUEST NO. 10:

Documents sufficient to show any distribution agreement between STMicro and any third party for any Accused STMicro Product.
REQUEST NO. 11:

Documents sufficient to show the identity of any third-party products imported into or sold in the United States that contain or use any Accused STMicro Product.
REQUEST NO. 12:

Documents sufficient to show, quarter by quarter, for each model or version of the Accused STMicro Products, the number or volume of (a) Accused STMicro Products manufactured in the United States and (b) Accused STMicro Products manufactured outside of the United States and imported into the United States.
REQUEST NO. 13: .
2 3
4
Documents sufficient to show the means and agents by which any Accused STMicro Product is imported into the United States.
REQUEST NO. 14:,
5
6
All documents referring to Rambus or Rambus's DRAM Memory Controller technology.

REQUEST NO. 15:,
7 8
9
All documents relating to whether Rambus mayor may not have proprietary rights, via patents or otherwise, with respect to any technology.
REQUEST NO. 16:
10
11
All documents that relate to any of the Farmwald/Horowitz Patents.

REQUEST NO. 17:
12 13 14
15
All documents relating to the circumstances under which STMicro first came into possession or became aware of the Farmwald/Horowitz Patents, including without limitation when, how, and from whom STMicro became aware of the Farmwald/Horowitz Patents.
REQUEST NO. 18:
16 17 18
19
All minutes taken of, and documents distributed in connection with, any meeting of STMicro's board of directors or other corporate committees or subcommittees concerning any of the Farmwald/Horowitz Patents.
REQUEST NO. 19:
20 21 22
23
All documents and things that support or undermine any belief or contention of STMicro' s concerning the validity or invalidity, enforceability or unenforceability, infringement or noninfringement, or scope of the Farmwald/Horowitz Patents.
REQUEST NO. 20:
24 25 26
27
All documents and things that support or undermine any belief or contention of STMicro's concerning secondary indicia of nonobviousness, including but not limited to long-felt need, failure of others, unexpected results, praise for the claimed inventions, commercial success of the claimed
28
8
REQUEST NO. 27: All documents and things relating to or concerning whether the manufacture, use, offer for sale, or sale of any STMicro product would infringe the Farmwald/Horowitz Patents. REQUEST NO. 28: All documents and things relating to or concerning any attempt by STMicro, or anyone acting on behalf of STMicro, to design around any claim of the Farmwald/Horowitz Patents. REQUEST NO. 29: All documents relating to any communications or negotiations between STMicro and Rambus relating to the licensing of any patents owned by, or exclusively licensed to, Rambus, including but not limited to the Farmwald/Horowitz Patents. REQUEST NO. 30: All documents relating to STMicro's analysis or consideration of possible royalty rates for the Farmwald/Horowitz Patents, including any documents reviewed or relied upon in connection with any such analysis. REQUEST NO. 31: All marketing, promotional, sales, or advertising documents or presentation materials that relate to any Accused STMicro Product, including but not limited to all sales brochures, promotional materials, trade show packets and documents, and internet postings. REQUEST NO. 32: All documents relating to the strategic positioning of the Accused STMicro Products, including without limitation any documents relating to market studies, customer studies, customer and end-user needs and preferences, the relative importance of price, quality, reliability, specific product features, product performance, product service, product support, and the advantages, if any, of the Accused STMicro Products over competitor products.
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
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
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: All documents relating to the conception, design, development, implementation, testing, and manufacturing of Accused STMicro Products, including but not limited to, specifications, schematics, block diagrams, data sheets, layouts, databases, depictions, photographs, simulations, test protocols, test results, manuals, journals, notes, and notebooks. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: STMicro incorporates the entirety of its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though fully set forth herein. STMicro objects to this request to the extent that it calls for information that is neither relevant to the issues in this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. STMicro further objects to this request as overbroad and unduly burdensome to the extent it requests [c]omplete design specifications for each and every Accused STMicro Product. STMicro further objects to this request to the extent it calls for information protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or immunity. STMicro further objects to this request as premature to the extent it seeks information likely to be the subject of expert testimony. STMicro further objects to this request to the extent it seeks the confidential information of third parties. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, and without conceding that any STMicro product falls under Rambuss purported definition of Accused STMicro Products or practices any claim of the Farmwald/Horowitz Patents, STMicro responds that it will produce once a protective order is entered documents sufficient to identify the requested information to the extent that such documents exist, are in STMicros possession, custody, or control, and can be located after a reasonably diligent search. AMENDED/SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: STMicro incorporates by reference each of the General Objections above and the specific objections stated in its previous response to this request. Subject to these general and specific objections, STMicro will produce responsive, relevant, non-privileged documents relating to the conception, design, development, implementation, testing, and manufacturing of the products identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1 to the extent that
Case No. C 10-05449 RS -8STMicros Amended/Supplemental Responses to Request Nos. 3-11, 13-17, 21-22, 26-31, 41, 52, & 55
251558
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
such documents exist, are in STMicros possession, custody, or control, and can be located after a reasonably diligent search. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: All documents relating to the standardization of the features, functions, or specifications of the DRAM Memory Controllers of the Accused STMicro Products, including but not limited to, documents related to decisions regarding what features, functions, or specifications to include in the DRAM Memory Controllers of the Accused STMicro Products. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: STMicro incorporates the entirety of its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though fully set forth herein. STMicro objects to this request to the extent that it calls for information that is neither relevant to the issues in this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. STMicro further objects to this request as overbroad and unduly burdensome to the extent it requests all documents. STMicro further objects to this request to the extent it calls for information protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or immunity. STMicro further objects to this request as premature to the extent it seeks information likely to be the subject of expert testimony. STMicro further objects to this request to the extent it seeks the confidential information of third parties. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, and without conceding that any STMicro product falls under Rambuss purported definition of Accused STMicro Products or practices any claim of the Farmwald/Horowitz Patents, STMicro responds that it is willing to meet and confer with Rambus regarding the scope of this request. AMENDED/SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: STMicro incorporates by reference each of the General Objections above and the specific objections stated in its previous response to this request. Subject to these general and specific objections, STMicro will produce responsive, relevant, non-privileged documents, if any, (a) sufficient to show whether the products identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1 are compatible with DRAM memory devices that comply with one or more JEDEC standards and (b) evidencing any decisions regarding what features, functions, or
Case No. C 10-05449 RS -9STMicros Amended/Supplemental Responses to Request Nos. 3-11, 13-17, 21-22, 26-31, 41, 52, & 55
251558
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
specifications to include in the products identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1 to the extent that such documents exist, are in STMicros possession, custody, or control, and can be located after a reasonably diligent search. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: All documents relating to the theory of operation, method, or manner of operation, or function of each Accused STMicro Product. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: STMicro incorporates the entirety of its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though fully set forth herein. STMicro further objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, including that it calls for production of all documents. Moreover, many aspects of the Accused Products, which contain many features beyond the accused memory controller portions of those products, are irrelevant to the Farmwald/Horowitz Patents. STMicro further objects to this request as vague and ambiguous, in particular with respect to the phrase theory of operation, method, or manner of operation, or function. STMicro further objects to this request as it calls for a legal conclusion, in particular with respect to the term Accused STMicro Product. STMicro further objects to this request as it calls for expert opinions prior the beginning of expert discovery, in particular with respect to the term Accused STMicro Product. STMicro further objects to this request as compound. STMicro further objects to this request to the extent it seeks documents beyond STMicros custody and control and/or in the possession of third parties. STMicro further objects to this request to the extent it calls for production of documents, things, and communications that may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product doctrine and/or any other protection from discovery. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, and without conceding that any STMicro product falls under Rambuss purported definition of Accused STMicro Products or practices any claim of the Farmwald/Horowitz Patents, STMicro responds that it will produce once a protective order is entered documents sufficient to describe the operation of the memory controllers of the products identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1 to the extent that such documents exist, are in STMicros possession, custody, or control, and can be located after
Case No. C 10-05449 RS - 10 STMicros Amended/Supplemental Responses to Request Nos. 3-11, 13-17, 21-22, 26-31, 41, 52, & 55
251558
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
further objects to this request as it calls for expert opinions prior the beginning of expert discovery, in particular with respect to the term Accused STMicro Product. STMicro further objects to this request as compound. STMicro further objects to this request to the extent it seeks documents beyond STMicros custody and control and/or in the possession of third parties. STMicro further objects to this request to the extent it calls for production of documents, things, and communications that may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product doctrine and/or any other protection from discovery. Subject to and without waiving its Specific or General Objections, and without conceding that any product meets Rambuss definition of Accused STMicro Products or practices any claim of the Farmwald/Horowitz Patents, STMicro will conduct a reasonable search and produce responsive, relevant, non-privileged technical documentation relating to products responsive to Interrogatory No. 1 sufficient to describe the operation of the memory controllers of those products. AMENDED/SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: STMicro incorporates by reference each of the General Objections above and the specific objections stated in its previous response to this request. Subject to these general and specific objections, STMicro will produce responsive, relevant, non-privileged documents evidencing design meetings or discussions, if any, concerning the design of the products identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1 that are alleged to practice the asserted claims of the Asserted Patents to the extent that such documents exist, are in STMicros possession, custody, or control, and can be located after a reasonably diligent search. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Documents sufficient to identify third parties contacted, consulted, hired, and/or retained that have worked with STMicro or with another third party on STMicros behalf on the conception, design, development, implementation, testing, marketing, manufacturing, or distribution of any Accused STMicro Product. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: STMicro incorporates the entirety of its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though fully set forth herein. STMicro further objects to this request as overly broad, unduly
251558
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
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: STMicro incorporates the entirety of its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though fully set forth herein. STMicro further objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, including that it calls for production of all documents. STMicro further objects to this request to the extent it seeks documents beyond STMicros custody and control and/or in the possession of third parties. STMicro further objects to this request to the extent it calls for production of documents, things, and communications that may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product doctrine and/or any other protection from discovery. Subject to and without waiving its Specific or General Objections, counsel for STMicro is willing to meet and confer with counsel for Rambus regarding the scope of this Request. 1ST AMENDED/SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: STMicro incorporates by reference each of the General Objections above and the specific objections stated in its previous response to this request. Subject to these general and specific objections, STMicro will produce responsive, relevant, non-privileged documents, if any, referring to Rambuss DRAM memory controller technology to the extent that any such documents exist, are in STMicros possession, custody, or control, and can be located after a reasonably diligent search. 2ND AMENDED/SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: STMicro incorporates by reference each of the General Objections above and the specific objections stated in its previous response to this request. Subject to these general and specific objections, STMicro will produce responsive, relevant, non-privileged documents, if any, referring to Rambus and Rambuss DRAM memory controller technology to the extent that any such documents exist, are in STMicros possession, custody, or control, and can be located after a reasonably diligent search. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: All documents relating to the circumstances under which STMicro first came into possession or became aware of the Farmwald/Horowitz Patents, including without limitation when, how, and
Case No. C 10-05449 RS -7STMicros Amended/Supplemental Responses to Requests for Production Nos. 14, 17, 29, 32, 37-38, & 52-55
268192
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
features beyond the accused memory controller portions of those products, are irrelevant to the Farmwald/Horowitz Patents, which have all expired. STMicro further objects to this request as vague and ambiguous, in particular with respect to the phrase marketing, promotional, sales, or advertising documents or presentation materials. STMicro further objects to this request as compound. STMicro further objects to this request as it calls for a legal conclusion, in particular with respect to the term Accused STMicro Product. STMicro further objects to this request as it calls for expert opinions prior the beginning of expert discovery, in particular with respect to the term Accused STMicro Product. STMicro further objects to this request to the extent it seeks documents beyond STMicros custody and control and/or in the possession of third parties. STMicro further objects to this request to the extent it calls for production of documents, things, and communications that may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product doctrine and/or any other protection from discovery. STMicro further objects to this request to the extent it seeks documents subject to any confidentiality agreement with a third party. Subject to and without waiving its Specific or General Objections, and without conceding that any product meets Rambuss definition of Accused STMicro Products or practices any claim of the Farmwald/Horowitz Patents, STMicro will conduct a reasonable search and produce responsive, relevant, non-privileged information sufficient to determine volumes and amounts of any U.S. sales. AMENDED/SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31: STMicro incorporates by reference each of the General Objections above and the specific objections stated in its previous response to this request. Subject to these general and specific objections, STMicro will produce marketing, promotional, sales, advertising, and presentation materials, if any, for the products identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1 to the extent that such documents exist, are in STMicros possession, custody, or control, and can be located after a reasonably diligent search. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41: Documents sufficient to describe STMicros methods of accounting for revenues, costs, and profits.
251558
EXHIBIT D
TELEPHONIC HEARING BEFORE JUDGE VAUGHN WALKER - 09/14/2012 Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document146-2 Filed03/07/13 Page21 of 54 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 vs. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NOGARA REPORTING SERVICE 5 Third Street, Suite 415 San Francisco, California 94103 (415) 398-1889 REPORTED BY: DEBORAH FUQUA, CSR #12949 STMICROELECTRONICS N.V., STMICROELECTRONICS INC., Defendants. ____________________________/ HEARING BEFORE JUDGE VAUGHN R. WALKER Friday, September 14, 2012 vs. LSI CORPORATION, Defendant. ____________________________/ RAMBUS INC., Plaintiff, RAMBUS INC., Plaintiff, No. 310-cv-0546 RS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION ---o0o---
TELEPHONIC HEARING BEFORE JUDGE VAUGHN WALKER - 09/14/2012 Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document146-2 Filed03/07/13 Page22 of 54 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 Okay. to be honest, your Honor, I mean, if Rambus's position is, if you practice the JEDEC standard, you infringe the patent, then they have the information they need to prove their infringement case, which is we've identified the DDR -- the JEDEC DDR SDRAM and DRAM standards that our accused controllers comply with. So version of the circuitry or the circuitry part number, to the extent that stuff even exists, it's going to be on the technical documents we provided. And that's as easily available to Rambus as it is to ST. JUDGE WALKER: requests. I believe you've grouped 4, 5, 8 and 31 in the same category. And as I understand ST's response, you All right. Let's move on to the
will have substantially complete production on the 28th of September. I must say that use of "substantially"
is rather ominous, but we'll overlook that for the moment. MS. CHOW: Your Honor, that's what Rambus asked us
to -- that's the representation Rambus -- that's Rambus's language. asked us to make. JUDGE WALKER: All right. Well, fair enough. That's the representation they
Why should we deal with this issue now,
43
TELEPHONIC HEARING BEFORE JUDGE VAUGHN WALKER - 09/14/2012 Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document146-2 Filed03/07/13 Page23 of 54 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 Mr. Pennington? MR. PENNINGTON: Well, I guess the reason we If they're going
should deal with this -- that's fine.
to make a substantially complete production in response to each of these requests by September 28th, that's in principle fine. I just want to raise a couple issues which came up in their opposition to our motion. And going
back for a moment, this ties back to what we were just saying about Interrogatory 14. It is Rambus's position that it's sufficient to prove infringement to show compliance with the JEDEC's standard. or LSI's position. But just to be clear, that's not ST And should we lose that battle at a
later date, we are entitled to broad technical discovery to refute that -- you know, to refute that position. And it -- so that's one point why we need
this discovery. And the other issue with these requests is there's also a suggestion, I think, in ST's opposition that they might not be willing to produce e-mail. has produced almost no e-mail so far. ST
And we just want
to be clear, the opposition suggests that maybe the Model-E discovery order is a justification for not producing e-mail.
44
TELEPHONIC HEARING BEFORE JUDGE VAUGHN WALKER - 09/14/2012 Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document146-2 Filed03/07/13 Page24 of 54 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 But we did not enter that order in this case. Rambus did not agree to enter it. In fact, part of the
reason that we did not agree to enter it was because we had produced and intended to produce a large quantity of e-mail. And we expect ST to do the same.
So if we could -- if ST will stipulate that they'll make a complete production in response to these requests by September 28th and that that production will include e-mail, we'd be satisfied with that. JUDGE WALKER: Why don't we just wait until the
28th of September and see what it turns up? MR. PENNINGTON: Well, your Honor, because these We've been
requests have been pending for over a year.
through multiple rounds of meet and confer and meet-and-confer letters on these issues. And this promise to produce everything by September 28th was made two days before this motion was to be filed. So we would just feel more comfortable
getting an order to compel this production and getting it on the record exactly what is going to be produced. JUDGE WALKER: Mr. Pennington. Well, there we go again, Let's
Comfort is not the idea here.
just wait to see what happens on the 28th. doesn't satisfy you, we can take that up. What about 14 and 15?
And if that
45
TELEPHONIC HEARING BEFORE JUDGE VAUGHN WALKER - 09/14/2012 Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document146-2 Filed03/07/13 Page25 of 54 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 MR. PENNINGTON: briefly. So 14 asks for two things. It asks for all Sure. So I can address 14 and 15
documents referring to Rambus and all -- referring to Rambus or to Rambus's DRAM memory controller technology. And so ST, in August, amended this
response to say that they would produce all documents referring to Rambus and Rambus's DRAM memory controller technology, which, to my reading, means that they did not intend to produce all documents referring to Rambus unless they also refer to Rambus's DRAM memory controller technology. And we've tried to clarify that issue through multiple rounds of letters. And I have one from ST
where they seem to agree to produce both of those categories of things. They say, "ST has indicated its willingness to produce documents referring to Rambus as well as those referring to Rambus's DRAM memory controller technology." This is their letter of August 24th.
And if that's what they're really going to produce, we're fine with that. But their opposition, I
think, leaves it unclear whether that's really going to happen or not. So if we could just get clarity on that
issue, we would be satisfied with their response to
46
TELEPHONIC HEARING BEFORE JUDGE VAUGHN WALKER - 09/14/2012 Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document146-2 Filed03/07/13 Page26 of 54 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 want? MR. PENNINGTON: We just want it to be clear that our RP 14. JUDGE WALKER: I'm sorry. What clarity do you
they're going to produce all documents referring to Rambus in addition to all documents referring to Rambus's DRAM memory controller technology. JUDGE WALKER: MS. CHOW: Ms. Chow?
Your Honor, I'm a little confused as to
why Rambus is claiming they don't understand our response. We've produced -- we've made an additional That includes documents It has nothing to do with
production of 15,000 pages. that refer only to Rambus.
the case, nothing to do with the accused technology. And we've also referred to -- we've also produced, to the extent we have any, documents referring to Rambus's SDRAM memory controller technology. So I'm not sure what the issue is. Well, must I confess, I'm a little
JUDGE WALKER: puzzled as well. MR. PENNINGTON:
If ST is stipulating that they
have produced all documents in response to this request referring to Rambus, I guess that's fine. JUDGE WALKER: No. 14 specifically states, "All
documents referring to Rambus or Rambus's DRAM memory
47
EXHIBIT E
Elaine Y. Chow
tel (415) 882-8008 fax (415) 882-8220 elaine.chow@klgates.com
August 31, 2012
BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION ONLY

Hon. Vaughn R. Walker United States District Judge, Ret. 50 Fremont Street San Francisco, California 94105 Re: Rambus v. STMicroelectronics et al., Case No. 10-cv-05449 RS (N.D. Cal.)
Dear Judge Walker: STMicroelectronics, Inc. and STMicroelectronics N.V. (collectively, STMicro) respectfully submit this letter in opposition to Rambuss motion to compel dated August 24, 2012 (Motion). STMicro has substantially complied with its discovery obligations and has been meeting and conferring with Rambus to define the appropriate scope of discovery. Before Rambus served the Motion, STMicro had not only supplemented its written responses but had also informed Rambus that its production was substantially complete for two requests at issue in this Motion (Request Nos. 15 and certain categories of No. 31).1 STMicro had also informed Rambus that it would be substantially complete as to other document requests (Request Nos. 4, 5, 8, 14, and the rest of No. 31) by September 28, 2012, even though Judge Seeborg has not set any deadline for the close of fact discovery in this case, much less a trial date. (Id.) As for the other requests and interrogatories raised in the Motion, either no such documents exist (Request No. 34) or STMicro has further supplemented its responses to Interrogatory Nos. 3, 5, 6 and 14. As explained in greater detail below, Rambuss motion therefore should be denied. As an initial matter, Rambuss demand for broad technical discovery is a red herring. Rambus has consistently maintained both in this litigation and in the prior ITC investigations that any product that complies with the JEDEC SDRAM2 standard infringes the asserted patents and that a data brief for an accused product that identifies the JEDEC SDRAM standard is sufficient to prove infringement. For example, Rambuss preliminary infringement contentions cited extensively to the JEDEC SDRAM standards, but not to any STMicro documents describing the accused STMicro products. The JEDEC SDRAM standard that each accused STMicro product complies with is provided not only in STMicros interrogatory responses, but is also stated in each data brief for each accused STMicro product. Therefore, many of Rambuss interrogatories and document requests, such as Interrogatory No. 14 and Request Nos. 4, 5 and 8, seek broad categories of technical
1
See letter dated August 22, 2012, a copy of which is attached as Exh. 1 JEDEC SDRAM standards include SDRAM, DDR, DDR2 and DDR3, etc.
269733
Rambus v. STMicro Letter to Hon. Vaughn R. Walker 31 August 2012 Page 2 of 4 information that Rambus admits is not relevant to proving infringement. Furthermore, it is apparent from the Motion that Rambus has failed to review even the technical documents that STMicro has produced, given its demand for STMicro to review, compile and synthesize the information in those documents in response to Interrogatory No. 14. Rambuss Demand for a Narrative Response to Interrogatory No. 14 Is Inappropriate When the Information It Seeks Is in the Document Production. Interrogatory No. 14 asks for extensive and detailed technical and sales information about the 51 accused STMicro products, including: the circuitry part numbers of other designations associated with that circuitry or any part thereof; the supplier of the circuitry or any associated technology or IP, such as a PHY or reference design, and, if more than one version of such circuitry was used in an accused product, Rambus asks STMicro to provide for each version, sales data by date and customer. STMicro has already identified the memory controller circuitry and its source for all of the accused STMicro products in Appendix A to its responses to Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 2.3 But Interrogatory No. 14 goes well beyond the relevant memory controller and demands information about irrelevant circuitry. Many of the memory controllers in the accused STMicro products were provided by a third party. For those memory controllers, STMicro either does not have the type of detail that Rambus seeks or the information is limited at best. To the extent that this information does exist, it is in STMicros technical document production, specifically in the product data briefs and application notes. In responding to Interrogatory No. 14, STMicro identified the relevant documents by their beginning and ending Bates ranges as permitted by Rule 33(d). (Mtn. Exh. R.) In its recent supplementation on August 31, 2012, STMicro not only provided a more specific Bates range but also identified the general type of document (i.e., the product data briefs). Rambus now asks that STMicro be ordered not only to provide a narrative response with the circuitry component part numbers, the part suppliers, the associated technology, and sales data, but also to insert this data into an organized table, such as Appendix A. (Mtn. 14:1-16). Rambuss demand goes far beyond what is required by Rule 33(d). Appendix A is not an STMicro document kept in the ordinary course of business or even a document that can be created by STMicro internally. Furthermore, STMicro does not have the data that Rambus asks for in a readily-available condensed form (i.e., by entering a query in a database and generating a spreadsheet compilation) such that the data can be merely plunked into an
See Appendix A to STMicros July 30, 2012 supplemental responses to Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 2, a copy of which is attached as Exh. 2.
269733
Rambus v. STMicro Letter to Hon. Vaughn R. Walker 31 August 2012 Page 3 of 4 organized table or even a narrative response. Reviewing STMicros technical documents to identify the circuitry part number and any associated technology or IP, then organizing them into table form for Rambuss convenience, is well beyond what a responding party is required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The burden of locating this information is the same for Rambus as it is for STMicro. STMicros Response to Request No. 14 Will Be Substantially Complete by September 28, 2012. Given the breadth of Request No. 14, it is not a simple task (as Rambus suggests) to search for and produce the universe of potentially responsive documents. STMicro served its 2nd Amended/Supplemental Response to Request No. 14 on August 2, 2012, in which it agreed to produce documents referring to Rambus and Rambuss DRAM memory controller technology. (Emphasis added.) (See Mtn. Exh. H at 7:22-25.) Furthermore, STMicro informed Rambus on August 24, 2012 that its document production in response to this request would be substantially complete by September 28, 2012.4 Indeed, since serving the 2nd Amended/Supplemental Response to Request No. 14, STMicro has made two supplemental productions totaling more than 13,000 pages, including documents responsive to Request No. 14. Nevertheless, prior to serving the Motion, Rambus failed to articulate with any specificity what further issues it had with STMicros 2nd Amended/Supplemental Response.5 Rambus Failed to Meet and Confer with STMicro on Request No. 15 Before Submitting the Motion to Compel. As for Request No. 15, Rambus claims that it was the subject of the parties last meet and confer discussions on July 30.6 However, in the e-mail summary sent by Mr. Gratzinger immediately following, there is no mention of Request No. 15 being among the discovery responses still in dispute.7 Instead, Mr. Gratzinger listed the requests allegedly at impasse as including only Rambus RFPs 4, 5, 8, 14, 17, 29, 33, 34, and 35, and Interrogatories 5 and 6. (Id.) In any event, STMicro informed Rambus on August 24, 2012, that its document production in response this request was substantially complete. (See ST Exh. 4.) STMicros Responses to Request for Production Nos. 4, 5, 8, and 31 Will Be Substantially Complete by September 28, 2012. STMicro committed in writing in its August 24, 2012 letter to substantially complete its production of documents responsive to these requests by September 28, 2012. Thus, any dispute regarding these requests is premature. Rambuss complaint about the dearth of emails in STMicros production in response to Request Nos. 4, 5, 8, and 31 is unwarranted. The current model e-discovery rules do not
See August 24, 2012 letter from STMicro attached as Exh. 3. See attached as Exh. 4 the August 23, 2012 email from Peter Gratzinger explaining, in response to STMicros August 22 letter, the grounds for Rambuss motion regarding responses to Request Nos. 14 and 15. Rambus did not include this correspondence in the exhibits to the Motion. 6 See Exh. 4, Peter Gratzingers August 23, 2012 email. 7 See attached as Exh. 5, Mr. Gratzingers July 30, 2012 email summarizing the parties meet-and-confer discussions earlier that day. This correspondence is also not included as an exhibit to Rambuss Motion.
5
269733
Rambus v. STMicro Letter to Hon. Vaughn R. Walker 31 August 2012 Page 4 of 4 contemplate the kind of broad, company-wide e-mail search that Rambus demands. Early on in this litigation, the Defendants proposed that the parties adopt Judge Raders Model eDiscovery Order, but Rambus refused. STMicros search for responsive emails has been hindered by the fact that STMicro is a multinational company with nearly 51,000 employees worldwide who do not necessarily communicate in English. Nonetheless, STMicro has produced responsive emails, and will continue to look for and produce additional responsive emails to the extent they exist. STMicro Does Not Have Any Documents Responsive to Request Nos. 34 and Rambuss Motion as to Request No. 35 is Premature. STMicro does not have any documents responsive to Request No. 34. With respect to Request No. 35, STMicro maintains that the parties are still meeting and conferring as to this request, which seeks the same information from STMicro as requests from STMicro to Rambus. Rambus has thus far failed to produce any documents in response to STMicros request, and it is unreasonable for Rambus to seek an order compelling STMicro to produce documents when Rambus has failed to provide the same.8 STMicro Supplemented its Responses to Interrogatory Nos. 3, 5 and 6. STMicro served supplemental responses to Interrogatory Nos. 3, 5 and 6 on August 31, 2012 that provide the detail that Rambus has demanded. STMicros response to Interrogatory No. 3 has been supplemented to identify individuals who worked on the accused products and their roles. STMicro supplemented its response to Interrogatory No. 5 to include reference by Bates number to both Rambuss and STMicros document production relating to STMicros awareness of the asserted patents. Finally, STMicro supplemented its response to Interrogatory No. 6 to identify by Bates number the responsive document. Therefore, Rambuss issues with STMicros responses to these interrogatories are also premature. Sincerely, K&L GATES LLP
Elaine Y. Chow
Elaine Y. Chow Attachs. as stated. cc: Munger, Tolles & Olson
Defendants LSI and STMicro intend to bring before Your Honor their joint issues regarding Rambuss refusal to produce licensing-related documents if the parties are unable to reach an amicable compromise.
269733
EXHIBIT F
August 24, 2012

Deirdre M. Digrande
tel (415) 882-8238 fax (415) 882-8220 deirdre.digrande@klgates.com
BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION ONLY
Peter E. Gratzinger, Esq. MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, 35th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560 Re: Dear Peter: We disagree with your statement that STMicros production of is woefully incomplete. Despite not having a discovery cut-off date in this matter, STMicros production of documents responsive to Request Nos. 15, 31 (as it pertains to documents other sales, promotional, and advertising materials), 37, 38, and 52-55 is substantially complete. We are continuing to look for additional, non-privileged documents that may be responsive to Request Nos. 4, 5, 8, 14, 31 (as it pertains to other categories), and 32 and will produce any responsive documents that we may locate. We expect to have a substantially complete production for these requests by September 28, 2012. I remind you once again that STMicro is a large, multinational group of companies and the search for documents in this action has included several its European and Asian offices, in addition to STMicroelectronics Inc.s Cupertino office. As for Request No. 14, you have not satisfied the obligation to meet and confer before bringing the matter to the Special Masters attention. Your last communication was on July 30. STMicros served an amended response to Request No. 14, among other requests, on August 2. STMicro amended its response to Request No. 14 to remove the restriction about which you complained and indicated its willingness to produce documents referring to Rambus as well as those referring to Rambuss DRAM memory controller technology. If you had any further complaints about Request No. 14, you did not communicate them orally or in writing to me or any one else from my office. Regarding STMicros responses to Rambuss Request Nos. 33-35, I reiterate what has been made clear during each meet and confer discussion between the parties since the first teleconference on December 1, namely that if Rambus refuses to produce its proposed business plans and strategy documents relating to the accused products and its licensing policies (which are relevant to at least STMicros inequitable conduct, unclean hands, and license defenses), then it cannot legitimately expect STMicro to produce documents in these same categories. In addition to the December 1 call, this topic was also discussed during the all parties meet and confer on May 3 and the meet and confer in which you participated on May 8. Since this matter also concerns LSI discovery requests and responses, I request on
269509
Rambus v. STMicroelectronics et al., Case No. 10-cv-05449 RS (N.D. Cal.)
Rambus v. STMicro Letter to Peter Gratzinger, Esq. 24 August 2012 Page 2 of 2 behalf of both Defendants that the knowledgeable persons from your office be available for a conference call on Monday, August 27, subject to counsel for LSIs availability. Defendants are open to reconsidering their position in the event Rambus is willing to compromise as well. Defendants have made a series of concessions and compromises, and provided amended and supplemental discovery responses (nine sets as of Aug. 2 for STMicro). To date, Rambus has served only one amended discovery response, in which it changed 27 of its original answers to ST and LSIs documents requests from indicating its willingness to produce responsive documents to complete refusals to produce anything. Regarding Interrogatory No. 3 (identification of persons who participated in the design or development of the accused controllers and their responsibilities), we will consider whether a narrative response is warranted to the extent that the information is not available in the deposition transcripts. A CD with Mr. Ravaglias deposition transcript and Exhibits 1-4, 7-15, and 17 to his deposition, as well as Exhibits 1-5 to Ms. Dions deposition, was sent to your SF office on August 8. Please let us know as soon as possible if you have not yet located it. Yours sincerely, K&L GATES LLP
Deirdre M. Digrande
269509
EXHIBIT G
TELEPHONIC HEARING BEFORE JUDGE VAUGHN WALKER - 01/23/2013 Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document146-2 Filed03/07/13 Page36 of 54 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 RAMBUS, INC., 10 Plaintiff, 11 vs. 12 FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NOGARA REPORTING SERVICE 5 Third Street, Suite 415 San Francisco, California 94103 (415)398-1889 vs. LSI CORPORATION, Defendants. __________________________/ Defendant. __________________________/ RAMBUS, INC., Plaintiff, No. C 10-5446 RS No. C 10-5445 RS vs. BROADCOM, Defendant. _________________________/ San Francisco, California Wednesday January 23, 2013 1:04 o'clock p.m. RAMBUS, INC., Plaintiff, No. C 10-5437 RS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ---o0o---
TELEPHONIC HEARING BEFORE JUDGE VAUGHN WALKER - 01/23/2013 Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document146-2 Filed03/07/13 Page37 of 54 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 that? MR. GRATZINGER: JUDGE WALKER: MR. GRATZINGER: Are you asking me, your Honor? I am. What I make of that is that those are between STMicro and Rambus. JUDGE WALKER: Mr. Gratzinger? MR. GRATZINGER: JUDGE WALKER: MR. GRATZINGER: Fewer than 100. Fewer than 100. Okay. I'm sorry. How many did you say,
In terms of internal e-mails,
it's maybe a couple of dozen. JUDGE WALKER: All right. And what do you make of
STMicro has not done what is completely standard to do, at least for the last decade or so, maybe longer, in a discovery, which is to go around to the relevant custodians' computers, image those computers to make sure that all documents are being produced, turn those images over to a vendor who can run keyword searches and other filters, and then review and produce electronic documents, including e-mails. Based on my experience with other defendants in this case and just generally with litigating patent cases, either STMicro doesn't send e-mails, which would make it unique in the world as far as I know, or they haven't properly collected and preserved and produced
53
TELEPHONIC HEARING BEFORE JUDGE VAUGHN WALKER - 01/23/2013 Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document146-2 Filed03/07/13 Page38 of 54 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 you. MS. CHOW: I'd to have check, your Honor. I'm sorry, your Honor. Are you this. them. JUDGE WALKER: Ms. Chow, Ms. Digrande, I must say
that as Mr. Gratzinger has described it is the way that it does appear to me as well. MS. CHOW: Well, your Honor, we did search I'm not
individual computers with keyword searches.
sure -- you know, we searched with keyword searches on individual computers. JUDGE WALKER: We produced what we found.
Well, there is one way to deal with
And that is to have a corporate officer submit
and counsel submit declarations that an appropriate search was made and to represent that the production consisted of the entirety of what was discovered in making that search and that there is no additional information which could be produced. Would you been prepared on behalf of your client to submit such a declaration, Ms. Chow, under penalty of perjury? MS. CHOW: Your Honor, I think there would be
someone at ST who could do that. JUDGE WALKER: I wasn't asking ST. I was asking
MS. DIGRANDE:
asking for someone at ST?
54
TELEPHONIC HEARING BEFORE JUDGE VAUGHN WALKER - 01/23/2013 Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document146-2 Filed03/07/13 Page39 of 54 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 JUDGE WALKER: MS. DIGRANDE: JUDGE WALKER: And counsel. And counsel? That counsel has adequately assured
itself that the client has conducted a search in good faith and has come up with just the number of documents that Mr. Gratzinger has described and that there is no more. I must say it's -- if Mr. Gratzinger's numbers are correct, it is surprising that there would be such a small number of responsive documents, responsive e-mails. MS. CHOW: What is that, your Honor? I said it's quite surprising that
JUDGE WALKER:
the number of responsive documents and e-mails would be as small as Mr. Gratzinger has represented. MS. CHOW: Your Honor, we produced the technical We produced what they need
documents they asked for. to prove their case. information.
We provided them with sales
Quite honestly, I think everything else -"Documents referring to Rambus," that is a red herring. JUDGE WALKER: MS. CHOW: Red herring or no --
We've given them what they need to
prove their case. JUDGE WALKER: That's not the point, Ms. Chow.
55
TELEPHONIC HEARING BEFORE JUDGE VAUGHN WALKER - 01/23/2013 Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document146-2 Filed03/07/13 Page40 of 54 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 The point is that it appears, both from what Mr. Gratzinger has represented and indeed the statement in your own letter, that there has been an inadequate search for documents responsive to these document calls. Perhaps it behooves STMicro and its counsel to go back and take another look to see whether there aren't additional documents that are responsive and to provide some assurance to Rambus and to me that a diligent search has been conducted, outlining exactly what that search has consisted of and exactly what it has produced. MS. CHOW: That's fine, your Honor. When can you submit that? I
JUDGE WALKER: MS. CHOW: don't know. JUDGE WALKER:
I'd have to check with the client.
Well, can we have an answer by next
Wednesday, when we have that proposed order? MS. CHOW: deadline. I will do my best to meet the Wednesday If it does --
I cannot make assurances now.
if Wednesday does not work, I will let your Honor know. JUDGE WALKER: All right, very well.
Anything further Mr. Gratzinger? MR. GRATZINGER: JUDGE WALKER: That's all, your Honor. Mr. Artuz?
56
EXHIBIT H
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP

RONALD L. OLSON ROBERT E. DENHAM JEFFREY I. WEINBERGER CARY B. LERMAN CHARLES D. SIEGAL RONALD K. MEYER GREGORY P. STONE BRAD D. BRIAN BRADLEY S. PHILLIPS GEORGE M. GARVEY WILLIAM D. TEMKO ROBERT B. KNAUSS STEPHEN M. KRISTOVICH JOHN W. SPIEGEL TERRY E. SANCHEZ STEVEN M. PERRY MARK B. HELM JOSEPH D. LEE MICHAEL R. DOYEN MICHAEL E. SOLOFF GREGORY D. PHILLIPS LAWRENCE C. BARTH KATHLEEN M. M C DOWELL GLENN D. POMERANTZ THOMAS B. WALPER RONALD C. HAUSMANN PATRICK J. CAFFERTY, JR. JAY M. FUJITANI O'MALLEY M. MILLER SANDRA A. SEVILLE-JONES MARK H. EPSTEIN HENRY WEISSMANN KEVIN S. ALLRED BART H. WILLIAMS JEFFREY A. HEINTZ JUDITH T. KITANO KRISTIN LINSLEY MYLES MARC T.G. DWORSKY JEROME C. ROTH STEPHEN D. ROSE GARTH T. VINCENT TED DANE STUART N. SENATOR

MARTIN D. BERN DANIEL P. COLLINS RICHARD E. DROOYAN ROBERT L. DELL ANGELO BRUCE A. ABBOTT JONATHAN E. ALTMAN MARY ANN TODD MICHAEL J. O'SULLIVAN KELLY M. KLAUS DAVID B. GOLDMAN KEVIN S. MASUDA HOJOON HWANG DAVID C. DINIELLI PETER A. DETRE PAUL J. WATFORD DANA S. TREISTER CARL H. MOOR DAVID H. FRY LISA J. DEMSKY MALCOLM A. HEINICKE GREGORY J. WEINGART TAMERLIN J. GODLEY JAMES C. RUTTEN J. MARTIN WILLHITE RICHARD ST. JOHN ROHIT K. SINGLA LUIS LI CAROLYN HOECKER LUEDTKE C. DAVID LEE MARK H. KIM BRETT J. RODDA SEAN ESKOVITZ FRED A. ROWLEY, JR. KATHERINE M. FORSTER BLANCA FROMM YOUNG RANDALL G. SOMMER MARIA SEFERIAN MANUEL F. CACHN ROSEMARIE T. RING JOSEPH J. YBARRA KATHERINE K. HUANG MICHELLE T. FRIEDLAND TODD J. ROSEN
355 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE THIRTY-FIFTH FLOOR L O S A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 7 1- 15 6 0 T E L E P H O N E ( 2 13 ) 6 8 3 - 9 10 0 F A C S I M I L E ( 2 13 ) 6 8 7 - 3 7 0 2
560 MISSION STREET S A N F R A N C I S C O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 410 5 - 2 9 0 7 T E L E P H O N E ( 415 ) 512 - 4 0 0 0 F A C S I M I L E ( 415 ) 512 - 4 0 7 7
February 11, 2013
TRUC T. DO MELINDA EADES LeMOINE SETH GOLDMAN SUSAN R. SZABO LINDSAY D. M C CASKILL BRIAN R. HOCHLEUTNER GRANT A. DAVIS-DENNY JONATHAN H. BLAVIN KAREN J. EPHRAIM LIKA C. MIYAKE ANDREW W. SONG VICTORIA L. BOESCH HAILYN J. CHEN BRAD SCHNEIDER MIRIAM KIM MISTY M. SANFORD AIMEE FEINBERG KATHERINE KU KIMBERLY A. CHI SHOSHANA E. BANNETT DEREK J. KAUFMAN MARCUS J. SPIEGEL BETHANY W. KRISTOVICH WILLIAM E. CANO HENRY E. ORREN BENJAMIN W. HOWELL JACOB S. KREILKAMP ERIC P. TUTTLE HEATHER E. TAKAHASHI KEITH R.D. HAMILTON, II SORAYA C. KELLY PATRICK ANDERSON JEFFREY Y. WU MARK R. CONRAD L. ASHLEY AULL M. LANCE JASPER ALISSA BRANHAM ADAM R. LAWTON RACHEL L. STEIN AVI BRAZ DAVID C. LACHMAN JENNY H. HONG AARON SEIJI LOWENSTEIN
LAURA D. SMOLOWE SARALA V. NAGALA LEO GOLDBARD MATTHEW A. MACDONALD CAROLYN V. ZABRYCKI MARGARET G. ZIEGLER ESTHER H. SUNG MIRIAM SEIFTER BENJAMIN J. MARO RENEE DELPHIN-RODRIGUEZ MICHAEL J. MONGAN KATHRYN A. EIDMANN JOEL M. PURLES KYLE A. CASAZZA RICHARD C. CHEN AARON GREENE LEIDERMAN ERIN J. COX CLAIRE YAN DAVID H. PENNINGTON BRAM ALDEN MARK R. SAYSON JOHN M. RAPPAPORT DAVID C. THOMPSON ANNE HENRY LEE MATTHEW M. STEINBERG CHRISTIAN K. WREDE PETER E. GRATZINGER - OF COUNSEL RICHARD D. ESBENSHADE ROBERT K. JOHNSON ALAN V. FRIEDMAN RICHARD S. VOLPERT ALLISON B. STEIN SUSAN E. NASH ALLEN M. KATZ WILLIANA CHANG E. LEROY TOLLES (1 922-2008)
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
WRITERS DIRECT LINE
BY E-MAIL The Honorable Vaughn R. Walker 50 Fremont Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2228 Re: Dear Judge Walker:
(213) 683-9513 (213) 683-4013 FAX Peter.Gratzinger@mto.com
Rambus Inc. v. STMicroelectronics N.V., Case No. 3:10-05449-RS
With Rambuss proposed date for the close of fact discovery fast approaching, STMicros letter of February 4, 2013 attempting to justify its meager document production underscores Rambuss urgent need for relief. STMicros letter confirms Rambuss suspicion that STMicro has failed to conduct a reasonably diligent search for responsive documents. Rambus therefore respectfully seeks an order compelling further production, as set forth below. At a telephonic hearing on January 23, 2013, Your Honor agreed with Rambus that it appears from STMicros document production that STMicro has not properly preserved, collected, and produced responsive documents. Tr. at 53:12-54:4. Your Honor held: there is one way to deal with this. And that is to have a corporate officer submit and counsel submit declarations that an appropriate search was made and to represent that the production consisted of the entirety of what was discovered in making that search and that there is no additional information which could be produced. Id. at 54:9-15. Your Honor continued, Perhaps it behooves STMicro and its counsel to go back and take another look to see whether there aren't additional documents that are responsive and to provide some assurance to Rambus and to me that a diligent search has been conducted, outlining exactly what that search has consisted of and exactly what it has produced. Id. at 56:6-12.
19938325.1
Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document146-2 Filed03/07/13 Page43 of 54 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP Hon. Vaughn R. Walker February 11, 2013 Page 2 Two weeks later, STMicro has not supplied a declaration from anyone. Instead, STMicro has provided an argumentative letter disclosing three very narrow queries that it claims to have run on the emails of 19 individuals. STMicro has given no indication that it intends to supplement its deficient production. The search disclosed in STMicros letter is deficient in at least the following respects: The search terms are inadequate. Most of the accused products have been unilaterally omitted from STMicros queries, apparently based on STMicros contention that STMicro did not itself ship those products into the United States. However, as Your Honor has already held, so long as Rambuss inducement allegations are in the case, STMicro has no right to unilaterally withhold discovery on that basis. STMicros three queries are extremely narrow. They will only return documents that explicitly mention one of the accused products by name, AND explicitly mention the DRAM controller inside that product. Rambuss document requests, however, are not limited to documents that explicitly discuss the DRAM controller. STMicro has already agreed to produce all documents relating to the design, development, marketing, and sale of the accused products, not the DRAM controller inside those products. It has thus waived any argument that it should be permitted to limit its production to only those documents explicitly mentioning a DRAM controller. Moreover, many of the critical documents (e.g., communications with customers evidencing STMicros inducement of infringement, business plans, etc.) would not necessarily contain discussion of components of the accused product such as the DRAM controller. STMicro has failed to search for Rambus. This is a critical omission because STMicros knowledge of Rambus and its technology is one of the key issues in the case. Moreover, STMicro has already agreed to produce all documents relating to Rambus. A search for Rambus would not be burdensome because, unlike a search for, say, Apple, it would be highly unlikely to yield any false positives. STMicros list of terms associated with its DRAM controllers is highly deficient: it omits numerous memory types (e.g., DDR2, DD3, LPDDR), it omits the companies from whom STMicro has licensed DRAM technology, and it omits any internal names or part numbers for STMicros DRAM controller cores.
19938325.1
Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document146-2 Filed03/07/13 Page44 of 54 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP Hon. Vaughn R. Walker February 11, 2013 Page 3 The list of custodians is inadequate. STMicro merely provides a list of employee names with no titles or relevant areas of knowledge, and states that the custodians include technical, finance, sales, and marketing personnel. There is no declaration or other representation that the custodians are sufficient to provide the responsive technical, finance, sales, and marketing documents for all of the accused products. STMicros custodian list therefore does not come close to Your Honors instruction that STMicro provide assurances that there is no additional information which could be produced. Indeed, every indication is that the custodian list is not adequate. STMicros custodian list omits over a dozen of the technical personnel that STMicro itself has identified in its interrogatory responses as the most knowledgeable about the accused products (nor does STMicro make any representation that the technical documentation in the possession of those persons is cumulative). STMicro also fails to list the only two sales personnel (Bob Krysiak and Penny McChesney) identified by STMicros 30(b)(6) witness on topics related to U.S. sales. And, of course, the proof is in the pudding: STMicro has produced only a tiny handful of responsive documents from the custodians on its list. The scope of the search is inadequate. STMicros letter only addresses its email production. Rambuss motion, and Your Honors order, were not so limited. STMicro has failed to describe any search effort with respect to other elementary components of a diligent search, including paper files and electronic documents other than emails (e.g., files stored on hard drives and in relevant shared server locations). STMicro has also failed to provide any details about its search of email to demonstrate that it was reasonably diligent (e.g., whether it included sent mail, mail archived on custodians hard drives, mail stored on the mail server, etc.). Given its extremely narrow search, it is no surprise that STMicro has produced fewer than 3000 documents (over half of which are invoices and only a handful of which are emails), while Rambus has produced over 1.3 million documents, including multitudes of emails. STMicro devotes much of its letter to arguments about a Model Order with certain procedures for email discovery. That Model Order has no relevance here. It has not been adopted by Judge Seeborg. Indeed, in the last two years, no party has so much as proposed it to the Court. Nor has STMicro felt bound by the Model Order in its discovery requests to Rambus. Rambus has complied, at great expense, with STMicros broad discovery requests that sought All Documents and Things Relating To a multitude of topics, and that defined Documents as any item, whether in electronic or tangible form, upon which any expression or communication has been recorded by any means. STMicros effort to change the rules of the game now, for its benefit only, is not well taken. STMicro has been engaging in dilatory tactics for months: agreeing in its discovery responses to produce documents but then conducting extremely limited searches, telling Rambus and Your Honor that a complete production is coming in September but then producing nothing. Time for such gamesmanship is running short. Rambus has proposed a fact discovery cutoff in April. Accordingly, Rambus respectfully requests that Your Honor order
19938325.1
Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document146-2 Filed03/07/13 Page45 of 54 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP Hon. Vaughn R. Walker February 11, 2013 Page 4 STMicro to conduct a reasonably diligent search and provide a complete production responsive to Rambuss outstanding document requests by the end of this month. While Rambus cannot know what the full parameters of that search would entail, it would at least address the deficiencies outlined in this letter. Rambus also respectfully requests that the completed production is accompanied by a signed declaration setting forth the scope of the search and production. The declaration should also address STMicros preservation of documents. Counsel for STMicro represented at the hearing that it issued a litigation hold in December 2009, but as Your Honor noted, such holds are not self-executing. Id. at 50:2-3. For example, sending a notice to employees does not ensure that the documents of departing employees are preserved. See also, e.g., Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., --- F. Supp. 2d. ---, 2012 WL 3627731, at * 11 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (litigation hold notice insufficient where party failed to suspend automated email deletion). Given the gross deficiencies in STMicros collection and production of documents to date, Rambus is deeply concerned that responsive documents have not been adequately preserved. Thus, document preservation should also be addressed in STMicros declaration as well.
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Peter E. Gratzinger Peter E. Gratzinger
19938325.1
EXHIBIT I
Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document146-2 Filed03/07/13 Page47 of 54 Pennington, David

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Gratzinger, Peter Wednesday, February 20, 2013 4:21 PM 'Lillian Tom'; Chow, Elaine RAMBUS_CONTROLLER; 'LSIRambusNDCal@kilpatricktownsend.com'; STMicroNDCA_ 5449; QE-RambusNDCal RE: Rambus Inc v STMicroelectronics NV - setting up a teleconference tomorrow, 2/21
Lillian, I have copied LSI counsel, as well as additional counsel from STMicro. I am available tomorrow at any time except 10:30am-11:00am and 2:00pm-2:30pm. If those happen to be the only times that are convenient for STMicro and Judge Walker, I can probably move those meetings as well. Thank you, Peter
From: Lillian Tom [mailto:lillian4vrw@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 3:38 PM To: Gratzinger, Peter; Chow, Elaine Subject: Rambus Inc v STMicroelectronics NV - setting up a teleconference tomorrow, 2/21 Importance: High
Dear Counsel: Vaughn Walker would like to set up a conference call tomorrow. Can you both please give me time ranges for your availability? Also, Judge Walker would like one of you to contact LSI to see if they wish to be included in the call. Regards, Lillian Tom Lillian Tom Assistant to Vaughn R Walker Four Embarcadero Center, Ste 2200 San Francisco, CA 94111-2228 T: (415) 871-2995 F: (415) 871-2890 E: lillian4vrw@gmail.com

From: Sent: To: Subject: Lillian Tom <lillian4vrw@gmail.com> Wednesday, February 20, 2013 5:06 PM 'Chow, Elaine'; Gratzinger, Peter RE: Rambus Inc v STMicroelectronics NV - setting up a teleconference tomorrow, 2/21
Judge Walker will be at a conference out of the office for most of Friday. This weekend he will be out of the country for almost two weeks. Regards, Lillian Tom Lillian Tom Assistant to Vaughn R Walker Four Embarcadero Center, Ste 2200 San Francisco, CA 94111-2228 T: (415) 871-2995 F: (415) 871-2890 E: lillian4vrw@gmail.com
From: Chow, Elaine [mailto:elaine.chow@klgates.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 4:59 PM To: 'lillian4vrw@gmail.com'; 'peter.gratzinger@mto.com' Subject: Re: Rambus Inc v STMicroelectronics NV - setting up a teleconference tomorrow, 2/21
Dear Ms. Tom: Unfortunately, there is not. Is there a time on Friday when Judge Walker is available? Or Monday morning? Thanks, E Sent from BlackBerry
From: Lillian Tom [mailto:lillian4vrw@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 07:42 PM To: Chow, Elaine; peter.gratzinger@mto.com <peter.gratzinger@mto.com> Subject: RE: Rambus Inc v STMicroelectronics NV - setting up a teleconference tomorrow, 2/21
Dear Ms. Chow: Unfortunately Judge Walker is unavailable during the time slot you indicated on Friday. He would like to know whether there is someone else who can participate in the teleconference for ST? Regards, Lillian Tom Lillian Tom Assistant to Vaughn R Walker Four Embarcadero Center, Ste 2200 San Francisco, CA 94111-2228
1

T: (415) 871-2995 F: (415) 871-2890 E: lillian4vrw@gmail.com
From: Chow, Elaine [mailto:elaine.chow@klgates.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 4:35 PM To: 'lillian4vrw@gmail.com'; 'peter.gratzinger@mto.com' Subject: Re: Rambus Inc v STMicroelectronics NV - setting up a teleconference tomorrow, 2/21
Dear Ms. Tom: Counsel for ST is traveling tomorrow and unfortunately not available tomorrow. ST is available Friday between 10 and 1 pm if that works for Judge Walker. Regards, Elaine Sent from BlackBerry
From: Lillian Tom [mailto:lillian4vrw@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 06:38 PM To: 'Gratzinger, Peter' <peter.gratzinger@mto.com>; Chow, Elaine Subject: Rambus Inc v STMicroelectronics NV - setting up a teleconference tomorrow, 2/21
Dear Counsel: Vaughn Walker would like to set up a conference call tomorrow. Can you both please give me time ranges for your availability? Also, Judge Walker would like one of you to contact LSI to see if they wish to be included in the call. Regards, Lillian Tom Lillian Tom Assistant to Vaughn R Walker Four Embarcadero Center, Ste 2200 San Francisco, CA 94111-2228 T: (415) 871-2995 F: (415) 871-2890 E: lillian4vrw@gmail.com
This electronic message contains information from the law firm of K&L Gates LLP. The contents may be privileged and confidential and are intended for the use of the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not an intended addressee, note that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this message is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please contact me at elaine.chow@klgates.com.

From: Sent: To: Chow, Elaine <elaine.chow@klgates.com> Wednesday, February 20, 2013 6:21 PM 'lillian4vrw@gmail.com'; RAMBUS_CONTROLLER; 'LSIRambusNDCal@kilpatricktownsend.com'; STMicroNDCA_5449; 'QERambusNDCal@quinnemanuel.com' Re: Rambus Inc v STMicroelectronics NV - Teleconference
Subject:
Dear Ms. Tom, At this hour, I have been unsuccessful in locating anyone on the ST team who might be available tomorrow. If things change I will let you know immediately but I am hoping we can schedule the call when Judge Walker returns given that Friday does not work. Regards, Elaine Sent from BlackBerry ----- Original Message ----From: Lillian Tom [mailto:lillian4vrw@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 08:32 PM To: 'RAMBUS_CONTROLLER' <RAMBUS_CONTROLLER@mto.com>; LSIRambusNDCal@kilpatricktownsend.com <LSIRambusNDCal@kilpatricktownsend.com>; STMicroNDCA_5449; 'QE-RambusNDCal' <QERambusNDCal@quinnemanuel.com> Subject: Rambus Inc v STMicroelectronics NV - Teleconference Hello: Im following up on my email below. To nail down a tentative time for tomorrows teleconference, Im sending this Outlook invite. Thanks, Lillian ================================================================================================== ================== Dear Counsel: Vaughn Walker would like to set up a conference call tomorrow. Can you both please give me time ranges for your availability? Also, Judge Walker would like one of you to contact LSI to see if they wish to be included in the call. Regards, Lillian Tom Lillian Tom Assistant to Vaughn R Walker Four Embarcadero Center, Ste 2200 San Francisco, CA 94111-2228 T: (415) 871-2995 F: (415) 871-2890 E: lillian4vrw@gmail.com
This electronic message contains information from the law firm of K&L Gates LLP. The contents may be privileged and confidential and are intended for the use of the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not an intended addressee, note that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this message is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please contact me at elaine.chow@klgates.com.

From: Sent: To: Gratzinger, Peter Thursday, February 21, 2013 8:00 AM 'Chow, Elaine'; 'lillian4vrw@gmail.com'; RAMBUS_CONTROLLER; 'LSIRambusNDCal@kilpatricktownsend.com'; STMicroNDCA_5449; 'QERambusNDCal@quinnemanuel.com' RE: Rambus Inc v STMicroelectronics NV - Teleconference
Subject:
Dear Ms. Tom: The Court has entered a fact discovery deadline of April 26. Thus, the issues pending before Judge Walker are a matter of urgency for Rambus. Rambus does not understand why not even one the dozen lawyers from two large law firms who have appeared for STMicro in this action can find the time to be available today, especially given Judge Walkers flexibility in proposing alternative times for the hearing. We suggest that the hearing proceed and have every expectation that STMicros counsel will appear. If they do not, we can and should proceed in their absence. Alternatively, if Judge Walker prefers, Rambus is willing to submit the pending issues to Judge Walker based on our letter of February 11, 2013, as well as the prior briefing and hearings on the underlying motion to compel (See motion dated August 24, 2012, hearing of September 14, 2012, renewed motion of January 15, 2013, and hearing of January 23, 2013). We are also happy to promptly answer any questions Judge Walker may have in writing. Thank you for your assistance. Peter Gratzinger -----Original Message----From: Chow, Elaine [mailto:elaine.chow@klgates.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 6:21 PM To: 'lillian4vrw@gmail.com'; RAMBUS_CONTROLLER; 'LSIRambusNDCal@kilpatricktownsend.com'; STMicroNDCA_5449; 'QE-RambusNDCal@quinnemanuel.com' Subject: Re: Rambus Inc v STMicroelectronics NV - Teleconference Dear Ms. Tom, At this hour, I have been unsuccessful in locating anyone on the ST team who might be available tomorrow. If things change I will let you know immediately but I am hoping we can schedule the call when Judge Walker returns given that Friday does not work. Regards, Elaine Sent from BlackBerry ----- Original Message ----From: Lillian Tom [mailto:lillian4vrw@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 08:32 PM To: 'RAMBUS_CONTROLLER' <RAMBUS_CONTROLLER@mto.com>; LSIRambusNDCal@kilpatricktownsend.com <LSIRambusNDCal@kilpatricktownsend.com>; STMicroNDCA_5449; 'QE-RambusNDCal' <QERambusNDCal@quinnemanuel.com> Subject: Rambus Inc v STMicroelectronics NV - Teleconference Hello: Im following up on my email below. To nail down a tentative time for tomorrows teleconference, Im sending this Outlook invite. Thanks, Lillian
1

================================================================================================== ================== Dear Counsel: Vaughn Walker would like to set up a conference call tomorrow. Can you both please give me time ranges for your availability? Also, Judge Walker would like one of you to contact LSI to see if they wish to be included in the call. Regards, Lillian Tom Lillian Tom Assistant to Vaughn R Walker Four Embarcadero Center, Ste 2200 San Francisco, CA 94111-2228 T: (415) 871-2995 F: (415) 871-2890 E: lillian4vrw@gmail.com
This electronic message contains information from the law firm of K&L Gates LLP. The contents may be privileged and confidential and are intended for the use of the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not an intended addressee, note that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this message is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please contact me at elaine.chow@klgates.com.

Subject: Location: Start: End: Show Time As: Recurrence: Organizer: Rambus Inc v STMicroelectronics NV - Teleconference Via teleconference (Dial-in info: Tele: (800) 864-4296, Code 5372483 #) Thu 2/21/2013 10:00 AM Thu 2/21/2013 11:00 AM Tentative (none) Lillian Tom
Counsel: This confirms the teleconference at 10:00 am this morning. Please use the dial-in info as follows: Tele: (800) 864-4296 Code: 5372483 #
Very truly yours, Lillian Tom
Lillian Tom Assistant to Vaughn R Walker Four Embarcadero Center, Ste 2200 San Francisco, CA 94111-2228 T: (415) 871-2995 F: (415) 871-2890 E: lillian4vrw@gmail.com

146 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

146 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document146-2 Filed03/07/13 Page1 of 54

Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document146-2 Filed03/07/13 Page2 of 54

Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document146-2 Filed03/07/13 Page3 of 54

Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document146-2 Filed03/07/13 Page4 of 54

<< NOGARA REPORTING SERVICE >>

And I apologize if it's not a -- if it's a

<< NOGARA REPORTING SERVICE >>

concern, Mr. Gratzinger.

<< NOGARA REPORTING SERVICE >>

<< NOGARA REPORTING SERVICE >>

Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document146-2 Filed03/07/13 Page9 of 54

Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document146-2 Filed03/07/13 Page10 of 54

REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS REQUEST NO.1:

Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document146-2 Filed03/07/13 Page11 of 54

REQUEST NO. 10:

REQUEST NO. 11:

REQUEST NO. 12:

Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document146-2 Filed03/07/13 Page12 of 54

REQUEST NO. 13: .

All documents referring to Rambus or Rambus's DRAM Memory Controller technology.

All documents that relate to any of the Farmwald/Horowitz Patents.

Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document146-2 Filed03/07/13 Page13 of 54

Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document146-2 Filed03/07/13 Page14 of 54

Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document146-2 Filed03/07/13 Page15 of 54

Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document146-2 Filed03/07/13 Page16 of 54

Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document146-2 Filed03/07/13 Page17 of 54

Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document146-2 Filed03/07/13 Page18 of 54

Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document146-2 Filed03/07/13 Page19 of 54

Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document146-2 Filed03/07/13 Page20 of 54

<< NOGARA REPORTING SERVICE >>

Why should we deal with this issue now,

<< NOGARA REPORTING SERVICE >>

should deal with this -- that's fine.

And we just want

<< NOGARA REPORTING SERVICE >>

requests have been pending for over a year.

Comfort is not the idea here.

<< NOGARA REPORTING SERVICE >>

issue, we would be satisfied with their response to

<< NOGARA REPORTING SERVICE >>

Your Honor, I'm a little confused as to

production of 15,000 pages. that refer only to Rambus.

JUDGE WALKER: puzzled as well. MR. PENNINGTON:

If ST is stipulating that they

documents referring to Rambus or Rambus's DRAM memory

<< NOGARA REPORTING SERVICE >>

Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document146-2 Filed03/07/13 Page27 of 54

Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document146-2 Filed03/07/13 Page28 of 54

August 31, 2012

BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION ONLY

Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document146-2 Filed03/07/13 Page29 of 54

Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document146-2 Filed03/07/13 Page30 of 54

Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document146-2 Filed03/07/13 Page31 of 54

Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document146-2 Filed03/07/13 Page32 of 54

Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document146-2 Filed03/07/13 Page33 of 54

August 24, 2012

BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION ONLY

Rambus v. STMicroelectronics et al., Case No. 10-cv-05449 RS (N.D. Cal.)

Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document146-2 Filed03/07/13 Page34 of 54

Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document146-2 Filed03/07/13 Page35 of 54

<< NOGARA REPORTING SERVICE >>

In terms of internal e-mails,