`
`
` UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`CORELLIUM, LLC,
`
`
`
`Case No. 9:19-cv-81160
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF APPLE INC.’S MOTION FOR REFERRAL TO SETTLEMENT
`CONFERENCE AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW
`
`Plaintiff Apple Inc., by and through undersigned counsel, respectfully moves this Court for
`
`an order referring this case for a settlement conference before a Magistrate or Senior Judge. In
`
`support of this request, Apple states as follows:
`
`1.
`
`Under this Court’s June 24, 2021 Order, ECF No. 961, this case is now on a two-
`
`week calendar beginning on July 19, 2021, with a calendar call on July 13, 2021.
`
`2.
`
`In January 2020, the parties engaged in mediation, which did not result in a
`
`settlement. See ECF No. 111-1.
`
`3.
`
`In light of the upcoming trial, and as contemplated by Local Rule 16.1(d)(1), the
`
`parties have continued to engage in settlement discussions. To date, however, those discussions
`
`have not resulted in a settlement.
`
`4.
`
`Apple believes that the assistance of a Magistrate or Senior Judge would facilitate
`
`the parties’ discussions and could assist the parties in identifying a mutually agreeable resolution
`
`of this dispute short of trial. Given Magistrate Judge Matthewman’s familiarity with this action
`
`and the parties’ respective positions, Apple believes he is best positioned to facilitate a settlement
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 9:19-cv-81160-RS Document 982 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/12/2021 Page 2 of 3
`
`
`conference. Apple is, however, open to proceeding before any Magistrate or Senior Judge to whom
`
`the Court, in its discretion, may choose to refer this matter for a settlement conference.
`
`5.
`
`A referral to a settlement conference would serve the interests of all parties by
`
`conserving resources, and potentially allowing the Court and parties to avoid the burden of a likely
`
`10-day jury trial.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LOCAL RULE 7.1(A)(3) CERTIFICATION
`
`Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(a)(3), the undersigned counsel verifies that counsel for Plaintiff
`
`conferred via telephone and email with counsel for Defendant on July 12, 2021, regarding this
`
`Motion. Defendant does not oppose the request for a settlement conference, but only if the
`
`conference does not change the current trial date.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 9:19-cv-81160-RS Document 982 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/12/2021 Page 3 of 3
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`s/ Martin B. Goldberg
`
`Martin B. Goldberg
`Florida Bar No. 0827029
`mgoldberg@lashgoldberg.com
`rdiaz@lashgoldberg.com
`Emily L. Pincow
`Florida Bar. No. 1010370
`epincow@lashgoldberg.com
`LASH & GOLDBERG LLP
`100 Southeast Second Street
`Miami, FL 33131
`(305) 347-4040 / (305) 347-4050 Fax
`
`
`
`Dated: July 12, 2021
`
`
`Michele D. Johnson*
`michele.johnson@lw.com
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`650 Town Center Drive, 20th Floor
`Costa Mesa, CA 92626
`(714) 540-1235 / (714) 755-8290 Fax
`
`Sarang Vijay Damle*
`sy.damle@lw.com
`Elana Nightingale Dawson*
`elana.nightingaledawson@lw.com
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`555 Eleventh Street NW, Suite 1000
`Washington, DC 20004
`(202) 637-2200 / (202) 637-2201 Fax
`
`Andrew M. Gass*
`andrew.gass@lw.com
`Joseph R. Wetzel*
`joe.wetzel@lw.com
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`(415) 391-0600 / (415) 395-8095 Fax
`
`Jessica Stebbins Bina*
`jessica.stebbinsbina@lw.com
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 1100
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`(424) 653-5500 / (424) 653-5501 Fax
`
`Gabriel S. Gross*
`gabe.gross@lw.com
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`140 Scott Drive
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`(650) 463-2628 / (650) 463-2600 Fax
`
`*Admitted pro hac vice
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff APPLE INC.
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
