In its Reply to Broadcom Corporation’s Response to Objections of Responding Attorneys to Sanctions Order of Magistrate Judge filed on February 20, 2008, Qualcomm states that it acccepts the sanctions imposed by Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major and is not appealing or filing any objections to the January 7, 2008 Sanctions Order. Qualcomm further advises that it has now paid to Broadcom the full $8,568,633.24 monetary sanction ordered by the Magistrate Judge, and notes that it is participating in good faith in the CREDO program.
Qualcomm goes on to point out that Broadcom never requested that sanctions be imposed on the individual outside counsel who had formerly represented Qualcomm in the litigation. “Accordingly, Broadcom has no basis for (a) complaining about Qualcomm’s compliance with the Sanctions Order since Qualcomm has in good faith done everything ordered by the Magistrate Judge; or (b) ‘responding’ to any objections to the Sanctions Order since those objections were filed only by the individual attorneys – not Qualcomm – and Broadcom did not even seek sanctions against the individual attorneys.” Qualcomm rejected Broadcom’s suggestion that the district court might refer certain issues back to the Magistrate Judge so that she could consider additional sanctions against Qualcomm. It stated that there had been no suggestion that the Magistrate Judge lacked authority to issue sanctions against Qualcomm, and now that Qualcomm had complied fully with the Sanctions Order, and had not objected to or appealed the sanctions, there is simply no need to re-open it.
Other developments in the case include a new (telephonic) status conference hearing set for March 13, 2008 at 8:30 a.m., at which time the attorneys will report on progress being made on the CREDO program.
In addition, the court has entered a Stipulation and Order Concerning CREDO Process, in which the parties agree that nothing said, written or communicated in the course of the CREDO process: (1) is discoverable, admissible in evidence in any proceeding, or otherwise usable against any participant in this or any other proceeding, (2) constitutes the providing of legal advice by any participant to any other participant or constitutes representation of Qualcomm by any of the sanctioned attorneys, (3) shall be deemed an admission by any participant for any purpose; (4) shall be deemed a waiver of any privilege, or (5) shall be deemed a waiver by the sanctioned attorneys of any objection to the Sanctions Order or their appellate rights.
There is no hearing date yet set by the district court on the attorneys’ objections and requests for reconsideration of the January 7, 2008 Sanctions Order.