Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 251 Filed 09/13/23 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:4604
`
`
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
` & SULLIVAN, LLP
`Kevin P.B. Johnson (Bar No.
`177129)
`kevinjohnson@quinnemanuel.com
`Todd M. Briggs (Bar No. 209282)
`toddbriggs@quinnemanuel.com
`555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
`Redwood Shores, California 94065
`Telephone: (650) 801-5000
`Facsimile: (650) 801-5100
`
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
` & SULLIVAN, LLP
`Eric Huang (pro hac vice)
`erichuang@quinnemanuel.com
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`New York, New York 10010
`Telephone: (212) 849-7000
`Facsimile: (212) 849-7100
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`NANTWORKS, LLC and NANT
`HOLDINGS IP, LLC
`
`George C. Lombardi (pro hac vice)
`glombardi@winston.com
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`35 West Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60601-9703
`Telephone: (312) 558-5600
`Facsimile: (312) 558-5700
`
`E. Danielle T. Williams (pro hac vice)
`dwilliams@winston.com
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`300 South Tryon Street, 16th Floor
`Charlotte, NC 28202
`Telephone: (704) 350-7700
`Facsimile: (704) 350-7800
`
`Diana Hughes Leiden (SBN: 267606)
`dhleiden@winston.com
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`333 S. Grand Avenue, 38th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543
`Telephone: (213) 615-1700
`Facsimile: (213) 615-1750
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION
`and BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
` CASE NO. 2:20-cv-7872-GW-PVC
`
`DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENT TO
`JOINT STATUS REPORT
`
`Hon. George H. Wu
`
`
`
`NANTWORKS, LLC, a Delaware
`limited liability company, and NANT
`HOLDINGS IP, LLC, a Delaware
`limited liability company,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`vs.
`
`BANK OF AMERICA
`CORPORATION, a Delaware
`corporation, and BANK OF
`AMERICA, N.A., a national banking
`association,
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:20-cv-7872-GW-PVC
`DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENT TO JOINT STATUS REPORT
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 251 Filed 09/13/23 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:4605
`
`
`Pursuant to this Court’s Scheduling Orders (Dkts. 157 and 201), and the Court’s
`instructions during the January 6, 2022 Scheduling Conference, Defendants Bank of
`America Corporation and Bank of America, N.A. (“Bank of America”) provide the
`following status report on Plaintiffs’ Final Identification of Trade Secrets.
`INTRODUCTION
`Pursuant to the Court’s instruction at the January 6, 2022 Scheduling
`Conference that the parties were to advise the Court what “needs to be done vis a vis
`discovery” once Plaintiffs’ Final Identification of Trade Secrets were served (Jan. 6,
`2022 Hr’g Tr. at 9-14), Defendants seek the Court’s guidance because Defendants are
`in the same position as they were before the Court on January 6, 2022 with respect to
`Plaintiffs’ trade secret claims. See, e.g., Dkt. 155 at 13.
` Plaintiffs’ Final
`Identification of Trade Secrets1 and trade secret discovery responses have still not
`identified the particulars of the trade secrets that are critical to Bank of America’s
`ability to defend itself and Plaintiffs are again refusing to disclose those particulars
`before the end of the agreed-on extension to fact discovery. If this issue is not
`addressed in the schedule moving forward, the parties will undoubtedly be back in
`front of this Court in another month seeking another extension.
`BACKGROUND
`At the January 6, 2022 Scheduling Conference, the parties presented their
`respective positions on the timing of Plaintiffs’ Final Identification of Trade Secrets.
`Plaintiffs proposed a deadline after the close of fact discovery, while Defendants
`proposed a deadline before the close of fact discovery so that Defendants could take
`depositions and conduct other discovery on the scope of Plaintiffs’ alleged trade
`secrets. The Court agreed with Defendants and set the deadline before the close of
`fact discovery and also set a status conference to address “whether or not anything
`
`
`1 Plaintiffs’ Second Supplemental Trade Secret Disclosure, which Plaintiffs
`deemed their Final Identification, is attached as Exhibit 1.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`Case No. 2:20-cv-7872-GW-PVC
`DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENT TO JOINT STATUS REPORT
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 251 Filed 09/13/23 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:4606
`
`
`else needs to be done vis a vis discovery at that point in time” preceded by a joint
`status report on “whether or not one side or the other is going to be arguing that some
`additional fact discovery is necessary.” (Jan. 6, 2022 Hr’g Tr. at 9-14; Dkt. 157). The
`post-stay schedule maintained the same deadlines: Plaintiffs’ Final Identification
`(8/31/2023) followed by a joint status report (9/12/2023) and a scheduling conference
`(9/18/2023). (Dkt. 201). Accordingly, Defendants provide this status report on
`Plaintiffs’ Final Identification (Exh. 1).2
`DEFENDANTS’ STATUS REPORT
`Plaintiffs’ Trade Secret Disclosures and Final Identification: Plaintiffs
`served their Initial Trade Secret Disclosures on March 4, 2021, and served their First
`Supplement on September 28, 2021 after Defendants sought assistance from Judge
`Castillo.3 Plaintiffs served their Second Supplement on June 1, 2023 pursuant to the
`Scheduling Order (Dkt. 201). After receiving the Second Supplement, Bank of
`America identified the deficiencies again to Plaintiffs on June 16, 2023 (Exh. 2 –
`Williams 6/16/2023 letter to Huang). In response (Exh. 3 – Huang 6/29/2023 letter to
`Williams), Plaintiffs took the position they adequately identified their trade secrets,
`but noted that “[t]he case schedule in this matter includes a deadline for a Final
`Identification of Trade Secrets well before the close of fact discovery.” On the day
`Plaintiffs’ Final Identification was due, however, Plaintiffs deemed their Second
`Supplement as their Final Identification and stated they intended to supplement
`certain interrogatory responses related to trade secrets, but would not provide a date
`certain or confirmation what responses would be supplemented (Exh. 4 – Heller
`
`
`2 Plaintiffs objected to filing a joint status report with Defendants’ complete
`report on the status of Plaintiffs’ Final Identification, which necessitated
`Defendants’ supplemental filing.
`3 Before the stay, Defendants repeatedly identified to Plaintiffs the deficiencies
`in their trade secret disclosures and discovery responses. Defendants have raised the
`issues in this Status Report with Plaintiffs post-stay, from June 2023 to present.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`Case No. 2:20-cv-7872-GW-PVC
`DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENT TO JOINT STATUS REPORT
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 251 Filed 09/13/23 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:4607
`
`
`8/31/2023 email). Plaintiffs have thus left the door open to amend the scope of their
`trade secret disclosures via amended interrogatory responses at any time—including
`at the end of fact discovery.
`Defendants’ Discovery Requests Related to Trade Secrets: Given the
`parties’ disagreement over the sufficiency of Plaintiffs’ trade secret disclosures,
`Defendants served discovery seeking the specific information they believed
`Plaintiffs’ trade secret disclosures should have included from the start. Aware of the
`August 31, 2023 deadline for Plaintiffs’ Final Identification, Defendants asked
`Plaintiffs on August 24, 2023 to supplement their discovery responses to Interrogatory
`Nos. 3 and 6, which requested Plaintiffs to identify, among others things, where in
`Plaintiffs’ documents and source code their trade secrets are set forth and to identify
`where and how Defendants allegedly misappropriated and used Plaintiffs’ trade
`secrets (Exh. 4 – Email Correspondence Between Dale and Heller). In addition, on
`August 23, 2023, Defendants renewed their request to inspect the Google Analytics
`database and asked Plaintiffs to give third-party Google consent to produce
`information related to the Google Analytics database or to produce that information
`directly if it was in Plaintiffs’ possession, custody, or control. Plaintiffs have not yet
`responded. (Exh. 5 – Sullivan 8/23/2023 email)
`In short, Defendants have no more information about Plaintiffs’ trade secrets
`than they did in September 2021 notwithstanding (a) Court-ordered deadlines to serve
`a supplement on June 1, 2023 and a Final Identification on August 31, 2023 and (b)
`Defendants’ 2021 written discovery requests. The Court’s schedule was intended to
`prevent this exact situation. Defendants have no assurances at this point that Plaintiffs
`will not attempt to amend their trade secret disclosures at the close of fact discovery—
`as they have specifically reserved the right to do. Defendants seek the Court’s
`assistance to set an amended schedule that puts Defendants in a position to complete
`the discovery remaining in this case with the benefit of Plaintiffs’ actual “Final”
`Identification, including taking depositions of Plaintiffs’ witnesses and presenting its
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`Case No. 2:20-cv-7872-GW-PVC
`DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENT TO JOINT STATUS REPORT
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 251 Filed 09/13/23 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #:4608
`
`
`own witnesses for deposition. Plaintiffs should not be permitted to wait until the
`very last day of discovery to provide the information Defendants need.4
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`4 Plaintiffs argue that Defendants should seek relief through Magistrate Judge
`Castillo’s discovery dispute process, but Plaintiffs ignore that the Court originally set
`this particular conference to address any discovery issues remaining after Plaintiffs’
`Final Identification. Jan. 6, 2022 Hr’g Tr. at 9-14. Further, this is not just about the
`sufficiency of Plaintiffs’ trade secret identification—it is about setting a schedule that
`will permit Defendants to take discovery with the benefit of this information and to
`avoid asking the Court for another extension of the case schedule. Plaintiffs could not
`dispute that the case schedule is solely a matter for the District Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`Case No. 2:20-cv-7872-GW-PVC
`DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENT TO JOINT STATUS REPORT
`
`Dated: September 13, 2023 _________
`
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ E. Danielle T. Williams
`E. Danielle T. Williams
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION
`and BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`