Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 353-11 Filed 01/10/19 Page 1 of 5
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 353-11 Filed 01/10/19 Page 1of5
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 9
`EXHIBIT 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 353-11 Filed 01/10/19 Page 1of5
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 9
`EXHIBIT 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 353-11 Filed 01/10/19 Page 2 of 5
`
` Pages 1 - 137
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE WILLIAM H. ALSUP, JUDGE
`
`FINJAN, INC., )
` )
` Plaintiff, )
` )
` VS. ) NO. C 17-5659 WHA
` )
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., )
` ) San Francisco, California
` Defendant. )
` )
`___________________________________)
`
` Tuesday, December 4, 2018
`
`TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`For Plaintiff:
` KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL, LLP
` 990 Marsh Road
` Menlo Park, California 94025
` BY: PAUL ANDRE, ESQ.
` LISA KOBIALKA, ESQ.
` AUSTIN MANES, ESQ.
` YURIDIA CAIRE, ESQ.
` KRISTOPHER B. KASTENS, ESQ.
`
`For Defendant:
`
` IRELL & MANELLA, LLP
` 840 Newport Center Drive
` Suite 400
` Newport Beach, California 92660
` BY: REBECCA L. CARSON, ESQ.
` KEVIN X. WANG, ESQ.
`
`Reported By: BELLE BALL, CSR 8785, CRR, RDR
` Official Reporter, U.S. District Court
`
`(Appearances continued, next page)
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 353-11 Filed 01/10/19 Page 3 of 5
`
` 16
`
` 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
`
`cross-examine him so skillfully that the jury will award
`
`$70 million.
`
`MR. KAGAN: Your Honor, given that they're stuck with
`
`a $1.8 million base, I think that's unlikely.
`
`THE COURT: Yeah, I think so, too. But I'm -- that's
`
`why I enjoy this. Because he's going to get maybe a shot,
`
`shot to try.
`
`MR. KAGAN: Your Honor --
`
`THE COURT: No, I'm not going to be talked out of
`
`this. You're not going to just get to the end of the case
`
`because I exclude their expert. There's other ways to prove
`
`damages. And I'm not prepared to say he doesn't have a
`
`damages case at all.
`
`MR. KAGAN: I wasn't going to argue that. What I was
`
`going to ask, though, is if we could get a formal offer of
`
`proof --
`
`THE COURT: He has. He went through each section
`
`that he wants to prove.
`
`That's the offer of proof, right?
`
`MR. ANDRE: Your Honor, it is for Mr. Arst. That's
`
`what he will testify to. And Your Honor is absolutely
`
`correct. We will put on a fact-based case.
`
`I've tried several cases the last two days without a
`
`damages expert.
`
`THE COURT: That's good. Actually, it heartens me to
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 353-11 Filed 01/10/19 Page 4 of 5
`
` 53
`
`left, the new guy came in, Ms. Gupta came in. She's going to
`
`be allowed.
`
`Mr. Icasiano.
`
`MR. ANDRE: Your Honor, they withdrew him this
`
`morning.
`
`MS. CURRAN: That's correct.
`
`THE COURT: So he's gone. Okay, documents on coming
`
`-- web invoices and all, is that now moot?
`
`MS. CURRAN: Yes. We won't introduce iWeb invoices
`
`as (Inaudible) --
`
`THE COURT: Is that moot? Make sure you --
`
`MR. ANDRE: Yeah, the iWeb invoices are moot. The
`
`spreadsheets regarding the revenues are not moot.
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`MR. ANDRE: We got an X Excel spreadsheet a couple
`
`days before our expert report was due. It was 17,000 pages
`
`long. And we had no discovery on it. We think that was a
`
`late disclosure of that spreadsheet, so we think that should
`
`be excluded.
`
`THE COURT: Was it identified in the initial
`
`disclosures?
`
`MS. CURRAN: Yes. So we produced two spreadsheets in
`
`the spring, for various time periods. In September, before
`
`they produced their expert report, we produced two more.
`
`One of those spreadsheets simply added customer names to 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
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 353-11 Filed 01/10/19 Page 5 of 5
`
` 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
`
`spreadsheet is that we had already produced, so that you could
`
`more accurately identify SRX devices used with Sky ATP.
`
`The other specifically identified SRX devices used with
`
`free licenses, which Ms. Nagarajan had submitted a declaration
`
`on, but this provided the concrete evidence.
`
`Their damages expert did not then go ahead and match up
`
`the SRX and Sky ATP revenues, anyhow. So although they were
`
`produced before their expert report was due, they ultimately
`
`didn't even use the additional information that those
`
`spreadsheets provided.
`
`THE COURT: What do you say to that?
`
`MR. ANDRE: They produced them I think three days
`
`before our expert report was due and they were 17,000 pages
`
`and we didn't know what it was. We couldn't make heads or
`
`tails of it. And they want to somehow divine this was giving
`
`you certain information that was relevant for this expert
`
`report.
`
`THE COURT: But is it true that they gave you a
`
`shorter version of the same thing without the customer names
`
`earlier?
`
`MR. ANDRE: No. They gave us some spreadsheets in
`
`spring, those spreadsheets are fine. The spreadsheets they
`
`added additional information on to, the ones that they did
`
`right before the expert reports in September are the ones we
`
`are moving to exclude.
`
`
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
