Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 618 Filed 09/30/19 Page 1 of 13
`
`Pages 1-13
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`FINJAN, INC., a Delaware
`Corporation,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., a
`Delaware Corporation,
`
`)
`
`))
`
`)
`Defendant.
`_____________________________)
`
`TRANSCRIPT OF TELEPHONIC DISCOVERY HEARING
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE THOMAS S. HIXSON
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`For Plaintiff:
`
`For Defendant:
`
`Transcription Service:
`
`PAUL J. ANDRE, ESQ.
`Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel, LLP
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, California 94025
`(650) 752-1700
`
`HARRY A. MITTLEMAN, ESQ.
`Irell & Manella, LLP
`1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
`Los Angeles, California 90067-4276
`(310) 277-1010
`
`Peggy Schuerger
`Ad Hoc Reporting
`2220 Otay Lakes Road, Suite 502-85
`Chula Vista, California 91915
`(619) 236-9325
`
`Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording; transcript
`produced by transcription service.
`
`) Case No. 17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`San Francisco, California
`Courtroom A, 15th Floor
`Thursday, June 6, 2019
`
`))
`
`)
`)
`
`))
`
`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
`
`
`
`Pages 1-13
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`FINJAN, INC., a Delaware
`Corporation,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., a
`Delaware Corporation,
`
`)
`
`))
`
`)
`Defendant.
`_____________________________)
`
`TRANSCRIPT OF TELEPHONIC DISCOVERY HEARING
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE THOMAS S. HIXSON
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`For Plaintiff:
`
`For Defendant:
`
`Transcription Service:
`
`PAUL J. ANDRE, ESQ.
`Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel, LLP
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, California 94025
`(650) 752-1700
`
`HARRY A. MITTLEMAN, ESQ.
`Irell & Manella, LLP
`1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
`Los Angeles, California 90067-4276
`(310) 277-1010
`
`Peggy Schuerger
`Ad Hoc Reporting
`2220 Otay Lakes Road, Suite 502-85
`Chula Vista, California 91915
`(619) 236-9325
`
`Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording; transcript
`produced by transcription service.
`
`) Case No. 17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`San Francisco, California
`Courtroom A, 15th Floor
`Thursday, June 6, 2019
`
`))
`
`)
`)
`
`))
`
`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 618 Filed 09/30/19 Page 2 of 13
`
`2
`
`SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
`
`THURSDAY, JUNE 6, 2019 10:42 A.M.
`
`(Call to order of the Court.)
`
`--oOo--
`
`THE CLERK:
`
`This case is going to be 17-5659, Finjan,
`
`Inc. v. Juniper Networks, Inc.
`
`Counsel, please state your
`
`appearances for the record. Let’s start with Plaintiff.
`
`MR. ANDRE:
`
`Good morning, Your Honor.
`
`This is Paul
`
`Andre for Finjan, Plaintiff.
`
`THE COURT: Good morning.
`
`UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:
`
`Yes.
`
`(Indiscernible) for the
`
`Defendant.
`
`THE COURT:
`
`Good morning.
`
`We are here today on a
`
`discovery letter brief about Shlomo Touboul’s -- I’m probably
`
`mispronouncing the last name -- deposition, and Juniper has made
`
`an argument that Judge Alsup issued an order in December of 2018
`
`and it looked to me when I read the full context that what he was
`
`really doing was not allowing a deposition in a different lawsuit
`
`to be entered into evidence. And I didn’t see that as necessarily
`
`providing any indication concerning how Mr. Touboul’s deposition
`
`should proceed.
`
`Is there something that I misunderstood about that, Mr.
`
`Mittleman?
`
`MR. MITTLEMAN:
`
`Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`I actually
`
`didn’t make my appearance yet.
`
`Another counsel did.
`
`This is
`
`Harry Mittleman for Juniper Networks. The context in which that
`
`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 618 Filed 09/30/19 Page 3 of 13
`
`3
`
`stage arose -- this concerned depositions from another case -- we
`
`cited to it to address the point that Judge Alsup has already
`
`rejected the notion that Mr. Touboul has an excuse to remain in
`
`Israel and to testify via videotape because of his travel
`
`difficulties.
`
`So that is the purpose that we were citing that
`
`exchange for.
`
`The grounds for the motion that we have brought are the
`
`following:
`
`The -- our opponent, Mr. Andre’s client, Finjan, has
`
`taken the position that it may take up to ten 30(b)(6) depositions
`
`so long as each one is one second shy of three hours -- three and
`
`a half hours.
`
`So that it depicts, in theory, 34 hours and 50
`
`seconds of 30(b)(6) depositions and that’s what Judge Alsup’s
`
`order permits. I submit that that is a preposterous position and
`
`totally inconsistent with the obvious purpose of the standing
`
`order, which is to set limits on how many times a person can
`
`depose different witnesses and contend that they’re all simply one
`
`corpus designation -- deposition.
`
`So we are here because Finjan’s taking the position that they
`
`should have carte blanche to take as many as they want as long as
`
`they stay one second under three and a half hours on the record.
`
`And I’ve looked at the standing order and that makes no sense and
`
`it cannot be squared with the language of the logic of the order.
`
`And the second issue that is dividing us with respect to Mr.
`
`Touboul is that Finjan contends that it has been given blanket
`
`permission by Judge Alsup to depose any of their own witnesses if
`
`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 618 Filed 09/30/19 Page 4 of 13
`
`4
`
`they contend that those witnesses may have a trial conflict. And
`
`I’ve read the relevant exchange and the order from Judge Alsup,
`
`and Judge Alsup said that witnesses could testify via videotaped
`
`deposition if they have a trial conflict with the San Diego trial
`
`that starts on October 29th in -- in Judge McKeown’s courtroom.
`
`He didn’t say that Finjan has carte blanche simply to fly around
`
`the world deposing its own witnesses, which is highly unusual.
`
`And that brings us to the present dispute. Because we do not
`
`believe that any sensible reading of the standing order permits 35
`
`hours and -- 34 hours and 50 seconds of 30(b)(6) depositions --
`
`that cannot be right -- we calculate them as already exceeding --
`
`already hitting the limit such that if they wish to take Mr.
`
`Touboul’s deposition, they must make a showing of good cause to do
`
`so and no such showing has been made.
`
`And we dispute and reject the argument that there is no need
`
`for them to obtain leave to take Mr. Touboul’s deposition because
`
`they believe that as long as they keep a deposition one second
`
`under three and a half hours, they can take as many as they like.
`
`That just can’t be right.
`
`And we disagree that there is a blanket permission for them
`
`to fly around the country deposing their own witnesses, which is
`
`such a highly unusual thing. The order from Judge Alsup was very
`
`clear.
`
`"If there is a showing of a trial conflict such that a
`
`Finjan witness cannot appear at the October 21st trial in this
`
`case because that witness has a trial conflict with the October
`
`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 618 Filed 09/30/19 Page 5 of 13
`
`5
`
`29th trial in the San Diego case, then in that situation a witness
`
`may testify via videotape."
`
`But no such showing has been made.
`
`I have searched
`
`repeatedly and in vain for any representation that Mr. Touboul
`
`does in fact have a trial conflict.
`
`There is no representation
`
`that he is in fact going to travel to Southern California to be at
`
`the October 29th trial. There is no representation one way or the
`
`other.
`
`And I’d note that the trial in this case is on October
`
`21st, which is before the other trial, so no explanation has been
`
`given as to why Mr. Touboul has a conflict that prevents him from
`
`appearing in this case on the 21st because there is a later case
`
`beginning on the 29th, particularly when there is not any
`
`representation, let alone evidence, that Mr. Touboul is going to
`
`attend the other trial and thus has a conflict.
`
`And so what it appears to us to be is a situation where
`
`Finjan, for reasons of -- of convenience wishes to depose its own
`
`witness, which is highly unusual, and to require Juniper to send
`
`an attorney to Israel for the purpose of appearing at that
`
`deposition.
`
`And we think that that’s improper.
`
`If they wish to take a deposition in excess of the ten-
`
`deposition limit, they are certainly free to make a motion before
`
`the Judge.
`
`And if there is good cause for them to do it, I
`
`believe the Judge would give them permission. But at this point,
`
`no good cause has been shown. No leave has been obtained. And we
`
`calculate their time.
`
`The deposition that they wish to take of
`
`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 618 Filed 09/30/19 Page 6 of 13
`
`6
`
`Mr. Touboul is clearly over the limit.
`
`And that is the crux of
`
`our dispute.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. Thank you, Counsel. Mr. Andre, I’ll
`
`ask you to respond and specifically I’d like you to address the
`
`parties’ stipulation that depositions or party employees will
`
`occur within the Northern District of California.
`
`I understand
`
`your argument that Touboul might technically not be an employee.
`
`He’s a consultant and advisor, founder of the company, paid more
`
`than $200,000 annually. And my question is: Aren’t you engaging
`
`in a bit of technical hair-splitting in saying he’s not an
`
`employee?
`
`So why don’t you speak to those issues.
`
`MR. ANDRE: Sure, Your Honor. This is Paul Andre. With
`
`respect to the employee issue, Mr. Touboul is a, as you noted, the
`
`founder of the company and acting as a consultant.
`
`But Mr.
`
`Touboul is not an employee under California law, straight and
`
`simple.
`
`In his consulting agreement, it’s very specifically spelled
`
`out that he is not an employee and we don’t have control over him
`
`to that degree.
`
`And on the ABC test that was recently articulated by the
`
`California Supreme Court, all three of those factors would
`
`indicate that he is not an employee.
`
`We don’t have control.
`
`We’ve not made him come work at his will.
`
`He can simply, you
`
`know, choose or not to. He performs work outside of Finjan. He’s
`
`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 618 Filed 09/30/19 Page 7 of 13
`
`7
`
`the CEO of another company that he founded. And he’s a consultant
`
`for several other companies. So we’re not even sure that we could
`
`get him to come over to trial one way or another. We just don’t
`
`know yet.
`
`So is it a technical hair-splitting?
`
`I don’t think it is,
`
`Your Honor, because if we can’t control a witness, if we don’t
`
`have the kind of power we have over employees, then he’s not an
`
`employee.
`
`THE COURT:
`
`Were you able to bring him here for the
`
`December trial?
`
`MR. ANDRE:
`
`No, Your Honor.
`
`Mr. Touboul has an issue
`
`of traveling long distances.
`
`He will come over to the United
`
`States on occasion, but it’s something he has planned much in
`
`advance and we were not able to get him here for the December
`
`trial.
`
`We tried.
`
`He wouldn’t come.
`
`So we tried to play his
`
`testimony from a previous date and, as Your Honor correctly
`
`pointed out -- and I guess you read the transcript that we
`
`provided -- Judge Alsup was having none of it.
`
`We tried to
`
`explain his medical person, we couldn’t get him here in person.
`
`He said, "Too bad. You have to do without him." And that’s what
`
`we did.
`
`So we now have a situation where Judge Alsup -- and no
`
`disrespect to Judge Alsup at all -- but he has knowingly scheduled
`
`the Finjan trial that overlaps another Finjan trial. And he told
`
`us that Finjan’s not entitled to switch the calendar. And Finjan
`
`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 618 Filed 09/30/19 Page 8 of 13
`
`8
`
`is not entitled to have its witnesses there live necessarily if
`
`there’s a conflict.
`
`So the remedy he gave us with the second
`
`issue regarding prejudice to our witnesses is, Take their
`
`deposition.
`
`He explicitly told us -- he goes, Take the
`
`depositions.
`
`I’m not moving the trial date.
`
`Get different
`
`lawyers.
`
`And we’re trying to do that.
`
`So in spite of the fact that we’re not getting -- Finjan’s
`
`not getting switch of counsel, it’s being prejudiced by the fact
`
`that we can’t bring our witnesses live and we have to juggle our
`
`experts around, Juniper still wants to prejudice us further saying
`
`that we’re not even entitled to videotape depositions of the
`
`witnesses where they reside.
`
`There’s absolutely no reason why
`
`they would deny it.
`
`They came up with a second counting on the current
`
`depositions than when we counted that. That’s a bit of form over
`
`substance.
`
`And what we’re trying to do here is make sure we’re
`
`not in the same situation we were in in December where if we tried
`
`to play the deposition testimony of Mr. Touboul, that it somehow
`
`would be precluded.
`
`We’re doing exactly what Judge Alsup ordered us to do.
`
`MR. MITTLEMAN:
`
`And, Your Honor, may I respond?
`
`THE COURT: Yeah, briefly, please.
`
`MR. MITTLEMAN: I shall. The order does not tell Finjan
`
`to go around and depose any person under its control on the
`
`prophylactic basis that that person might have a conflict. What
`
`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 618 Filed 09/30/19 Page 9 of 13
`
`9
`
`the Court says and what the colloquy clearly says is that a
`
`witness who has a trial conflict with the trial in San Diego may
`
`testify by video. But there has been no showing that this witness
`
`has a trial conflict with the trial in San Diego.
`
`I would just ask: Is Counsel representing that Mr. Touboul
`
`is in fact traveling to California to testify at the October 29th
`
`trial? Is he in fact doing that? Because if he is not, then the
`
`entire basis for citing the trial conflict order evaporates.
`
`On the other hand, if they say that he will be traveling to
`
`California to attend the trial on October 29th, they fail to
`
`explain why he can’t appear at a trial that starts earlier, on
`
`October 21st.
`
`They have never explained, first, that this
`
`individual actually intends to be for the second trial and they’ve
`
`never explained why if he can travel for that trial, he can’t be
`
`out here for this trial.
`
`There is simply no showing of a
`
`conflict. And that -- and it’s the existence of a trial conflict
`
`that is the explicit linchpin of Judge Alsup’s order. And since
`
`there has been no showing -- I mean, I would ask: Does anyone --
`
`does anyone have any information that Mr. Touboul is in fact going
`
`to attend the October 29th trial in San Diego?
`
`I submit there’s no evidence of that. And the fact that they
`
`are suggesting that he might, that he may, is not good cause to
`
`send lawyers all -- halfway around the world to Israel next week.
`
`The
`
`fact
`
`that
`
`we
`
`don’t
`
`have
`
`any
`
`evidence,
`
`let
`
`alone
`
`a
`
`representation that he will in fact have such a conflict because
`
`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 618 Filed 09/30/19 Page 10 of 13
`
`10
`
`he is coming to California, I would think is very telling. And if
`
`he is coming to California on the 29th, I don’t understand why he
`
`can’t come on the 21st. That has never been explained.
`
`And so the reference to Judge Alsup’s order is, in my view,
`
`respectfully a total red herring because the requisites within tha
`
`order have never been articulated, let alone shown.
`
`So that
`
`addresses, I believe, their first argument which is that they have
`
`permission just to depose anyone they want on their side as a
`
`prophylactic measure now in the possible event that such a person
`
`might have a conflict in the future with the San Diego trial.
`
`If and when we get closer to that trial and there’s a
`
`conflict, then of course we will meet and confer with them and be
`
`reasonable and discuss in good faith how we deal with that. But
`
`we are five months away.
`
`And what this appears to us to be is
`
`simply a tactic to drag us to Israel to take -- for them to take
`
`a deposition of their own witness -- very strange -- in some
`
`attempt to try to create a video record that they can play in
`
`trial whether there’s a conflict or not.
`
`And that is utterly
`
`inconsistent with Judge Alsup’s order.
`
`And the second point -- and I’ll end very briefly -- is that
`
`their argument that they are entitled to take as many 30(b)(6)
`
`depositions that they want, up to ten, as long as they stay one
`
`second shy of three and a half hours, so that they can take 34
`
`hours and 50 seconds of deposition and treat it as one deposition,
`
`is so preposterous that it cannot possibly be correct. And on any
`
`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 618 Filed 09/30/19 Page 11 of 13
`
`11
`
`sensible reading of Judge Alsup’s standing order, it is not.
`
`And so what we are facing is a situation where sensible
`
`limits are imposed from Judge Alsup, much mischief will ensue and
`
`there will be tremendous burden and expense to Juniper.
`
`And the issue of the employee, I think Your Honor has it just
`
`right.
`
`We are really engaged in a hair-splitting form over
`
`substance discussion when we ask whether this individual is an
`
`employee under California law. First of all, the contract that he
`
`signed is governed by Israeli law and no one has told the Court
`
`what Israeli law is.
`
`But, in any event, when you read the
`
`contract, it says that he agrees that he will have to do
`
`international travel.
`
`And it also says that he has a highly
`
`fiduciary obligation to this company and is prohibited from
`
`competing with the company in any way.
`
`And Judge Alsup clearly saw and had said, He’s their guy.
`
`He’s standing to benefit from this.
`
`And the idea that he was
`
`somehow not within their control is utterly destroyed by the very
`
`terms of the agreement they cite.
`
`And there’s just been no
`
`showing why he can’t come here.
`
`I had a brief look on Google and have found multiple
`
`instances where this witness, Mr. Touboul, has traveled recently
`
`to the United States to give talks at conferences. And in their
`
`own papers, they describe his regular practice for flying to
`
`California.
`
`So this is an individual who frequently travels to
`
`the United States for promotional and conference purposes.
`
`He
`
`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 618 Filed 09/30/19 Page 12 of 13
`
`12
`
`frequently travels to the United States, according to Finjan’s own
`
`representation, and Judge Alsup has already rejected the argument
`
`that the travel issues that have been attributed to some blood
`
`clots that he has, a situation that has not been explained, is an
`
`excuse not to appear.
`
`And so our position is that they should seek leave from Judge
`
`Alsup if they want to take his deposition. If they have to travel
`
`to do so, then I’m sure they’ll get the leave.
`
`But they can’t
`
`just resort to self-help and point to that order and --
`
`THE COURT:
`
`Counsel, thank you.
`
`I think I understand
`
`your --
`
`MR. MITTLEMAN:
`
`-- furthermore, --
`
`THE COURT:
`
`Counsel, thank you.
`
`I understand your
`
`argument.
`
`I’m going to take this under submission and an order
`
`will issue shortly.
`
`MR. MITTLEMAN:
`
`Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`THE CLERK: Thank you, Counsel.
`
`//
`
`//
`
`//
`
`//
`
`//
`
`//
`
`//
`
`//
`
`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
`
`
`
`fF Ty b JN
`
`|
`| \
`
`é
`
`Signature of Approved Transcriber
`
`September 29, 2019
`
`Date
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 618 Filed 09/30/19 Page 13 of 13
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 618 Filed 09/30/19 Page 13 of 13
`
`(Proceedings adjourned at 11:01 a.m.)
`
`I, Peggy Schuerger, certify that
`
`the foregoing is a
`
`correct transcript
`
`from the official electronic sound recording
`
`provided to me of the proceedings in the above-entitled matter.
`
`Pegay Schuerger
`Typed or Printed Name
`Ad Hoc Reporting
`Approved Transcription Provider
`for the U.S. District Court,
`
`Northern District of California
`
`
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
