Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 264-11 Filed 03/27/20 Page 1 of 8
`
`
`
`Exhibit J
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 264-11 Filed 03/27/20 Page 2 of 8
`
`Caridis, Alyssa
`
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`Subject:
`
`Linda –
`
`Roberts, Clement
`Wednesday, September 4, 2019 1:01 PM
`Xu, Linda; Caridis, Alyssa; Cheever, Frances; Feeman, Vickie L.; Brewer, Evan
`Hannah, James; Kobialka, Lisa; Andre, Paul; Kastens, Kris; Manes, Austin
`RE: Finjan v. Check Point Depositions
`
` I
`
` am going to be in NY on Monday but I will check with Vickie about her availability. During the last meeting I
`believe that Paul and I both agreed that co-lead counsel could do the in-person meet and confers so we could
`both avoid driving back and forth. Please let me know if you agree with that interpretation of Judge Spero’s
`order.
`
`In the meantime, here is what Judge Orrick said at the hearing two motions to strike ago:
`
`
`Here is what we're going to do. I’m going to stick with my tentative and have you amend in the best way
`that you can given the information you have.
`
`Then I want you to meet-and-confer with Mr. Roberts and see whether you can agree on anything that
`will provide — if Mr. Roberts still claims that the contentions are insufficient, what it is that can happen
`in order to get over the — this particular hurdle. If you're unsuccessful, then I want you to send -- send
`me a five page joint letter and append to it the questions that you would like to ask a 30(b)(6) witness.
`And then -- or the places where you're in disagreement, and I’ll decide that.
`
`
`As you know, we sent you a partial list of issues before the latest contentions which (it appears) you have not
`addressed in the current contentions and we are working through the contentions to catalogue the other
`issues. We should be in a position to share many of those issues with you by Monday (although given the size
`of the contentions, it seems doubtful we will be able to have everything by then).
`
`My proposal is for you to review that list. If you think you will be able to fix those issues with specific 30(b)(6)
`questions for a witness, and you think that Judge Orrick’s order still applies you should provide us a list of
`those specific questions and (to the extent we cannot agree) we should submit a five page joint letter to Judge
`Orrick appending the questions as he ordered.
`
`It sounds like, however, that what you are saying is not that you want to go through the mechanism that Judge
`Orrick set out but instead to start taking technical depositions generally because you believe the contentions
`are adequate. If that is where you are then yes, we should do the in person meet and confer Monday because
`that is not something I think we will generally agree with (although I am open to producing non-technical /
`marketing witnesses now because I can probably prepare them even without adequate contentions). I would
`ask, however, that you provide some information on which marketing topics you want to take as a 30(b)(6) so
`that we can designate the witnesses appropriately as to those topics.
`
`Also, I have reviewed Judge Spero’s order from your last motion to compel the testimony of Mr. Zegman and I
`do not know what you are referring to when you say that my position is inconsistent with Judge Spero’s order.
`Can you kindly clarify as to what you see as the inconsistency?
`
`Thanks
`Clem
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 264-11 Filed 03/27/20 Page 3 of 8
`
`From: Xu, Linda
`Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 11:48 AM
`To: Roberts, Clement ; Caridis, Alyssa ; Cheever, Frances ; Feeman, Vickie L. ; Brewer, Evan
`Cc: Hannah, James ; Kobialka, Lisa ; Andre, Paul ; Kastens, Kris ; Manes, Austin
`Subject: RE: Finjan v. Check Point Depositions
`
`Clem,
`
`When are you available on Monday to meet and confer as you previously proposed? We need Check Point’s position on
`whether it will make its witnesses available for deposition on at least the instrumentalities listed in at Dkt. 199 at 8-9.
`This request needs to be resolved before discussing any next steps. You have represented you will provide your position
`on Monday. As for our position, we want to take depositions and need to get that addressed. Given your position on the
`written questions seems to be inconsistent with Judge Spero, we wanted to discuss. We look forward to talking with you
`then.
`
`Linda
`
`
`
`Linda Xu
`Associate
`
`Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
`990 Marsh Road, Menlo Park, California 94025
`T 650.752.1728 F 650.752.1800
`
`This communication (including any attachments) is intended solely for the recipient(s) named above and may contain information that is
`confidential, privileged or legally protected. Any unauthorized use or dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received
`this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail message and delete all copies of the original communication.
`Thank you for your cooperation.
`
`
`From: Roberts, Clement <croberts@orrick.com>
`Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2019 4:28 PM
`To: Xu, Linda <LXu@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Caridis, Alyssa <acaridis@orrick.com>; Cheever, Frances
`<fcheever@orrick.com>; Feeman, Vickie L. <vfeeman@orrick.com>; Brewer, Evan <ebrewer@orrick.com>
`Cc: Hannah, James <JHannah@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Kobialka, Lisa <LKobialka@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Andre, Paul
`<PAndre@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Kastens, Kris <KKastens@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Manes, Austin
`<AManes@KRAMERLEVIN.com>
`Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Finjan v. Check Point Depositions
`
`Linda –
`
` I
`
` haven’t taken a position or refused anything. I have asked you for information so that we can have a
`meaningful meet and confer. When we were in front of Judge Orrick (two motions to strike ago) he said that, if
`you didn’t think you had sufficient information, you could submit written questions after we discussed what
`information it is that you think you didn’t have. It sounds like you want to invoke this process. I am not sure it
`applies anymore, but to the extent it does, the first step is for you to tell us what information (necessary to
`articulate infringement theories in conformity with the court’s order) you could not understand from the source
`code and the other materials we have provided. Are you going to simply refuse to share that information?
`
`Thanks,
`
`Clem
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 264-11 Filed 03/27/20 Page 4 of 8
`
`
`From: Xu, Linda <LXu@KRAMERLEVIN.com>
`Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2019 4:16 PM
`To: Roberts, Clement <croberts@orrick.com>; Caridis, Alyssa <acaridis@orrick.com>; Cheever, Frances
`<fcheever@orrick.com>; Feeman, Vickie L. <vfeeman@orrick.com>; Brewer, Evan <ebrewer@orrick.com>
`Cc: Hannah, James <JHannah@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Kobialka, Lisa <LKobialka@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Andre, Paul
`<PAndre@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Kastens, Kris <KKastens@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Manes, Austin
`<AManes@KRAMERLEVIN.com>
`Subject: RE: Finjan v. Check Point Depositions
`
`Clem,
`
`We agree to a meet and confer on Monday so that the parties can discuss Check Point’s position on depositions. It
`sounds like Check Point is refusing to make any requested witnesses available on any topics, and that Judge Orrick’s
`procedure for written questions was limited to supplementing infringement contentions, although Judge Spero seemed
`to have a different position.
`
`Provide times that you are available on Monday to discuss this.
`
`Linda
`
`
`Linda Xu
`Associate
`
`Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
`990 Marsh Road, Menlo Park, California 94025
`T 650.752.1728 F 650.752.1800
`
`This communication (including any attachments) is intended solely for the recipient(s) named above and may contain information that is
`confidential, privileged or legally protected. Any unauthorized use or dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received
`this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail message and delete all copies of the original communication.
`Thank you for your cooperation.
`
`
`From: Roberts, Clement <croberts@orrick.com>
`Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2019 12:54 PM
`To: Xu, Linda <LXu@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Caridis, Alyssa <acaridis@orrick.com>; Cheever, Frances
`<fcheever@orrick.com>; Feeman, Vickie L. <vfeeman@orrick.com>; Brewer, Evan <ebrewer@orrick.com>
`Cc: Hannah, James <JHannah@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Kobialka, Lisa <LKobialka@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Andre, Paul
`<PAndre@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Kastens, Kris <KKastens@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Manes, Austin
`<AManes@KRAMERLEVIN.com>
`Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Finjan v. Check Point Depositions
`
`Linda –
`
`Are you now taking the position that your contentions are incomplete? Why is it that, up to and through this
`*final* amendment you have not sought such a deposition but, now you want to go bank and use the
`procedure he provided for you for *two* sets ago? If that deposition / those questions were needed to produce
`adequate contentions, why didn’t you ask for it then? What is it you plan to do with the deposition – are you
`going to attempt to amend yet again?
`
`Clem
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 264-11 Filed 03/27/20 Page 5 of 8
`
`From: Xu, Linda <LXu@KRAMERLEVIN.com>
`Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2019 12:00 PM
`To: Roberts, Clement <croberts@orrick.com>; Caridis, Alyssa <acaridis@orrick.com>; Cheever, Frances
`<fcheever@orrick.com>; Feeman, Vickie L. <vfeeman@orrick.com>; Brewer, Evan <ebrewer@orrick.com>
`Cc: Hannah, James <JHannah@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Kobialka, Lisa <LKobialka@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Andre, Paul
`<PAndre@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Kastens, Kris <KKastens@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Manes, Austin
`<AManes@KRAMERLEVIN.com>
`Subject: RE: Finjan v. Check Point Depositions
`
`Clem,
`
`To confirm, Check Point does not agree to provide any witnesses limited to the instrumentalities that are on the list that
`Check Point provided as “Accused” at Dkt. 199 at 8-9. If this is the case, Finjan intends to provide a list written questions
`for these witnesses pursuant to the procedure provided by Judge Orrick. These questions are not in lieu of a deposition,
`but would are in addition to any future deposition of these witnesses. If this is not your understanding, let us know
`immediately so we can meet and confer on this topic.
`
`Linda
`
`
`Linda Xu
`Associate
`
`Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
`990 Marsh Road, Menlo Park, California 94025
`T 650.752.1728 F 650.752.1800
`
`This communication (including any attachments) is intended solely for the recipient(s) named above and may contain information that is
`confidential, privileged or legally protected. Any unauthorized use or dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received
`this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail message and delete all copies of the original communication.
`Thank you for your cooperation.
`
`
`From: Roberts, Clement <croberts@orrick.com>
`Sent: Friday, August 30, 2019 5:21 PM
`To: Xu, Linda <LXu@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Caridis, Alyssa <acaridis@orrick.com>; Cheever, Frances
`<fcheever@orrick.com>; Feeman, Vickie L. <vfeeman@orrick.com>; Brewer, Evan <ebrewer@orrick.com>
`Cc: Hannah, James <JHannah@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Kobialka, Lisa <LKobialka@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Andre, Paul
`<PAndre@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Kastens, Kris <KKastens@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Manes, Austin
`<AManes@KRAMERLEVIN.com>
`Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Finjan v. Check Point Depositions
`
`No. I am saying that I need a bit of time to review your invalidity contentions and figure out what I think about
`the proper next steps are. I need to decide, for example, what I am going to move to strike, and what (if
`anything) is adequately specified at this point.
`
`And to be clear, the list of things that we gave you as being “in the case” are the things we think the Court did
`not (yet) strike with prejudice. That does *not* equate to a list of things for which we think your contentions are
`adequate. You probably understand this, but I wanted to be clear about it.
`
`Thanks,
`
`Clem
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 264-11 Filed 03/27/20 Page 6 of 8
`
`From: Xu, Linda <LXu@KRAMERLEVIN.com>
`Sent: Friday, August 30, 2019 4:59 PM
`To: Roberts, Clement <croberts@orrick.com>; Caridis, Alyssa <acaridis@orrick.com>; Cheever, Frances
`<fcheever@orrick.com>; Feeman, Vickie L. <vfeeman@orrick.com>; Brewer, Evan <ebrewer@orrick.com>
`Cc: Hannah, James <JHannah@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Kobialka, Lisa <LKobialka@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Andre, Paul
`<PAndre@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Kastens, Kris <KKastens@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Manes, Austin
`<AManes@KRAMERLEVIN.com>
`Subject: RE: Finjan v. Check Point Depositions
`
`Clem,
`
`We do not understand your email. We are asking about scheduling depositions of Check Point’s witnesses. Are you
`refusing to provide any witnesses for depositions, even for the products that Check Point agrees are in the case?
`
`Linda
`
`
`Linda Xu
`Associate
`
`Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
`990 Marsh Road, Menlo Park, California 94025
`T 650.752.1728 F 650.752.1800
`
`This communication (including any attachments) is intended solely for the recipient(s) named above and may contain information that is
`confidential, privileged or legally protected. Any unauthorized use or dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received
`this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail message and delete all copies of the original communication.
`Thank you for your cooperation.
`
`
`From: Roberts, Clement <croberts@orrick.com>
`Sent: Friday, August 30, 2019 4:00 PM
`To: Xu, Linda <LXu@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Caridis, Alyssa <acaridis@orrick.com>; Cheever, Frances
`<fcheever@orrick.com>; Feeman, Vickie L. <vfeeman@orrick.com>; Brewer, Evan <ebrewer@orrick.com>
`Cc: Hannah, James <JHannah@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Kobialka, Lisa <LKobialka@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Andre, Paul
`<PAndre@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Kastens, Kris <KKastens@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Manes, Austin
`<AManes@KRAMERLEVIN.com>
`Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Finjan v. Check Point Depositions
`
`Linda –
`
`It will not surprise you that Check Point is of the view that the nearly 200,000 pages of charts you served this
`week violate the Court’s orders in numerous respects. Given the volume of material, it is taking us some time
`to go through them, but we should have a good idea of where we stand by the end of next week. I suggest that
`we set up a time to discuss the issues a week from this coming monday.
`
`We can also, at that time, also discuss the issues in your email from earlier today regarding, e.g. amended
`discovery responses.
`
`Thanks,
`Clem
`
`From: Xu, Linda <LXu@KRAMERLEVIN.com>
`Sent: Friday, August 30, 2019 3:12 PM
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 264-11 Filed 03/27/20 Page 7 of 8
`
`To: Roberts, Clement <croberts@orrick.com>; Caridis, Alyssa <acaridis@orrick.com>; Cheever, Frances
`<fcheever@orrick.com>; Feeman, Vickie L. <vfeeman@orrick.com>; Brewer, Evan <ebrewer@orrick.com>
`Cc: Hannah, James <JHannah@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Kobialka, Lisa <LKobialka@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Andre, Paul
`<PAndre@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Kastens, Kris <KKastens@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Manes, Austin
`<AManes@KRAMERLEVIN.com>
`Subject: Finjan v. Check Point Depositions
`
`Counsel,
`
`We are following-up with you regarding the depositions of Check Point’s witnesses. As Check Point now has Finjan’s
`amended infringement contentions, we request deposition dates and locations for the following Check Point’s
`witnesses.
`
`
` Tamir Zegman,
`
`Itai Greenberg,
` Roy Heldshtein, and
` Cindy Wilson
`
`
`In addition, identify the designees for the 30(b)(6) topics that we previously served and propose dates for their
`depositions. We have reattached the email with the 30(b)(6) topics for your reference.
`
`Linda
`
`
`Linda Xu
`Associate
`
`Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
`990 Marsh Road, Menlo Park, California 94025
`T 650.752.1728 F 650.752.1800
`lxu@kramerlevin.com
`
`Bio
`
`This communication (including any attachments) is intended solely for the recipient(s) named above and may contain information that is
`confidential, privileged or legally protected. Any unauthorized use or dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received
`this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail message and delete all copies of the original communication.
`Thank you for your cooperation.
`
`
`NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission, and may be a communication privileged by law. If you
`received this e-mail in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately of
`the error by return e-mail and please delete this message from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
`
`For more information about Orrick, please visit http://www.orrick.com.
`
`In the course of our business relationship, we may collect, store and transfer information about you. Please see our privacy policy at
`https://www.orrick.com/Privacy-Policy to learn about how we use this information.
`
`
`NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission, and may be a communication privileged by law. If you
`received this e-mail in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately of
`the error by return e-mail and please delete this message from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 264-11 Filed 03/27/20 Page 8 of 8
`
`
`For more information about Orrick, please visit http://www.orrick.com.
`
`In the course of our business relationship, we may collect, store and transfer information about you. Please see our privacy policy at
`https://www.orrick.com/Privacy-Policy to learn about how we use this information.
`
`
`NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission, and may be a communication privileged by law. If you
`received this e-mail in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately of
`the error by return e-mail and please delete this message from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
`
`For more information about Orrick, please visit http://www.orrick.com.
`
`In the course of our business relationship, we may collect, store and transfer information about you. Please see our privacy policy at
`https://www.orrick.com/Privacy-Policy to learn about how we use this information.
`
`
`NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission, and may be a communication privileged by law. If you
`received this e-mail in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately of
`the error by return e-mail and please delete this message from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
`
`For more information about Orrick, please visit http://www.orrick.com.
`
`In the course of our business relationship, we may collect, store and transfer information about you. Please see our privacy policy at
`https://www.orrick.com/Privacy-Policy to learn about how we use this information.
`
`
`7
`
`