Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 123-3 Filed 05/03/22 Page 1 of 11
`
`Exhibit 2
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 123-3 Filed 05/03/22 Page 2 of 11
`
`Taylor, Jeremy
`Sunday, May 1, 2022 6:14 PM
`Enrique Iturralde; Salpietra, Bethany; Amy Park; AGIS; agis@raklaw.com
`DL Lyft AGIS
`RE: Lyft v AGIS (5:21-cv-04653-BLF)
`
`
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`Subject:
`
`Enrique,
`
`Lyft disagrees that production of AGIS’s previous 3-2 production from the E.D. Tex. case resolves this issue raised in
`Lyft’s motion to compel or obviate the need for the supplemental briefing ordered by the Court. As explained in Lyft’s
`motion to compel and at the hearing, N.D. Cal. Patent Local Rule 3-2 has an additional seven categories beyond those in
`E.D. Tex.’s Local Patent Rule 3-2, and as such, simply producing AGIS’s 3-2 production from the E.D. Tex. case will not
`fully comply with AGIS’s obligations in N.D. Cal.
`
`As always, if it would be helpful to discuss further, please let us know.
`
`Thanks,
`Jeremy
`
`Jeremy J. Taylor | Baker Botts L.L.P.
`office 415.291.6202 | mobile 510.688.0999
`
`From: Enrique Iturralde <eiturralde@fabricantllp.com>
`Sent: Sunday, May 1, 2022 6:07 PM
`To: Salpietra, Bethany <Bethany.Salpietra@BakerBotts.com>; Amy Park <apark@fabricantllp.com>; AGIS
`<AGIS@fabricantllp.com>; agis@raklaw.com
`Cc: DL Lyft AGIS <DLLyftAGIS@BakerBotts.com>
`Subject: Re: Lyft v AGIS (5:21-cv-04653-BLF)
`
`[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
`
`Counsel,
`
`As requested in Lyft’s briefing and during Friday’s hearing, AGIS Software will produce this week the entirety the PR 3-2
`production from the EDTX matter in this NDCA case. This resolution obviates the need for the parties’ supplemental
`briefing on the dispute. We will notify the Court of this update.
`
`Regards,
`Enrique
`
`From: Enrique Iturralde <eiturralde@fabricantllp.com>
`Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2022 10:29 PM
`To: Salpietra, Bethany <Bethany.Salpietra@BakerBotts.com>; Amy Park <apark@fabricantllp.com>; AGIS
`<AGIS@fabricantllp.com>; agis@raklaw.com <agis@raklaw.com>
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 123-3 Filed 05/03/22 Page 3 of 11
`
`Cc: DL Lyft AGIS <DLLyftAGIS@BakerBotts.com>
`Subject: Re: Lyft v AGIS (5:21-cv-04653-BLF)
`
`Bethany,
`
`Thank you for preparing the drafts. We are fine with Exhibits A and B. I made a minor clarification to the attached joint
`statement. With this minor clairification, you have permission to file with Vincent's signature.
`
`Thanks,
`Enrique
`
`From: Salpietra, Bethany <Bethany.Salpietra@BakerBotts.com>
`Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2022 10:16 PM
`To: Enrique Iturralde <eiturralde@fabricantllp.com>; Amy Park <apark@fabricantllp.com>; AGIS
`<AGIS@fabricantllp.com>; agis@raklaw.com <agis@raklaw.com>
`Cc: DL Lyft AGIS <DLLyftAGIS@BakerBotts.com>
`Subject: RE: Lyft v AGIS (5:21-cv-04653-BLF)
`
`Counsel, attached for your review please find a draft cover pleading and the two exhibits thereto. Please let us
`know if you have any edits or if we have your permission to apply your signature and file.
`
`Thanks,
`
`Bethany
`Bethany R. Salpietra (Ford)
`Senior Associate
`Baker Botts L.L.P.
`bethany.salpietra@bakerbotts.com
`T +1.214.953.6765
`F +1.214.661.4765
`M +1.214.435.9019
`2001 Ross Ave., Ste. 900
`Dallas, TX 75201
`USA
`
`From: Enrique Iturralde <eiturralde@fabricantllp.com>
`Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2022 9:11 PM
`To: Salpietra, Bethany <Bethany.Salpietra@BakerBotts.com>; Amy Park <apark@fabricantllp.com>; AGIS
`<AGIS@fabricantllp.com>; agis@raklaw.com
`Cc: DL Lyft AGIS <DLLyftAGIS@BakerBotts.com>
`Subject: Re: Lyft v AGIS (5:21-cv-04653-BLF)
`
`[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
`
`OK, we will look for your email.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 123-3 Filed 05/03/22 Page 4 of 11
`
`From: Salpietra, Bethany <Bethany.Salpietra@BakerBotts.com>
`Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2022 9:53 PM
`To: Enrique Iturralde <eiturralde@fabricantllp.com>; Amy Park <apark@fabricantllp.com>; AGIS
`<AGIS@fabricantllp.com>; agis@raklaw.com <agis@raklaw.com>
`Cc: DL Lyft AGIS <DLLyftAGIS@BakerBotts.com>
`Subject: RE: Lyft v AGIS (5:21-cv-04653-BLF)
`
`Counsel, since sending my previous email we have confirmed that the Court prefers the parties to file rather
`than email the proposed submission. I’m putting together formal filing papers and will send over for your
`review ASAP.
`
`Thanks,
`
`Bethany
`Bethany R. Salpietra (Ford)
`Senior Associate
`Baker Botts L.L.P.
`bethany.salpietra@bakerbotts.com
`T +1.214.953.6765
`F +1.214.661.4765
`M +1.214.435.9019
`2001 Ross Ave., Ste. 900
`Dallas, TX 75201
`USA
`
`From: Salpietra, Bethany
`Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2022 5:37 PM
`To: Enrique Iturralde <eiturralde@fabricantllp.com>; Amy Park <apark@fabricantllp.com>; AGIS
`<AGIS@fabricantllp.com>; agis@raklaw.com
`Cc: DL Lyft AGIS <DLLyftAGIS@BakerBotts.com>
`Subject: RE: Lyft v AGIS (5:21-cv-04653-BLF)
`
`Counsel,
`
`Thanks again for the further conference today regarding the parties’ disputes over the protective order. As I
`mentioned on the call, Lyft is concerned about the security of the notes if saved electronically. We may be able
`to become comfortable with saving notes electronically if we can ensure the same level of security will apply to
`electronic notes as paper notes allow, namely that the notes won’t be copied and distributed to unauthorized
`persons, stored on networked servers, etc. And, while unauthorized disclosure is not intended, storing an
`editable version of notes containing information about Lyft’s source code on a networked computer presents
`higher risks than printed paper copies that are securely stored. Is there any way to meet in the middle? For
`example, can we keep an encrypted Word version of the notes on the notetaking computer that the expert could
`modify at a later date by using his encryption key, and then provide a printout of the notes on a regular basis?
`
`Again, we are amenable to consider any proposal from AGIS that would allow notes to be taken electronically,
`as long the security of the notes remains commensurate with the security provided using handwritten or
`printed notes. However, as of now, AGIS has not provided any such proposal to be considered.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 123-3 Filed 05/03/22 Page 5 of 11
`
`Finally, I’ve attached a current draft of the protective order that updates Sec. 10(h) as we discussed during
`today’s call (to reflect an alternative to returning unused source code printouts) and removing the tracked
`changes on the now resolved disputes. Unless you have any further proposals that we should consider, we will
`finalize the draft for submission to the Court tonight.
`
`Thanks,
`
`Bethany
`Bethany R. Salpietra (Ford)
`Senior Associate
`Baker Botts L.L.P.
`bethany.salpietra@bakerbotts.com
`T +1.214.953.6765
`F +1.214.661.4765
`M +1.214.435.9019
`2001 Ross Ave., Ste. 900
`Dallas, TX 75201
`USA
`
`From: Enrique Iturralde <eiturralde@fabricantllp.com>
`Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2022 5:03 PM
`To: Salpietra, Bethany <Bethany.Salpietra@BakerBotts.com>; Amy Park <apark@fabricantllp.com>; AGIS
`<AGIS@fabricantllp.com>; agis@raklaw.com
`Cc: DL Lyft AGIS <DLLyftAGIS@BakerBotts.com>
`Subject: Re: Lyft v AGIS (5:21-cv-04653-BLF)
`
`[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
`
`Counsel,
`
`We are available to confer tomorrow at 2pm Central.
`
`As you know, we need to have an entered PO in this case for us to provide notice with the PO to the third parties, and
`production will depend on either the expiration of the notice period or an affirmative clearance from the third
`parties. So the earlier we can submit an agreed motion for entry of an agreed PO, the quicker we will be in a position to
`produce. We have prepared notice letters to send to the third parties immediately upon entry of the PO. We can agree
`to produce on a rolling basis.
`
`Regards,
`Enrique
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 123-3 Filed 05/03/22 Page 6 of 11
`
`From: Salpietra, Bethany <Bethany.Salpietra@BakerBotts.com>
`Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2022 5:45 PM
`To: Amy Park <apark@fabricantllp.com>; Enrique Iturralde <eiturralde@fabricantllp.com>; AGIS
`<AGIS@fabricantllp.com>; agis@raklaw.com <agis@raklaw.com>
`Cc: DL Lyft AGIS <DLLyftAGIS@BakerBotts.com>
`Subject: RE: Lyft v AGIS (5:21-cv-04653-BLF)
`
`Counsel,
`
`This email confirms receipt of the latest turn of the protective order. We’ll consider AGIS’s revisions and will
`be available to confer tomorrow between 2-4pm CT. Please confirm when AGIS is available during that
`window (if at all) and I will circulate a dial-in.
`
`Also, in view of the parties’ recent agreement to remove the designated in-house counsel provisions from the
`protective order, please confirm that AGIS will be producing all materials under Patent L.R. 3-2 that it has
`withheld on the basis of that objection. If it will, please confirm when AGIS will provide the 3-2 materials that
`should have been produced on February 25, 2022, so we can inform the Court that the parties have resolved
`one of the disputes in Lyft’s motion to compel.
`
`Thank you,
`
`Bethany
`Bethany R. Salpietra (Ford)
`Senior Associate
`Baker Botts L.L.P.
`bethany.salpietra@bakerbotts.com
`T +1.214.953.6765
`F +1.214.661.4765
`M +1.214.435.9019
`2001 Ross Ave., Ste. 900
`Dallas, TX 75201
`USA
`
`From: Amy Park <apark@fabricantllp.com>
`Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2022 2:55 PM
`To: Salpietra, Bethany <Bethany.Salpietra@BakerBotts.com>; Enrique Iturralde <eiturralde@fabricantllp.com>; AGIS
`<AGIS@fabricantllp.com>; agis@raklaw.com
`Cc: DL Lyft AGIS <DLLyftAGIS@BakerBotts.com>
`Subject: RE: Lyft v AGIS (5:21-cv-04653-BLF)
`
`[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
`
`Counsel,
`
`Please find attached a copy of the PO with AGIS Software’s revisions. We are available to confer later today or
`tomorrow.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 123-3 Filed 05/03/22 Page 7 of 11
`
`Thank you,
`
`Amy
`
`Amy Park
`Associate
`
`Fabricant LLP
`
`T: 646-797-4277
`F: 212-257-5796
`apark@fabricantllp.com
`fabricantllp.com
`
`From: Salpietra, Bethany <Bethany.Salpietra@BakerBotts.com>
`Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2022 4:20 PM
`To: Enrique Iturralde <eiturralde@fabricantllp.com>; AGIS <AGIS@fabricantllp.com>; agis@raklaw.com
`Cc: DL Lyft AGIS <DLLyftAGIS@BakerBotts.com>
`Subject: RE: Lyft v AGIS (5:21-cv-04653-BLF)
`
`Counsel,
`
`As a follow-up to our meet and confer earlier today, attached please find a mark-up reflecting Lyft’s current
`positions. This mark-up accepts all redlines from the version you circulated earlier today and applies Lyft’s
`revisions on top.
`
`As you’ll see in the attached, I’ve updated Lyft’s prosecution bar proposal to reflect the changes we discussed
`during the meet and confer, and dropped a comment that Lyft is willing to drop the acquisition bar dispute if
`AGIS accepts Lyft’s prosecution bar proposal.
`
`We will continue to discuss with our client the possibility of using a USB with the note-taking machine, and
`your proposed additional protections involving Baker Botts personnel facilitating the file transfer. We would
`appreciate it if you would confer on your side in parallel about other acceptable note-taking procedures,
`including manual notetaking (i.e., pen and paper) or printing notes as agreed in the EDTX case.
`
`Please let me know as soon as possible whether the attached revisions are acceptable to AGIS.
`
`Thank you,
`
`Bethany
`Bethany R. Salpietra (Ford)
`Senior Associate
`Baker Botts L.L.P.
`bethany.salpietra@bakerbotts.com
`T +1.214.953.6765
`F +1.214.661.4765
`M +1.214.435.9019
`2001 Ross Ave., Ste. 900
`Dallas, TX 75201
`USA
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 123-3 Filed 05/03/22 Page 8 of 11
`
`From: Enrique Iturralde <eiturralde@fabricantllp.com>
`Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2022 12:16 PM
`To: Salpietra, Bethany <Bethany.Salpietra@BakerBotts.com>; AGIS <AGIS@fabricantllp.com>; agis@raklaw.com
`Cc: DL Lyft AGIS <DLLyftAGIS@BakerBotts.com>
`Subject: Re: Lyft v AGIS (5:21-cv-04653-BLF)
`
`[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
`
`Thank you.
`
`From: Salpietra, Bethany <Bethany.Salpietra@BakerBotts.com>
`Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2022 1:13 PM
`To: Enrique Iturralde <eiturralde@fabricantllp.com>; AGIS <AGIS@fabricantllp.com>; agis@raklaw.com
`<agis@raklaw.com>
`Cc: DL Lyft AGIS <DLLyftAGIS@BakerBotts.com>
`Subject: RE: Lyft v AGIS (5:21-cv-04653-BLF)
`
`Enrique,
`
`I’m also available at 2pm ET. I’ll circulate an invite.
`
`Thanks,
`
`Bethany
`Bethany R. Salpietra (Ford)
`Senior Associate
`Baker Botts L.L.P.
`bethany.salpietra@bakerbotts.com
`T +1.214.953.6765
`F +1.214.661.4765
`M +1.214.435.9019
`2001 Ross Ave., Ste. 900
`Dallas, TX 75201
`USA
`
`From: Enrique Iturralde <eiturralde@fabricantllp.com>
`Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2022 12:02 PM
`To: Salpietra, Bethany <Bethany.Salpietra@BakerBotts.com>; AGIS <AGIS@fabricantllp.com>; agis@raklaw.com
`Cc: DL Lyft AGIS <DLLyftAGIS@BakerBotts.com>
`Subject: Re: Lyft v AGIS (5:21-cv-04653-BLF)
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 123-3 Filed 05/03/22 Page 9 of 11
`
`[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
`
`Bethany,
`
`It seems like you misunderstood our return draft. We never accepted your redlines, so they remain disputed.
`
`For clarity, attached is a copy of the draft PO with the parties disputed positions highlighted (Lyft's disputed proposals in
`yellow, AGIS's disputed proposals in green). Please note that we updated the number of source code printouts we are
`seeking to 500. We had inadvertently put 250 in the previous draft. Otherwise, we have not updated any of our
`positions.
`
`I am available to confer today at 2pm Eastern. Let me know if that works for you.
`
`Thanks,
`Enrique
`
`From: Salpietra, Bethany <Bethany.Salpietra@BakerBotts.com>
`Sent: Friday, April 22, 2022 4:51 PM
`To: Enrique Iturralde <eiturralde@fabricantllp.com>; AGIS <AGIS@fabricantllp.com>; agis@raklaw.com
`<agis@raklaw.com>
`Cc: DL Lyft AGIS <DLLyftAGIS@BakerBotts.com>
`Subject: RE: Lyft v AGIS (5:21-cv-04653-BLF)
`
`Enrique, attached is the correspondence from Amy attaching the corrected version of redlines that Amy sent
`before our meet and confer on Friday showing agreement on the designated in-house counsel provisions. As I
`mentioned during the meet and confer, we understood the attached as AGIS withdrawing its dispute to these
`provisions. Am I to understand from your email below that AGIS is now changing its position again intending
`to remove these provisions from its latest draft?
`
`Also, in your note below, you incorrectly state that Lyft has dragged its feet in bringing these disputes to the
`Court. As I raised in my previous email, Lyft asked AGIS to provide its proposed revisions to the interim
`protective order in January, and AGIS waited two months to provide those edits. See A. Park 3/15/22 Email to
`B. Salpietra. Lyft provided its edits to AGIS three days later and AGIS turned its next round of edits almost two
`weeks later. See B. Salpietra 3/18/22 Email to A. Park; A. Park 3/29/22 Email to B. Salpietra. Lyft then
`provided its edits within five days and AGIS again took almost two weeks to turn its next round of edits. See B.
`Salpietra 4/4/22 Email to E. Iturralde; A. Park 4/15/22 Email to B. Salpietra. Indeed, I even attempted to
`move the process along by asking to meet and confer regarding the parties’ disputes on 4/4/22, but you asked
`me to send over edits instead. The parties’ correspondence thus establishes that it has been AGIS—not Lyft—
`who has been dragging its feet with respect to the parties’ negotiations.
`
`Regardless of when the PO is entered and the status of negotiations leading up to entry of the PO, however,
`AGIS’s failure to raise this issue on the Court-ordered meet and confer concerning Lyft’s motion to compel and
`AGIS’s decision to take one position in its filing with the Court and an inconsistent position in correspondence
`with Lyft is improper and may need to be raised with the Court if the parties cannot promptly resolve this
`issue.
`
`Thanks,
`
`Bethany
`Bethany R. Salpietra (Ford)
`Senior Associate
`Baker Botts L.L.P.
`bethany.salpietra@bakerbotts.com
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 123-3 Filed 05/03/22 Page 10 of 11
`T +1.214.953.6765
`F +1.214.661.4765
`M +1.214.435.9019
`2001 Ross Ave., Ste. 900
`Dallas, TX 75201
`USA
`
`From: Enrique Iturralde <eiturralde@fabricantllp.com>
`Sent: Friday, April 22, 2022 1:56 PM
`To: Salpietra, Bethany <Bethany.Salpietra@BakerBotts.com>; AGIS <AGIS@fabricantllp.com>; agis@raklaw.com
`Cc: DL Lyft AGIS <DLLyftAGIS@BakerBotts.com>
`Subject: Re: Lyft v AGIS (5:21-cv-04653-BLF)
`
`[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
`
`Counsel,
`
`I am confused by your email. You have known about disputes in the PO for months, and you were aware of the disputes
`in advance of last week's call. At present, these disputes include at least 1) disclosure of designated materials to Lyft in-
`house counsel, 2) source code provisions, 3) prosecution bar, and 4) acquisition bar. As the Plaintiff in this case, Lyft has
`dragged its feet in raising these disputes with the Court.
`
`Our position is that AGIS Software will not agree to disclosure of any designated/protected materials to Lyft's in-house
`counsel. We are ready to brief all of these issues. Please let us know how you would like to proceed in preparing a joint
`submission for the disputed PO. Additionally, if you have any additional proposals or if you intend to accept any of our
`additions/deletions, please provide an updated draft with those changes.
`
`Thanks,
`Enrique
`
`From: Salpietra, Bethany <Bethany.Salpietra@BakerBotts.com>
`Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2022 6:05 PM
`To: AGIS <AGIS@fabricantllp.com>; agis@raklaw.com <agis@raklaw.com>
`Cc: DL Lyft AGIS <DLLyftAGIS@BakerBotts.com>
`Subject: Lyft v AGIS (5:21-cv-04653-BLF)
`
`Counsel,
`
`In AGIS’s Opposition to Lyft’s Motion to Compel, AGIS argues that it has not produced its license agreements
`due to the interim protective order’s inclusion of provisions permitting disclosure to designated in-house
`counsel. This is the first time that AGIS expressed this concern to Lyft as a basis for withholding the
`licenses. In fact, when discussing AGIS’s failure to produce the licenses during Friday’s meet and confer,
`counsel for AGIS was unable to identify any provisions in the interim protective order that prevented the
`production of the license agreements that AGIS had not already agreed to. Specifically, I noted that AGIS’s
`latest round of edits removed its previous objections to permitting designated in-house counsel to view
`designated material, making such provisions identical to those in the interim protective order. But, instead of
`following up with Lyft on this issue like AGIS represented it would, it submitted briefing to the Court which
`misrepresents the discussions between the parties. This is particularly disingenuous given that Lyft asked
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 123-3 Filed 05/03/22 Page 11 of 11
`
`AGIS almost three months ago to identify any additional protections to the interim protective order needed to
`advance this case. See J. Taylor’s 1/21/2022 email to E. Iturralde. Had AGIS identified the designated in-
`house counsel provision as a gating issue preventing the disclosure of certain documents, Lyft could have
`agreed to remove those provisions from the protective order being negotiated by the parties or created a
`separate designation level to avoid raising this issue to the Court.
`
`In view of the foregoing, please confirm whether AGIS will agree to produce documents in its possession,
`custody, or control if the protective order prevents access by in-house counsel.
`
`Thank you,
`
`Bethany
`Bethany R. Salpietra (Ford)
`Senior Associate
`Baker Botts L.L.P.
`bethany.salpietra@bakerbotts.com
`T +1.214.953.6765
`F +1.214.661.4765
`M +1.214.435.9019
`2001 Ross Ave., Ste. 900
`Dallas, TX 75201
`USA
`
`Confidentiality Notice:
`The information contained in this email and any attachments is intended only for the recipient[s] listed above and may be privileged
`and confidential. Any dissemination, copying, or use of or reliance upon such information by or to anyone other than the recipient[s]
`listed above is prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately at the email address
`above and destroy any and all copies of this message.
`
`10
`
`