Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 79-8 Filed 07/22/20 Page 1 of 12
`Case 4:18-cv-07229—YGR Document 79-8 Filed 07/22/20 Page 1 of 12
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 8
`
`EXHIBIT 8
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 79-8 Filed 07/22/20 Page 2 of 12
`
`EDWARD G. POPLAWSKI (SBN 113590)
`epoplawski@wsgr.com
`OLIVIA M. KIM (SBN 228382)
`okim@wsgr.com
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`Professional Corporation
`633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1550
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: (323) 210-2900
`Facsimile: (866) 974-7329
`
`RYAN R. SMITH (SBN 229323)
`rsmith@wsgr.com
`CHRISTOPHER D. MAYS (SBN 266510)
`cmays@wsgr.com
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`Professional Corporation
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
`Telephone: (650) 493-9300
`Facsimile: (650) 493-6811
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`QUALYS INC.
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`OAKLAND DIVISION
`
`CASE NO.: 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`DEFENDANT QUALYS INC.’S
`OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES
`TO FINJAN, INC.’S THIRD SET OF
`INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 12-19)
`
`)))))))))))
`
`FINJAN, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`QUALYS INC., a Delaware Corporation,
`
`Defendant.
`
`CASE NO. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`QUALYS’S RESPONSES TO FINJAN’S THIRD
`SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 12-19)
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 79-8 Filed 07/22/20 Page 3 of 12
`
`Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of
`the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Defendant Qualys Inc.
`(“Qualys”) hereby responds and objections to Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.’s Third Set of Interrogatories to
`Qualys (Nos. 12-19).
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`The following responses are made solely for the purpose of, and in relation to, this action.
`Each response is provided subject to all appropriate objections (including, without limitation,
`objections concerning competency, relevancy, materiality, propriety, and admissibility) that would
`require the exclusion of any statement contained herein if the statement were made by a witness
`present and testifying in court. All such objections and grounds are therefore reserved and may be
`interposed at the time of trial.
`The following responses are based on the facts and information presently known and
`available to Qualys. Discovery, investigation, research, and analysis are ongoing in this case and
`may disclose the existence of additional facts, add meaning to known facts, establish entirely new
`factual conclusions or legal contentions, or possibly lead to additions, variations, and changes to
`these responses. Qualys reserves the right to change or supplement these responses as additional
`facts are discovered, revealed, recalled, or otherwise ascertained.
`
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS
`
`In addition to any specifically stated objections, each of Qualys’s responses herein is subject
`to and incorporates the following general objections:
`1.
`Qualys objects to each interrogatory and each definition to the extent it purports to
`impose obligations greater or more extensive than those required by the Federal Rules of Civil
`Procedure, the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California,
`or other applicable law.
`2.
`Qualys objects to each interrogatory and definition to the extent it purports to request
`information that cannot be found in the course of a reasonable search.
`
`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
`
`CASE NO. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`-1-
`
`QUALYS’S RESPONSES TO FINJAN’S THIRD
`SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 12-19)
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 79-8 Filed 07/22/20 Page 4 of 12
`
`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
`
`Qualys’s partial response to any interrogatory is not a waiver of its objection or right
`3.
`to object to the interrogatory, or any part thereof, or to any additional, supplemental, or further
`interrogatory or part thereof, but is instead offered in an effort to resolve a potential discovery
`dispute.
`Qualys objects to each interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is neither
`4.
`relevant to any party’s claim or defense nor proportional to the needs of the case.
`5.
`Qualys objects to each interrogatory to the extent it is unreasonably cumulative or
`duplicative of other discovery requests, or seeks information that is obtainable from some other
`source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.
`6.
`Qualys objects to each interrogatory to the extent it is overly broad, fails to
`reasonably identify the information sought, is unduly burdensome, and is posed for improper
`purposes, including, without limitation, embarrassment, undue annoyance, harassment, oppression,
`delay, or to increase the expense of litigation or to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion or opinion.
`7.
`Qualys objects to each interrogatory to the extent it seeks information for which the
`burden or expense of obtaining and disclosing outweighs its likely benefit in resolving the issues of
`this action.
`Qualys objects to each interrogatory to the extent it fails to describe with reasonable
`8.
`particularity the information requested.
`9.
`To the extent that any interrogatory may be construed as calling for information
`which is subject to a claim of privilege, including, without limitation, the attorney-client privilege
`and attorney work-product doctrine, Qualys hereby claims such privilege and objects to the
`disclosure of the information. Such information as may hereafter be provided in response to the
`interrogatory should not include any information subject to such privileges and doctrines, but the
`inadvertent disclosure of privileged information shall not constitute a waiver of any applicable
`privilege.
`Qualys objects to each interrogatory to the extent it is vague or ambiguous.
`10.
`Qualys objects to each interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, commercially
`11.
`sensitive, trade secret, and/or proprietary information of a non-party or information covered by a
`
`CASE NO. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`-2-
`
`QUALYS’S RESPONSES TO FINJAN’S THIRD
`SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 12-19)
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 79-8 Filed 07/22/20 Page 5 of 12
`
`confidentiality agreement, or information that is otherwise protected from disclosure pursuant to
`Rule 26(c)(1)(G) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of
`Evidence. Qualys will not produce such information unless the non-party agrees to the terms of the
`protective order entered in this case or consents in writing to the disclosure of that information to
`Finjan.
`Qualys objects each interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is not in
`12.
`Qualys’s possession, custody, or control.
`13.
`Qualys objects to any interrogatory that seeks information, documents, or things
`subject to confidentiality agreements, protective orders, and/or any other obligation pursuant to
`which Qualys is required to protect and/or maintain the confidentiality of any third party’s
`documents. Should an interrogatory call for such information, documents, or things, Qualys will
`act reasonably to obtain the consent of the third party to produce the information.
`14.
`Qualys objects generally to the interrogatories to the extent that they prematurely call
`for discovery concerning, among other things, Qualys products, downstream products, and facts and
`contentions relating to claim construction, non-infringement, invalidity, and other claims and
`defenses pursuant to Patent Local Rule 2-5.
`15.
`Qualys objects generally to the interrogatories because Finjan has served
`interrogatories in excess of the maximum 25 interrogatory limit under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1).
`
`OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS
`
`Qualys objects to Finjan’s definition of “You,” “Your,” and “Defendant” as overly
`1.
`broad and unduly burdensome. For purposes of these interrogatories, reference to “You,” “Your,”
`and “Defendant” shall refer to Defendant Qualys Inc. only.
`2.
`Qualys objects to Finjan’s definition of “Finjan” as overly broad and unduly
`burdensome. For purposes of these interrogatories, reference to “Finjan” shall refer to Plaintiff
`Finjan, Inc. only.
`3.
`Qualys objects to Finjan’s definition of “Accused Instrumentalities” as overly broad
`and unduly burdensome. For purposes of these interrogatories, reference to the “Accused
`
`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
`
`CASE NO. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`-3-
`
`QUALYS’S RESPONSES TO FINJAN’S THIRD
`SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 12-19)
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 79-8 Filed 07/22/20 Page 6 of 12
`
`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
`
`Instrumentalities” shall refer to the Qualys products and services that Finjan has specifically
`identified in its Complaint and Infringement Contentions.
`4.
`Qualys objects to the definition of “relate to,” “reflecting,” “relating to,”
`“concerning,” and “any variations thereof” and all requests incorporating these terms, as overly
`broad, vague, ambiguous, unintelligible, requiring subjective judgment on the part of Qualys and/or
`its attorneys, and calling for conclusions or opinions of counsel in violation of the attorney work
`product doctrine.
`the definitions of “person,” “entity,” “document(s),”
`to
`5.
`Qualys objects
`“communication,” and “thing” to the extent they call for information that exceeds the scope
`contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the United States
`District Court for the Northern District of California, or other applicable law.
`
`OBJECTIONS TO INSTRUCTIONS
`
`Qualys objects to the instructions accompanying Finjan’s interrogatories to the extent
`1.
`that such instructions are not consistent with the provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
`Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, or other
`applicable law, or to the extent that the instructions purport to require Qualys to take actions or
`provide information not required or which exceed the scope of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
`Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, or other
`applicable law.
`
`SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 12:
`Identify all names, internal codenames, nomenclatures, SKUs, and/or designations for each
`actual or planned release or version of the Accused Instrumentalities and any technologies,
`components, or features of the Accused Instrumentalities.
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12:
`In addition to the foregoing general objections, which are expressly incorporated herein,
`Qualys objects to this interrogatory on the ground and to the extent that it: (1) is compound in that
`
`CASE NO. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`-4-
`
`QUALYS’S RESPONSES TO FINJAN’S THIRD
`SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 12-19)
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 79-8 Filed 07/22/20 Page 7 of 12
`
`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
`
`it contains at least three discrete subparts (identify information for each actual release or version;
`identify information for each planned release or version; identify information for any technologies,
`components, or features); (2) is vague and ambiguous as to at least the phrase “any technologies,
`components, or features of the Accused Instrumentalities”; (3) is overbroad and unduly burdensome
`in that it asks Qualys to identify information regarding each planned release or version of the
`Accused Instrumentalities; and (4) seeks information that is irrelevant to the claims and defenses at
`issue in this case and is not proportional to the needs of the case. Qualys further objects that Finjan
`has exceeded the maximum permitted number of discrete interrogatories and subparts.
`INTERROGATORY NO. 13:
`Separately for each Asserted Claim of the Asserted Patents, identify all legal and factual
`bases for your contention that such claim is not infringed by the Accused Instrumentalities, including
`a chart that sets forth each claim element that you contend is not satisfied by the Accused
`Instrumentalities along with a substantive, particularized description of why you contend that
`element is not satisfied, including citation to specific components and functionality of the Accused
`Instrumentalities, and all documents and things in support of your position, including source code
`modules.
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13:
`In addition to the foregoing general objections, which are expressly incorporated herein,
`Qualys objects to this interrogatory on the ground and to the extent that it: (1) is compound; (2) is
`vague and ambiguous as to at least the phrases “components and functionality of the Accused
`Instrumentalities” and “source code module”; (3) is overbroad and unduly burdensome in that it
`asks Qualys to prepare a “chart that sets forth each claim element that you contend is not satisfied
`by the Accused Instrumentalities along with a substantive, particularized description of why you
`contend that element is not satisfied, including citation to specific components and functionality of
`the Accused Instrumentalities”; (4) seeks information that is irrelevant to the claims and defenses at
`issue in this case and is not proportional to the needs of the case; and (5) prematurely seeks
`information that is the subject of expert opinions. Qualys further objects that Finjan has exceeded
`the maximum permitted number of discrete interrogatories and subparts.
`
`CASE NO. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`-5-
`
`QUALYS’S RESPONSES TO FINJAN’S THIRD
`SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 12-19)
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 79-8 Filed 07/22/20 Page 8 of 12
`
`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
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 14:
`For each Asserted Claim of the Asserted Patents, identify all legal and factual bases for any
`contention or allegation by Defendant with respect to the Asserted claim related to unenforceability,
`unclean hands, allegations of inequitable conduct, or errors in inventorship.
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14:
`In addition to the foregoing general objections, which are expressly incorporated herein,
`Qualys objects to this interrogatory on the ground and to the extent that it: (1) is compound; (2) is
`vague and ambiguous as to at least the phrase “unenforceability”; (3) seeks information that is
`irrelevant to the claims and defenses at issue in this case and is not proportional to the needs of the
`case; and (4) prematurely seeks information that is the subject of expert opinions. Qualys further
`objects that Finjan has exceeded the maximum permitted number of discrete interrogatories and
`subparts.
`INTERROGATORY NO. 15:
`For each of the Accused Instrumentalities, identify three persons knowledgeable with respect
`to the (a) development and (b) functionality of that instrumentality.
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15:
`In addition to the foregoing general objections, which are expressly incorporated herein,
`Qualys objects to this interrogatory on the ground and to the extent that it: (1) is compound; (2) is
`vague and ambiguous as to at least the phrases “development” and “functionality”; (3) is overbroad
`and unduly burdensome in that it asks Qualys to identify three persons knowledgeable about the
`subject; and (4) seeks information that is irrelevant to the claims and defenses at issue in this case
`and is not proportional to the needs of the case. Qualys further objects that Finjan has exceeded the
`maximum permitted number of discrete interrogatories and subparts.
`INTERROGATORY NO. 16:
`Identify any license agreements that are related to the technology of the Asserted Patents or
`Accused Instrumentalities, or that You contend are relevant to the evaluation of a reasonable royalty
`of damages in This Case, including (1) whether the agreement is a settlement of a litigation, (2) the
`patents and technology that are the subject of the agreement, (3) the amount of the license fee, (4)
`
`CASE NO. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`-6-
`
`QUALYS’S RESPONSES TO FINJAN’S THIRD
`SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 12-19)
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 79-8 Filed 07/22/20 Page 9 of 12
`
`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
`
`how the license fee in the agreement was determined, (5) the names, positions, and employers of
`those involved in negotiating the agreement, (6) whether You have collected or are collecting any
`royalties or making any payments under the license agreement, and (7) any documents supporting
`Your response.
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 16:
`In addition to the foregoing general objections, which are expressly incorporated herein,
`Qualys objects to this interrogatory on the ground and to the extent that it: (1) is compound in that
`it contains at least four discrete subparts (identify any license agreements related to the technology;
`identify how the license fee in the agreement was determined; identify whether Qualys has collected
`or is collecting royalties under the agreement; identify documents); (2) is overbroad and unduly
`burdensome in that it asks Qualys to identify “whether the agreement is a settlement of a litigation”,
`“how the license fee in the agreement was determined”, “the names, positions, and employers of
`those involved in negotiating the agreement”, “whether You have collected or are collecting any
`royalties or making any payments under the license agreement”; and (3) seeks information that is
`irrelevant to the claims and defenses at issue in this case and is not proportional to the needs of the
`case. Qualys further objects that Finjan has exceeded the maximum permitted number of discrete
`interrogatories and subparts.
`INTERROGATORY NO. 17:
`Describe in detail the complete legal and factual basis for each affirmative defense that
`Qualys has asserted in this litigation, including all the facts, documents, witnesses, and expected
`testimony that it intends to rely upon to support such defenses.
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 17:
`In addition to the foregoing general objections, which are expressly incorporated herein,
`Qualys objects to this interrogatory on the ground and to the extent that it: (1) is compound in that
`it contains at least three discrete subparts (describe the legal and factual basis; identify documents;
`identify witnesses and expected testimony); (2) is overbroad and unduly burdensome in that it asks
`Qualys to identify and describe expected testimony Qualys intends to rely upon; (3) seeks
`information that is irrelevant to the claims and defenses at issue in this case and is not proportional
`
`CASE NO. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`-7-
`
`QUALYS’S RESPONSES TO FINJAN’S THIRD
`SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 12-19)
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 79-8 Filed 07/22/20 Page 10 of 12
`
`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
`
`to the needs of the case; and (4) prematurely seeks information that is the subject of expert opinions.
`Qualys further objects that Finjan has exceeded the maximum permitted number of discrete
`interrogatories and subparts.
`INTERROGATORY NO. 18:
`Identify the smallest salable patent-practicing unit for each of the Accused Instrumentalities,
`including the actual and forecasted monthly, quarterly, and annual gross and net revenue (including
`invoice revenue, allocated revenue, ala-carte revenue general ledger), sales, billings, bookings,
`pricing, costs, expenses, gross profits, net profits, number of units, number of users, and market
`share of such smallest salable patent-practicing units, from the year 2015 to the present (a) in the
`United States and separately, (b) worldwide, including but not limited to identification of each type
`of cost and expense, which model number or product code corresponds to which version of each
`smallest salable patent-practicing unit, and identification of persons, electronic databases, and
`documents who are knowledgeable regarding the foregoing.
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 18:
`In addition to the foregoing general objections, which are expressly incorporated herein,
`Qualys objects to this interrogatory on the ground and to the extent that it: (1) is compound in that
`it contains at least six discrete subparts (identify the smallest salable patent-practicing unit; identify
`actual revenue; identify forecasted revenue; identify market share; identify persons; and identify
`electronic databases and documents); (2) is vague and ambiguous as to at least the phrases “smallest
`salable patent-practicing unit”, “invoice revenue, allocated revenue, ala-carte revenue general
`ledger”, “bookings” and “electronic databases”; (3) seeks information requested by and is therefore
`redundant to Interrogatory Nos. 3 and 6; (4) is overbroad and unduly burdensome in that it asks
`Qualys to identify the revenues on a monthly, quarterly, and annual basis; and (5) seeks information
`that is irrelevant to the claims and defenses at issue in this case and is not proportional to the needs
`of the case such as worldwide financial information that is neither relevant to claims or defenses
`nor proportional to the needs of the case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1).
`Qualys further objects that Finjan has exceeded the maximum permitted number of discrete
`interrogatories and subparts.
`
`CASE NO. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`-8-
`
`QUALYS’S RESPONSES TO FINJAN’S THIRD
`SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 12-19)
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 79-8 Filed 07/22/20 Page 11 of 12
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 19:
`Identify the legal and factual basis for any defense that Finjan’s claims for relief are barred
`as a result of patent exhaustion and/or licenses to the Asserted Patents, including and not limited to
`the product(s) You claim is licensed, the feature(s) of the product(s) You claim is licensed, and the
`provision(s) of the license(s) You allege the product(s) are licensed under.
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 19:
`In addition to the foregoing general objections, which are expressly incorporated herein,
`Qualys objects to this interrogatory on the ground and to the extent that it: (1) is compound; and (2)
`seeks information that is irrelevant to the claims and defenses at issue in this case and is not
`proportional to the needs of the case and (3) prematurely seeks information that is the subject of
`expert opinions. Qualys further objects that Finjan has exceeded the maximum permitted number
`of discrete interrogatories and subparts.
`
`DATED: July 20, 2020
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Ryan R. Smith
`RYAN R. SMITH
`
`Counsel for Defendant
`QUALYS INC.
`
`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
`
`CASE NO. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`-9-
`
`QUALYS’S RESPONSES TO FINJAN’S THIRD
`SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 12-19)
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 79-8 Filed 07/22/20 Page 12 of 12
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I, Christina Tong, am employed in the Los Angeles, California office of Wilson Sonsini
`Goodrich & Rosati, P.C. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My
`business address is 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1550, Los Angeles, California 90071.
`On July 20, 2020, I caused the following document to be served:
` DEFENDANT QUALYS INC.’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO FINJAN,
`INC.’S THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 12-19)
`
`via e-mail on the following individuals:
` Paul Andre (pandre@kramerlevin.com );
` Aaron M. Frankel (AFrankel@KRAMERLEVIN.com);
` Kristopher Benjamin Kastens (kkastens@kramerlevin.com);
` Lisa Kobialka (lkobialka@kramerlevin.com ); and
` James Hannah (jhannah@kramerlevin.com).
`
` I
`
` declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the United
`States that each of the above statement is true and correct.
`Executed on July 20, 2020, at Los Angeles, California.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`y:
`B
`
`/s/ Christina Tong
`Christina Tong
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`CASE NO.:4:18-CV-07229-YGR
`
`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`