`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 828 Filed 01/03/23 Page 1 of 4
`
`
`
`J. DAVID HADDEN (CSB No. 176148)
`dhadden@fenwick.com
`SAINA S. SHAMILOV (CSB No. 215636)
`sshamilov@fenwick.com
`MELANIE L. MAYER (admitted pro hac vice)
`mmayer@fenwick.com
`TODD R. GREGORIAN (CSB No. 236096)
`tgregorian@fenwick.com
`RAVI R. RANGANATH (CSB No. 272981)
`rranganath@fenwick.com
`CHRISTOPHER S. LAVIN (CSB No. 301702)
`clavin@fenwick.com
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`Silicon Valley Center
`801 California Street
`Mountain View, CA 94041
`Telephone:
`650.988.8500
`Facsimile:
`650.938.5200
`
`Counsel for AMAZON.COM, INC.,
`AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., and
`TWITCH INTERACTIVE, INC.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`IN RE: PERSONAL WEB TECHNOLOGIES,
`LLC ET AL., PATENT LITIGATION
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC., and AMAZON WEB
`SERVICES, INC.,
`
`Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`
`
`UPDATED STATUS REPORT OF
`AMAZON.COM, INC., AMAZON WEB
`SERVICES, INC., AND TWITCH
`INTERACTIVE, INC. FOR JANUARY 5,
`2023 HEARING
`
`
`JUDGE: Hon. Susan van Keulen
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`v.
`
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, and
`LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`
`Defendants,
`
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, and
`LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`
`TWITCH INTERACTIVE, INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`UPDATED STATUS REPORT
`
`
`
`CASE NOS. 5:18-md-02834-BLF,
`5:18-cv-00767-BLF, and
`5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`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
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 828 Filed 01/03/23 Page 2 of 4
`
`
`
`1
`
`PersonalWeb: (1) After months of refusing to direct its lawyers at Stubbs Alderton to turn over
`
`2
`
`responsive documents, PersonalWeb only last week purportedly did so. (See Declaration of Todd
`
`3
`
`R. Gregorian (“Gregorian Decl.”), Ex. A at 3.) But PersonalWeb still refuses to take responsibility
`
`4
`
`5
`
`for the collection process, leaving it to Amazon to try to negotiate with Stubbs. (Exs. B-D.)1
`
`(2) Stubbs refuses to discuss what paper and electronic files it maintains for PersonalWeb; only
`
`6
`
`that its search is still ongoing and that it plans to complete production by January 20. (Ex. C at 3.)
`
`7
`
`For electronic documents, Stubbs still has apparently only run full keyword searches for
`
`8
`
`“PersonalWeb” and variants not including “Pweb.” Stubbs offered to consider additional electronic
`
`9
`
`search terms, but then it shut down discussion of Amazon’s proposals. (Ex. C at 9 “Priority
`
`10
`
`Categories”.) Now, on the eve of the hearing, PersonalWeb and Stubbs both report that Stubbs has
`
`11
`
`run a subset of Amazon’s proposed search terms against an undisclosed data set. (Id. at 3; Ex. A
`
`12
`
`at 1.) Amazon maintains that Stubbs must turn over the seven priority categories that Amazon
`
`13
`
`identified previously for the Stubbs collection. (See Dkt. 823 at 1 n.2.)
`
`14
`
`(3) Stubbs Alderton now admits to withholding documents that it claims “belong” to other firm
`
`15
`
`clients like the PersonalWeb insider-investors. Stubbs originally promised to provide information
`
`16
`
`about this issue before December 14th hearing, (see Ex. D at 1, 5), but now it refuses to identify on
`
`17
`
`behalf of which entities it is withholding documents, explain how it is making judgment calls about
`
`18
`
`which of its joint clients “own” each document, provide a log of the withheld documents, or even
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`19
`
`just disclose their number. (See Ex. C at 2-4.) At a recent conference of counsel, Mr. Sherman
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`became animated and shut down discussion of this issue. (Id. at 8.) He then went on vacation,
`
`21
`
`promising that Mr. Gersh would address open questions in his absence. (Id. at 5.) But Mr. Gersh
`
`22
`
`then claimed to have no information about this issue. (Id. at 2.) Given that the entities are closely-
`
`23
`
`related and share principals, and Stubbs Alderton apparently represented them jointly and also when
`
`24
`
`they were on opposite sides of certain transactions, this seems to be a shell game.
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`1 For its own collection, PersonalWeb has represented that approximately 3,700 documents it had
`previously withheld based on the waived privilege claims (i.e., the “privilege screen” documents)
`remain to be reviewed, but that it intends to complete production by January 20. PersonalWeb has
`also received certain hard drives from Stubbs Alderton (Ex. J at 1) that it has reported that it does
`not plan to search because it believes them to be duplicative of its collection from Mr. Weiss.
`PersonalWeb has represented its forensic consultant would verify this belief, but has not provided
`any information about the consultant’s methods or results.
`
`UPDATED STATUS REPORT
`
`
`
`1
`
`CASE NOS. 5:18-md-02834-BLF,
`5:18-cv-00767-BLF, and
`5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 828 Filed 01/03/23 Page 3 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`(4) Stubbs Alderton has agreed to remove its arbitrary July 2021 date limit. It now plans to
`
`
`
`2 2
`
`search for documents only through September 15, 2022, because it claims that after that date it was
`
`
`
`3 3
`
`“prohibit[ed]” from communicating with its “former client.” (Id. at 2.) To the contrary, Stubbs
`
`
`
`4 4
`
`still represents PersonalWeb at the Federal Circuit, including filing a substantive letter brief for
`
`
`
`5 5
`
`PersonalWeb after its new proposed date cutoff. (Case No. 21-1858, Dkt. 71.)
`
`
`
`6 6
`
`(5) The PersonalWeb documents that Stubbs Alderton has already produced are fraught with
`
`
`
`7 7
`
`technical issues, such as missing page images, missing pages out of a multi-page document, missing
`
`
`
`8 8
`
`attachments to emails, and no load file or document metadata. Amazon raised these issues with
`
`
`
`9 9
`
`both PersonalWeb and Stubbs Alderton weeks ago, and neither party has addressed them.
`
`
`
`10 10
`
`PersonalWeb insider-investors (Claria/ECA/Brilliant Digital/Monto): (1) By comparing
`
`
`
`11 11
`
`productions across parties, Amazon determined that the PersonalWeb investors had failed to
`
`
`
`12 12
`
`produce certain documents. This led to a further discovery that they had failed to produce other
`
`
`
`13 13
`
`responsive documents as well, including incriminating emails showing that they had colluded with
`
`
`
`14 14
`
`PersonalWeb to modify the secured loan agreements shortly before they foreclosed. Specifically,
`
`
`
`15 15
`
`just days before the PersonalWeb investors filed the receivership action, they amended the
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`16 16
`
`agreements to identify PersonalWeb’s patent infringement suits as collateral for the loans. (Exs. E,
`
`
`
`17 17
`
`and F-H.) The PersonalWeb investors have thus far totally failed to explain why these documents
`
`
`
`18 18
`
`were not captured by their searches and produced previously. (Ex. I.)
`
`
`
`19 19
`
`(2) This failure makes it even more important that the Court order Claria and ECA to search
`
`
`
`
`
`20 20
`
`and produce all email accounts that Mr. Markiles used to conduct their business. As discussed
`
`
`
`21 21
`
`above, Stubbs Alderton has not searched for those documents, and is withholding any that it locates
`
`
`
`22 22
`
`in the PersonalWeb search based on criteria that it refused to disclose to Amazon. Amazon has
`
`
`
`23 23
`
`also searched the PersonalWeb productions made since the date of the last status update. Due to
`
`
`
`24 24
`
`the technical issues and lack of metadata, Amazon cannot be certain, but as best it can tell, Exhibits
`
`
`
`25 25
`
`3, 9, 22, and 25 to the Lavin Declaration (Dkt. 810-1) remain absent from the production.2
`
`
`
`26 26
`
`
`
`27 27
`
`
`
`28 28
`
`
`2 Claria and ECA’s remaining argument is their misdirection that this Court would lack jurisdiction
`to consider an alter ego claim in a complaint filed against them. (See Dkts. 801 & 825.) The Court
`clearly has jurisdiction to order discovery from a nonparty to aid in enforcement of a judgment. See
`Em Ltd. v. Rep. of Argentina, 695 F.3d 201, 209 (2d Cir. 2012), aff’d, Rep. of Argentina v. NML
`Capital, Ltd., 573 U.S. 134 (2014). And this Court has already held correctly that there is “a
`
`UPDATED STATUS REPORT
`
`
`
`2
`
`CASE NOS. 5:18-md-02834-BLF,
`5:18-cv-00767-BLF, and
`5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 828 Filed 01/03/23 Page 4 of 4
`
`
`
`Dated: January 3, 2023
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Todd R. Gregorian
`
`TODD R. GREGORIAN (CSB No. 236096)
`
`Attorney for AMAZON.COM, INC.,
`AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., and
`TWITCH INTERACTIVE, INC.
`
`
`presumption [] in favor of full discovery of any matters arguably related to [the creditor’s] efforts to
`trace [the debtor’s] assets and otherwise to enforce its judgment.” (Order at 2 (Dkt. 779) (internal
`quotations omitted).)
`
`UPDATED STATUS REPORT
`
`
`
`3
`
`CASE NOS. 5:18-md-02834-BLF,
`5:18-cv-00767-BLF, and
`5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`
`
`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
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`