Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 254-3 Filed 01/29/20 PageID.22949 Page 1 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`TO THE DECLARATION OF BRIAN J. NISBET
`IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
`FOR FEES AND COSTS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`TO THE DECLARATION OF BRIAN J. NISBET
`IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
`FOR FEES AND COSTS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 254-3 Filed 01/29/20 PageID.22950 Page 2 of 23
`
`1
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`THE HONORABLE CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO PRESIDING
`
`)
`
`))
`
`) CASE NO. 18CV0347-CAB-MDD
`)
`) SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
`)
`) THURSDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2019
`)
`)
`
`))
`
`)
`
`NUVASIVE, INC., a Delaware
`Corporation,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`ALPHATEC HOLDINGS, INC., a
`Delaware Corporation, and
`ALPHATEC SPINE, INC., a
`California corporation,
`Defendants.
`
`Reporter's Transcript of Status Conference
`Pages 1-22
`
`Proceedings reported by stenography, transcript produced by
`computer assisted software
`____________________________________________________________
`
`Mauralee Ramirez, RPR, CSR No. 11674
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`ordertranscript@gmail.com
`
`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
`
`Exhibit 1
`Page 5
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 254-3 Filed 01/29/20 PageID.22951 Page 3 of 23
`
` 2
`
` 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
`
`APPEARANCES
`
`For The Plaintiff:
` Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati P.C.
` Paul D. Tripodi II
` 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1550
` Los Angeles, California 90071
`
` Hilgers Graben
` Michael t. Hilgers
` 575 Fallbrook Blvd, Suite 202
` Lincoln, Nebraska 68521
`
`
`
`For The Defendants:
`
` Winston & Strawn LLP
` Nimalka Wickramasekera
` David Dalke
` 333 S. Grand Avenue
` Los Angeles, California 90071
`
` Winston & Strawn LLP
` Brian J. Nisbet
` 35 West Wacker Drive
` Chicago, Illinois 60601
`
`
` Also Present:
`
` Mike Doyle, NuVasive VP of intellectual property
`
` Paul Gwilt, Hilgers Graben
`
` Craig Hunsaker, Alphatec general counsel
`
` Tyson Marshall, Alphatec director of legal affairs
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1
`Page 6
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 254-3 Filed 01/29/20 PageID.22952 Page 4 of 23
`
` 3
`
` 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
`
` San Diego, California; Thursday, December 12, 2019; 9:00 a.m.
`(Case called)
`MR. TRIPODI: Good morning, your Honor. On behalf of
`NuVasive Inc., Paul Tripodi of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich &
`Rosati. With me today is my co-counsel, Mike Hilgers of the
`Hilgers Graben firm. He'll be handling the bulk of the
`argument today. Also in the courtroom, we have the corporate
`representative from NuVasive, Mike Doyle, the vice president of
`intellectual property, and one of Mr. Hilgers' colleagues, Paul
`Gwilt.
`
`One thing I wanted to note as part of my appearance,
`Mr. Doyle is not entitled under the protective order to receive
`highly confidential information. There are portions of the
`argument that we expect will be a potential discussion of
`Alphatec confidential information. If they would like him to
`clear the courtroom at that time, we can. I have no insight as
`to the other people who are in the courtroom.
`THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
`MS. WICKRAMASEKERA: Good morning, your Honor.
`Nimalka Wickramasekera from Winston & Strawn on behalf of the
`Alphatec defendants. With me is my co-counsel, Brian Nisbet
`and David Dalke. And also with me is Alphatec's general
`counsel, Craig Hunsaker, and Alphatec's associate general
`counsel, Tyson Marshall.
`THE COURT: Thank you. Where to start? I have to
`
`Exhibit 1
`Page 7
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 254-3 Filed 01/29/20 PageID.22953 Page 5 of 23
`
` 4
`
` 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
`
`tell you, frankly, coming in here, my primary purpose for
`holding this hearing this morning was to figure out how much to
`sanction NuVasive for bringing this motion, which I think is
`entirely meritless and frivolous. It appears to the Court
`based on the materials that I've received and read for this
`hearing this morning that it was brought solely for the purpose
`of derailing the ability of Alphatec to finalize and finish
`discovery in this case and prepare their dispositive motions
`and to disrupt the Court's schedule and just take all of my
`dates and set them aside.
`I cannot for the life of me figure out how after all
`this time we have been in this litigation with people that
`NuVasive has been fully aware of, have been involved, and are
`principles of the defendant company, that all of a sudden, you
`had some epiphany at a deposition, the transcript of which I've
`reviewed, where nothing of any significance appears to have
`happened, that you suddenly had this dawning sense of doom that
`they were disclosing and sharing information they weren't
`entitled to share with their counsel.
`There's nothing here that seems to justify asking for
`the relief you're seeking. And to put this entire case on hold
`while you investigate defense counsel to determine whether or
`not they should ultimately -- because ultimately, your motion
`would be to disqualify them. You're not calling it that, but
`that would be the end result if you think that they have been
`
`Exhibit 1
`Page 8
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 254-3 Filed 01/29/20 PageID.22954 Page 6 of 23
`
` 5
`
` 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
`
`given attorney/client information and would be proceeding
`inappropriately.
`All I have in the moving papers are broad accusations
`with no specifics about blending both confidential and
`privileged -- which are entirely different standards --
`information that has been somehow inappropriately shared with
`counsel with absolutely no specifics for it and no reason why
`NuVasive would have waited to the close of discovery and the
`eve of dispositive motions to suddenly have this oh, my God
`moment. So you better help me before I start talking about how
`much you're paying them.
`MR. HILGERS: Thank you, your Honor. Good morning.
`My name is Mike Hilgers on behalf of NuVasive. I appreciate
`the time this morning. Maybe I can address a few of the points
`made. The first one I want to address, your Honor, is the
`timing, because I understand your Honor's concern. And the
`timing, I think is very -- if we were here on November 7th,
`your Honor, and someone would ask me, Mr. Hilgers, NuVasive,
`would you file a motion of this kind, the answer would be no,
`there would be no reason to file a motion of this kind.
`And the reason is because this issue had been
`identified as far as back as March of 2018, immediately raised
`with counsel -- immediately raised with counsel. There are
`these former employees. They have privileged information, put
`some information on the record specifically identifying the
`
`Exhibit 1
`Page 9
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 254-3 Filed 01/29/20 PageID.22955 Page 7 of 23
`
` 6
`
` 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
`
`types of privileged information that they have, and we raised
`issue. And the assurances we had, we got in March of 2018 were
`"we will abide by the rules." Now at that time, your Honor,
`trying to work things out with counsel, not bring a motion
`before the Court, take up the Court's time, that was an
`assurance that, frankly, was good enough for us.
`In June the same year, we came before your Honor with
`the 26(f) report. The issue was raised again, just in the
`report, just so the Court understood NuVasive's position which
`was there were former employees that had access to privileged
`information and that we think a protective order could be
`necessary. Now at the same time, Alphatec's counsel made the
`same representation.
`Fast-forward one month later, there was the letter
`that we've referenced that is before your Honor. And that is
`pending a motion to seal, so I won't reference any of the
`contents of the letter. But it caused us one more time to
`reach out to Alphatec's counsel, your Honor, and say, Look, we
`think maybe this information is being shared.
`THE COURT: You're talking about the 2018 letter?
`MR. HILGERS: Yes, your Honor.
`THE COURT: Okay.
`MR. HILGERS: So it was of concern. But once again,
`we didn't run to the courthouse. We had worked with counsel on
`this particular issue before. We raised the same concern,
`
`Exhibit 1
`Page 10
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 254-3 Filed 01/29/20 PageID.22956 Page 8 of 23
`
` 7
`
` 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
`
`along with a couple others, and the response there was the
`most -- it's actually the most definitive response that we had,
`the most definitive assurance that we had that our information
`was protected. And in an August 9th letter back to counsel for
`NuVasive, Alphatec's counsel said, Look, we have been very
`vigilant. We have not elicited information from any of the
`former NuVasive employees, we don't have privileged
`information, and we're going to follow our obligations under
`the rules. At that point, your Honor, nothing would have
`happened going forward until November 8th. On November 7th of
`this year, your Honor, we had no reason to bring a motion. And
`I would point out as I sit here today, the relief we're
`seeking, one --
`THE COURT: What happened on November 8th?
`MR. HILGERS: A series of items. The first of which
`was, it was -- it all started with the deposition of
`Mr. Malone. So the first item is that Ms. Howell is a former
`employee, one of the individuals that was mentioned in our
`moving papers. A former employee of NuVasive who we have put
`into evidence was -- had -- was privy to privileged information
`evidence that was not rebutted in Alphatec's moving papers, or
`at least with any evidence. She shows up at this deposition.
`Now, your Honor, in our mind, there is no reason for
`Ms. Howell-- she worked with Mr. Malone. There is no reason
`for Ms. Howell to be at that deposition, in our mind.
`
`Exhibit 1
`Page 11
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 254-3 Filed 01/29/20 PageID.22957 Page 9 of 23
`
` 8
`
` 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
`
`Immediately Mr. Tripodi asked -- said, Hey, look, this
`is a problem. She's not here -- the only reason we can see is
`potentially she's acting in a quasi-litigation support role,
`which means --
`THE COURT: Or she was there as a corporate
`representative or a corporate client representative to sit and
`listen at the deposition --
`MR. HILGERS: That --
`THE COURT: -- a legitimate reason to have her there.
`MR. HILGERS: That would be, I would say, your Honor,
`in context, Mr. Hunsaker had been the corporate representative
`who I think had been at every -- I mean, not every but most, if
`not all, of the depositions prior to that. And I don't think
`in the transcript that was an answer that sort of was elicited.
`It could have been, your Honor. It could have been. I think
`at that point if that was said on its own and we stopped right
`there in time, I don't think we'd be here today either. Now it
`certainly raised a question in our mind because, in fact, some
`of the cases that we've cited, there is a high risk no matter
`how well intentioned counsel --
`THE COURT: What happened at this deposition that
`makes you think she was giving privileged information to
`counsel that somehow turned the whole tide of this
`understanding that you had for two years?
`MR. HILGERS: Well, I want to be very clear, your
`
`Exhibit 1
`Page 12
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 254-3 Filed 01/29/20 PageID.22958 Page 10 of
` 23
`
` 9
`
` 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
`
`Honor, we have not suggested that at that deposition we know
`that she shared at that deposition privileged information. But
`what it did do, that and what Mr. Malone said, he said, Look,
`these questions -- and I read the transcript just like your
`Honor did. When I first read it, it doesn't look -- it just
`looks like a general questioning organization. But Mr. Malone,
`who worked very closely with Ms. Howell, said, These are the
`types of questions -- and it's in his declaration -- very
`esoteric in nuance. Now from our perspective, it's not --
`THE COURT: About how the company is organized on
`organizational chart that was produced to defendants. So where
`is the attorney/client privileged information that flows from
`that?
`
`MR. HILGERS: The point of us reraising it, your
`Honor, is not that there was -- I want to be very clear. On a
`disqualification motion -- I know your Honor said it could end
`up in that place, I would respectfully disagree that it may
`not. But very clear for a protective order, it's the
`likelihood of disclosure. And for us, the reason we didn't
`move for protective order, not a motion for disqualification,
`was the assurances that there were no use.
`THE COURT: You still haven't explained to me other
`than Mr. Malone having some etherial sense that Ms. Howell was
`somehow talking about things she shouldn't have been talking
`about with counsel. But I have heard nothing concrete from you
`
`Exhibit 1
`Page 13
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 254-3 Filed 01/29/20 PageID.22959 Page 11 of
` 23
`
` 10
`
` 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
`
`that anything was shared other than this sudden suspicion that
`came to your mind.
`MR. HILGERS: Came to Mr. Malone's mind, was shared
`
`with us.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Malone, I don't know what his
`basis is for having this suspicion other than the fact that an
`organizational chart that they had that was produced in
`discovery led them to ask questions that he thought were what?
`MR. HILGERS: Well, I understand that chart was
`produced after the deposition. But Mr. Malone -- the question
`for a protective order, your Honor, is not actually disclosure,
`it's the likelihood of disclosure. And the reason is, is
`because of an attorney, a layperson -- these are cases we cite,
`the Vans case, the GI Holdings case.
`THE COURT: These cases are all very fact specific.
`So again, what concrete evidence did you learn that they
`somehow, from Ms. Howell, were extracting privileged
`information?
`MR. HILGERS: Your Honor, the reason we brought the
`motion, if we would have learned -- if we knew or had strong
`reason to suspect that privileged information was shared at
`that deposition, this would not be a motion for protective
`order, it would be a stronger motion. The whole point of the
`motion for protective order is we don't -- we're not bringing
`to court with evidence the protective of privilege of actual
`
`Exhibit 1
`Page 14
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 254-3 Filed 01/29/20 PageID.22960 Page 12 of
` 23
`
` 11
`
` 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
`
`disclosure. It's a very difficult burden for us to reach on a
`protective order.
`So what we had was, first, Ms. Howell showed up. We
`asked her to leave. We didn't get the kind of response that
`your Honor just described. There appears to be, from
`Mr. Malone's perspective, questions that were influenced by
`Ms. Howell. And after that, we raised the issue. We're very
`concerned about this. We raised issue with Alphatec's counsel.
`And I think it's hard to say what the hypothetical world would
`have been had they responded at that point and said, You know
`what, no, she was there as corporate representative. No
`information was shared. This is not something to be concerned
`about. We have been very vigilant. We may not be here today
`in that case. But the response was more, Hey, look, we could
`talk to our clients even if they have confidential information.
`And that -- respectfully, your Honor, we don't think that is
`the law in this case. And so what that did to us at the
`moment--
`
`THE COURT: Again, we're blurring privileged and
`confidential because there's a protective order that was placed
`to deal with confidential information --
`MR. HILGERS: Um-hmm.
`THE COURT: -- former employees who already had that
`confidential information, and if it was disclosed to counsel in
`response to discovery, then they're entitled to share it with
`
`Exhibit 1
`Page 15
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 254-3 Filed 01/29/20 PageID.22961 Page 13 of
` 23
`
` 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
`
`the people who already knew it because they're not violating
`the protective order. And if the reason you're saying the only
`reason they have that confidential information which is
`material and relevant to the case for them to have is because
`they got it from former employees and you hadn't produced it,
`we have a whole different problem.
`MR. HILGERS: Your Honor, I want to be very clear, we
`don't know precisely what could have been shared, right?
`THE COURT: That's right, you don't. So this is a
`fishing expedition.
`MR. HILGERS: No, not at all, your Honor.
`Respectfully, I disagree. If this was a fishing expedition, we
`could have filed this a year and a half ago. We don't to want
`be -- we have as many obligations as they do. We have --
`there's dispositive motions coming up, there's discovery. This
`is not an issue we would bring a year and a half into the case
`with nothing more. But the reality is -- and that's why we
`didn't bring -- because, your Honor, an issue with the
`privilege, they said, Look, you can't get any of these
`communications.
`Now the protective order motion, the orders that are
`out there, I know they're fact specific, your Honor, but the
`Vans case is very closely on point. The GI Holdings case cited
`by the Vans case is very closely on point. They said, Look,
`when you have a former employee, this first principle, your
`
`Exhibit 1
`Page 16
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 254-3 Filed 01/29/20 PageID.22962 Page 14 of
` 23
`
` 13
`
` 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
`
`Honor, goes to the core of our motion for the protective order
`itself. It's not about actual disclosure. If you're in actual
`disclosure, you are more in a potential disqualification. We
`are affirmatively not in that world, for all the reasons that
`your Honor just articulated. I can't show you a privileged
`document, but what I can show you without -- with the degrading
`and the erosion of the assurances that we thought we had is the
`problem that has been articulated in the cases we cited, which
`is, if you have a layperson who has access to privileged
`information -- and we've -- in our papers, all six of those
`individuals did, and they go to an adversary firm without a
`protection, those individuals by no bad intent or no malicious
`intent, there's a high likelihood they will share information.
`THE COURT: You have known this from day one. You
`have known this --
`MR. HILGERS: You're right.
`THE COURT: -- from day one. These people are not a
`surprise. These are the principles of this company. And, in
`essence, the way I read your motion, they would never be able
`to have counsel because to be a defendant in a deposition, they
`would have to be talking to their attorney and could
`potentially disclose attorney/client privileged information.
`And that cannot be the law. That is not the law. And I don't
`think you're arguing that's the law, but that's effectively
`what you're asking to have happen.
`
`Exhibit 1
`Page 17
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 254-3 Filed 01/29/20 PageID.22963 Page 15 of
` 23
`
` 14
`
` 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
`
`MR. HILGERS: You are correct that I'm not arguing
`that that is the law, but I respectfully disagree that is not
`what we're ultimately saying. The motion that -- the relief
`we're seeking at this moment is essentially what we thought we
`had on November 7th, which was only: Don't share our
`information, privileged information, with Alphatec or its
`counsel. That's a right that we --
`THE COURT: Without the what?
`MR. HILGERS: With Alphatec or its counsel. That's
`the relief I'm seeking here today. Now, you're absolutely
`right, your Honor, we did know about this.
`THE COURT: And, again, I'm asking you: What is your
`evidence? Evidence, not suspicions, not concerns, not oh, I
`have an uncomfortable feeling, but your evidence that they have
`violated their word that after two years of having Mr. Hunsaker
`over there be at numerous depositions, be highly involved in
`this case, you suddenly have some justification for asking this
`Court to cut off their attorney/client relationship and get
`some master to look through all of their privileged
`correspondence and communications to determine that your
`suspicions, concerns, and the fact that they were not -- I
`don't know. I don't want what you wanted them to say to you
`when Ms. Howell showed up at this deposition that you felt was
`not sufficient to satisfy your and Mr. Malone's concerns that
`somehow she was going behind the table and telling them
`
`Exhibit 1
`Page 18
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 254-3 Filed 01/29/20 PageID.22964 Page 16 of
` 23
`
` 15
`
` 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
`
`privileged information. All I have are accusations without any
`substance.
`MR. HILGERS: Well, let me take a step back, your
`Honor. The whole reason we didn't file the motion is because
`we were comfortable with their assertions.
`THE COURT: And you're not comfortable now?
`MR. HILGERS: The whole reason --
`THE COURT: And you're not comfortable now because she
`came to a deposition?
`MR. HILGERS: And not just that, your Honor, it was
`the deposition, that she came there, that she wouldn't leave
`initially upon request. I understand your Honor's concerns
`about the deposition transcript, but one of our employees and
`witnesses is telling us she's directing this. Third, the
`response --
`THE COURT: And, again, the "directing this," is there
`a portion of this transcript that you're relying on that they
`didn't give me because if oh, the pivotal question was after he
`responded that his role and his responsibilities included
`getting information for marketing needs, and the question was,
`does this role fall under marketing, that seems like an awfully
`easy sort of connection for anyone to have made as a follow-up
`question that didn't require any inside information.
`MR. HILGERS: Your Honor, I read it the same way, but
`I didn't -- the whole point of that is, the reason it looks
`
`Exhibit 1
`Page 19
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 254-3 Filed 01/29/20 PageID.22965 Page 17 of
` 23
`
` 16
`
` 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
`
`different, your Honor, is Mr. Malone works at NuVasive.
`THE COURT: Okay. This is your last chance to give me
`something concrete. Do you have anything concrete?
`MR. HILGERS: Your Honor, I've -- the reasons for why
`we don't think the motion -- the motion for protective order
`should be granted don't have -- we don't have evidence of some
`privileged information.
`THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Sit down.
`Do you have anything you want to say?
`MS. WICKRAMASEKERA: Not unless your Honor has any
`questions for me.
`THE COURT: No. The motion for this ex parte --
`MR. TRIPODI: Your Honor.
`THE COURT: It's denied.
`MR. TRIPODI: May I be heard, please?
`THE COURT: No. No. I've heard enough. I've read
`everything you've submitted. You brought this ex parte. You
`wanted it ruled quickly. I am not hearing any more argument on
`this. The motion for this ex parte protective order --
`MR. TRIPODI: Your Honor, if I may? I was at the
`deposition. If I may? So -- and Mr. Hilgers is right, up
`until November 7th, we had been given unequivocal --
`THE COURT: Do you have something concrete to tell me?
`MR. TRIPODI: Ms. Howell was actively using her
`electronic device.
`
`Exhibit 1
`Page 20
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 254-3 Filed 01/29/20 PageID.22966 Page 18 of
` 23
`
` 17
`
` 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
`
`THE COURT: And was she shoe shopping for Christmas?
`MR. TRIPODI: She was using her electronic device
`while asking questions. Mr. Malone raised the issue, It looks
`like Ms. Howell is texting Ms. Wickramasekera, that they are
`having an ongoing conversation. It was very disturbing. What
`was she doing there?
`THE COURT: Even if they were, so what?
`MR. TRIPODI: Because the law says -- and this is the
`part that I think we're missing in all this, Ms. Howell doesn't
`know the difference between what she knows because it's
`NuVasive confidential information and what she knows from
`litigation support. And by having her as a litigation
`associate at the deposition, there's no way --
`THE COURT: Okay. Wait, wait, wait. You are --
`again, that is your label you're putting on a client
`representative at a deposition calling her --
`MR. TRIPODI: I --
`THE COURT: Counsel, do not interrupt me.
`MR. TRIPODI: Sure.
`THE COURT: Because I'm still waiting for concrete
`information. I saw that in the papers that they were
`purportedly texting to each other, and yet, in light of that, I
`still don't know that the fact that they were texting suggests
`that there was privileged information being shared in light of
`the scope of the questions being asked.
`
`Exhibit 1
`Page 21
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 254-3 Filed 01/29/20 PageID.22967 Page 19 of
` 23
`
` 18
`
` 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
`
`MR. TRIPODI: It's not about privileged information,
`your Honor. I don't have to prove that privileged information
`changed hands to ask for a protective order. It is a risk that
`in seeking information from Ms. Howell that she will provide
`that information that all the cases are concerned about.
`THE COURT: All right. Thank you. I've heard the
`argument. The request is denied. At this late date in this
`case, knowing all these people have been consulting with
`counsel from the beginning, that you have a protective order in
`place that addressed these issues, that counsel has represented
`to you that they are following their ethical responsibilities,
`and you have asserted nothing more than vague suspicions, and
`discomfort that has no concrete evidence that any violations
`have taken place, I find it an insult to Alphatec's counsel
`that you are arguing -- Counsel, sit down, because I'm not
`hearing any more argument on this. We're done.
`MR. TRIPODI: Thank you, your Honor.
`THE COURT: So the motion for this protective order
`and for the special master is denied.
`We don't need to address your motion to stay. All of
`the discovery will proceed as scheduled. Can you still meet
`your discovery deadlines?
`MS. WICKRAMASEKERA: We can, your Honor.
`THE COURT: All right. There is an outstanding
`motion, discovery motion, in front of Judge Dembin involving
`
`Exhibit 1
`Page 22
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 254-3 Filed 01/29/20 PageID.22968 Page 20 of
` 23
`
` 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
`
`document production. I looked at that. He has a lot of
`history with that. I was not going to take it out of his hands
`to do it. I have contacted his chambers and asked him to
`address that motion promptly. So I will reiterate that with
`him today and hopefully you will have a decision quickly on
`what has to or doesn't have to be produced for that deposition
`so it can go forward.
`You may continue to represent all of these people in
`this case, and I trust that counsel is continuing to abide by
`their representations that they are not eliciting
`attorney/client privileged information in this case or using
`confidential information that you're not otherwise entitled to
`discuss with any of these individuals.
`And unless there is something concrete shown at some
`time, and it's a little late now because, frankly, your
`privileged argument could be deemed just waived and the
`privilege waived given how long these people have been in
`communication with each other. And if you don't think you have
`taken adequate steps to protect your privileged information,
`then it may be just a little too late, Counsel.
`Yes?
`MS. WICKRAMASEKERA: I would like to correct one
`statement I made in terms of us completing discovery. We can
`complete discovery as is currently discussed. NuVasive filed a
`motion, I think, two weeks ago -- or a week ago also about an
`
`Exhibit 1
`Page 23
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 254-3 Filed 01/29/20 PageID.22969 Page 21 of
` 23
`
` 20
`
` 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
`
`hour before our Thursday conference, subpoenaed four additional
`third parties, and they filed a motion to expand discovery to
`get more discovery and more depositions beyond the federal
`limits allowed. And so if that --
`THE COURT: Why is that coming so late?
`MR. TRIPODI: Judge Dembin told us not to come to the
`Court and ask for more deposition time until we had exhausted
`what we were already allocated.
`THE COURT: Right. But isn't your discovery cutoff
`like tomorrow?
`MS. WICKRAMASEKERA: In one week.
`MR. TRIPODI: Based on your Honor's order, we
`understood the discovery cutoff to now be the same day as the
`dispositive motion, which is January 17th.
`MS. WICKRAMASEKERA: Your Honor, that was not our
`understanding. Our understanding is that discovery cutoff is
`still next Friday as your Honor ruled, except that if we need
`to have depositions after that date to accommodate them, we
`could. However, what they've done is they've subpoenaed and
`they've filed a motion to get additional depositions from
`primarily former NuVasive people who were also former Alphatec
`people. So they've even subpoenaed --
`THE COURT: Were these subpoenas issued timely with
`the discovery cutoff you all knew that you had?
`MS. WICKRAMASEKERA: They were issued within the
`
`Exhibit 1
`Page 24
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 254-3 Filed 01/29/20 PageID.22970 Page 22 of
` 23
`
` 21
`
` 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
`
`discovery period because discovery ends next week. However,
`it's beyond the limits.
`THE COURT: I'm going to allow it then. I understand
`that they issued the subpoenas and they have to take place
`after the cutoff, but since the Court did expand it, I'm not
`going to decline them from having those depos.
`MS. WICKRAMASEKERA: Okay. Well, we do have relevance
`and other issues with those subpoenas, and there's a motion.
`THE COURT: Then deal with those with Judge Dembin
`because, again, he has more of the scope of the discovery
`history in the case than I do.
`MS. WICKRAMASEKERA: Okay. Thank you, your Honor.
`THE COURT: With regard to a sanction, the Court finds
`it appropriate to reimburse Alphatec for the cost of preparing
`their opposition to this motion.
`Be conservative, please, with that. But I will award
`you recovery of the fees that you expended to deal with this
`motion, because the Court finds it without merit.
`MS. WICKRAMASEKERA: Thank you, your Honor.
`THE COURT: All right. That's all for today.
`(Court in recess at 9:25 a.m.)
`*** End of requested transcript ***
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1
`Page 25
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 254-3 Filed 01/29/20 PageID.22971 Page 23 of
` 23
`
` 22
`
`CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER
`
`
`
`I, Mauralee Ramirez, Federal official Court Reporter,
`in and for the United States District Court for the Southern
`District of California, do hereby certify that pursuant to
`Section 753, Title 28, United States Code that the foregoing is
`a true and correct transcript of the stenographically reported
`proceedings held in the above-entitled matter and that the
`transcript page format is in conformance with the regulations
`of the Judicial Conference of the United States.
`
` Dated this 13th day of December 2019.
`
`/S/ Mauralee Ramirez________________
`Mauralee Ramirez, CSR No. 11674, RPR
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`
`
`
`
` 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
`
`Exhibit 1
`Page 26
`
`
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
