Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 350-2 Filed 11/06/21 PageID.32032 Page 1 of 13
`
`EXHIBIT 2
`
`DECLARATION OF TRENT D. TANNER
`IN SUPPORT OF
`NUVASIVE'S OPPOSITION TO
`DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS IN LIMINE NOS. 1-10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 2
`
`DECLARATION OF TRENT D. TANNER
`IN SUPPORT OF
`NUVASIVE'S OPPOSITION TO
`DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS IN LIMINE NOS. 1-10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 350-2 Filed 11/06/21 PageID.32033 Page 2 of 13
`
`Case 5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document 1622 Filed 04/07/14 Page 1 of 231
`
`268
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`C-12-00630 LHK
`SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA
`APRIL 1, 2014
`VOLUME 2
`PAGES 268-497
`
`)))))))))))))))))
`
`APPLE INC., A CALIFORNIA
`CORPORATION,
`
`PLAINTIFF,
`
`VS.
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`A KOREAN BUSINESS ENTITY;
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC., A NEW YORK CORPORATION;
`SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS
`AMERICA, LLC, A DELAWARE
`LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY,
`DEFENDANTS.
`
`TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE LUCY H. KOH
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`APPEARANCES ON NEXT PAGE
`
`OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS:
`
`LEE-ANNE SHORTRIDGE, CSR, CRR
`CERTIFICATE NUMBER 9595
`IRENE RODRIGUEZ, CSR, CRR
`CERTIFICATE NUMBER 8074
`
`PROCEEDINGS RECORDED BY MECHANICAL STENOGRAPHY
`TRANSCRIPT PRODUCED WITH COMPUTER
`
`UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS
`
`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 2
`Page 6
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 350-2 Filed 11/06/21 PageID.32034 Page 3 of 13
`
`Case 5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document 1622 Filed 04/07/14 Page 2 of 231
`
`269
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S:
`FOR PLAINTIFF
`APPLE:
`
`MORRISON & FOERSTER
`BY: HAROLD J. MCELHINNY
` RACHEL KREVANS
`425 MARKET STREET
`SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94105
`
`FOR SAMSUNG:
`
`WILMER, CUTLER, PICKERING,
`HALE AND DORR
`BY: WILLIAM F. LEE
`60 STATE STREET
`BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02109
`BY: MARK D. SELWYN
`950 PAGE MILL ROAD
`PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 94304
`
`QUINN, EMANUEL, URQUHART & SULLIVAN
`BY: JOHN B. QUINN
` WILLIAM PRICE
`865 S. FIGUEROA STREET, FLOOR 10
`LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017
`BY: VICTORIA F. MAROULIS
` KEVIN B. JOHNSON
`555 TWIN DOLPHIN DRIVE
`SUITE 560
`REDWOOD SHORES, CALIFORNIA 94065
`
`UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS
`
`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 2
`Page 7
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 350-2 Filed 11/06/21 PageID.32035 Page 4 of 13
`
`Case 5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document 1622 Filed 04/07/14 Page 3 of 231
`
`270
`
`INDEX OF PROCEEDINGS
`OPENING STATEMENT BY MR. MCELHINNY
`OPENING STATEMENT BY MR. LEE
`OPENING STATEMENT BY MR. QUINN
`
`P. 298
`P. 338
`P. 351
`
`INDEX OF WITNESSES
`
`PLAINTIFF'S
`PHILIP SCHILLER
`DIRECT EXAM BY MR. MCELHINNY
`CROSS-EXAM BY MR. PRICE
`
`P. 417
`P. 475
`
`INDEX OF EXHIBITS
`MARKED
`
`ADMITTED
`
`PLAINTIFF'S
`118
`135A
`180
`1441
`113A
`127A
`133
`134
`143
`123
`
`DEFENDANT'S
`
`428
`429
`432
`436
`437
`439
`440
`441
`445
`461
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS
`
`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 2
`Page 8
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 350-2 Filed 11/06/21 PageID.32036 Page 5 of 13
`
`Case 5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document 1622 Filed 04/07/14 Page 4 of 231
`
`271
`
`SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA
`
`APRIL 1, 2014
`
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`(JURY OUT AT 9:02 A.M.)
`(JUROR ANDERSON PRESENT TELEPHONICALLY.)
`JUROR ANDERSON: THIS IS LAURA ANDERSON.
`THE CLERK: HI, MS. ANDERSON. WE'RE CALLING FROM THE
`COURTROOM.
`JUROR ANDERSON: HELLO.
`THE COURT: HI, MS. ANDERSON. TELL US WHAT IS
`HAPPENING TODAY.
`JUROR ANDERSON: I'M NOT FEELING WELL. I WOKE UP
`EARLY THIS MORNING WITH VOMITING AND DIARRHEA, AND IT'S BEEN
`GOING ON THROUGHOUT THE MORNING. I HAVE BEEN RIDING FROM
`MONTEREY TO SAN JOSE. I'VE HAD TO PULL OVER MULTIPLE TIMES.
`THE COURT: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THEN I -- IS THERE ANY
`OBJECTION TO EXCUSING MS. LAURA ANDERSON FOR HARDSHIP?
`MR. LEE: NONE FOR APPLE, YOUR HONOR.
`MR. QUINN: NOR FOR SAMSUNG.
`THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THEN, MS. ANDERSON, THANK YOU
`VERY MUCH FOR YOUR SERVICE. WE HOPE THAT YOU RECOVER QUICKLY,
`AND YOU HAVE FULFILLED YOUR JURY DUTY.
`JUROR ANDERSON: OKAY.
`THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
`JUROR ANDERSON: THANK YOU.
`THE COURT: THANK YOU. FEEL BETTER.
`
`UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS
`
`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 2
`Page 9
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 350-2 Filed 11/06/21 PageID.32037 Page 6 of 13
`
`Case 5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document 1622 Filed 04/07/14 Page 23 of 231
`
`290
`
`AND EMPLOYS TRAINED EXAMINERS WHO REVIEW APPLICATIONS FOR
`PATENTS.
`AFTER THE APPLICANT FILES THE APPLICATION, A PTO PATENT
`EXAMINER REVIEWS THE PATENT APPLICATION TO DETERMINE WHETHER
`THE CLAIMS ARE PATENTABLE AND WHETHER THE SPECIFICATION
`ADEQUATELY DESCRIBES THE INVENTION CLAIMED.
`IN EXAMINING A PATENT APPLICATION, THE PATENT EXAMINER
`REVIEWS RECORDS AVAILABLE TO THE PTO FOR WHAT IS REFERRED TO AS
`"PRIOR ART."
`THE EXAMINER ALSO WILL REVIEW PRIOR ART IF IT IS SUBMITTED
`TO THE PTO BY AN APPLICANT.
`PRIOR ART IS DEFINED BY LAW AND I WILL GIVE YOU, AT A
`LATER TIME, SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS AS TO WHAT CONSTITUTES PRIOR
`ART.
`
`HOWEVER, IN GENERAL, PRIOR ART INCLUDES THINGS THAT EXISTS
`BEFORE THE CLAIMED INVENTION, THAT WERE PUBLICLY KNOWN OR USED
`IN A PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE WAY IN THIS COUNTRY, OR THAT WERE
`PATENTED OR DESCRIBED IN A PUBLICATION IN ANY COUNTRY.
`THE EXAMINER CONSIDERS, AMONG OTHER THINGS, WHETHER EACH
`CLAIM DEFINES AN INVENTION THAT IS NEW, USEFUL, AND NOT OBVIOUS
`IN VIEW OF THE PRIOR ART. A PATENT LISTS THE PRIOR ART THAT
`THE EXAMINER CONSIDERED; THIS LIST IS CALLED THE "CITED
`PREFERENCES."
`AFTER THE PRIOR ART SEARCH AND EXAMINATION OF THE
`APPLICATION, THE PATENT EXAMINER THEN INFORMS THE APPLICANT IN
`
`UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS
`
`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 2
`Page 10
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 350-2 Filed 11/06/21 PageID.32038 Page 7 of 13
`
`Case 5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document 1622 Filed 04/07/14 Page 24 of 231
`
`291
`
`WRITING WHAT THE EXAMINER HAS FOUND AND WHETHER ANY CLAIM IS
`PATENTABLE, AND THUS WILL BE "ALLOWED."
`THIS WRITING FROM THE PATENT EXAMINER IS CALLED AN "OFFICE
`ACTION."
`IF THE EXAMINER REJECTS THE CLAIMS, THE APPLICANT THEN
`RESPONDS AND SOMETIMES CHANGES THE CLAIMS OR SUBMITS NEW
`CLAIMS.
`THIS PROCESS, WHICH TAKES PLACE ONLY BETWEEN THE EXAMINER
`AND THE PATENT APPLICANT, MAY GO BACK AND FORTH FOR SOME TIME
`UNTIL THE EXAMINER IS SATISFIED THAT THE APPLICATION AND CLAIMS
`MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A PATENT.
`THE PAPERS GENERATED DURING THIS TIME OF COMMUNICATING
`BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN THE PATENT EXAMINER AND THE APPLICANT
`MAKE UP WHAT IS CALLED THE "PROSECUTION HISTORY." ALL OF THIS
`MATERIAL BECOMES AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC NO LATER THAN THE DATE
`WHEN THE PATENT ISSUES.
`THE FACT THAT THE PTO GRANTS A PATENT DOES NOT NECESSARILY
`MEAN THAT ANY INVENTION CLAIMED IN THE PATENT, IN FACT,
`DESERVES THE PROTECTION OF A PATENT. FOR EXAMPLE, THE PTO MAY
`NOT HAVE HAD AVAILABLE TO IT ALL THE INFORMATION THAT WILL BE
`PRESENTED TO YOU.
`A PERSON ACCUSED OF INFRINGEMENT HAS THE RIGHT TO ARGUE
`HERE IN FEDERAL COURT THAT A CLAIMED INVENTION IN THE PATENT IS
`INVALID BECAUSE IT DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A PATENT.
`19.
`
`UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS
`
`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 2
`Page 11
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 350-2 Filed 11/06/21 PageID.32039 Page 8 of 13
`
`Case 5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document 1622 Filed 04/07/14 Page 25 of 231
`
`292
`
`THERE ARE SEVEN PATENTS ASSERTED IN THIS CASE.
`APPLE ACCUSES SAMSUNG OF INFRINGING UNITED STATES PATENT
`NUMBERS 5,946,647; 6,847,959; 7,761,414; 8,046,172.
`PATENTS ARE OFTEN REFERRED TO BY THEIR LAST THREE DIGITS,
`SO APPLE'S PATENTS MAY BE REFERRED TO IN SHORTHAND AS THE '647,
`'959, '414, '721, AND '172 PATENTS.
`SAMSUNG ACCUSES APPLE OF INFRINGING UNITED STATES PATENT
`NUMBERS 6,226,445 AND 5,579,239.
`SAMSUNG'S PATENTS MAY BE REFERRED TO IN SHORT HAPPENED AS
`THE 449 AND 239 PATENTS.
`TO HELP YOU FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE, I WILL NOW GIVE YOU A
`SUMMARY OF THE POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES WITH RESPECT TO THE
`PATENT CLAIMS.
`THE PARTIES IN THIS CASE ARE APPLE, INCORPORATED, WHICH WE
`WILL REFER TO AS "APPLE" AND SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS COMPANY
`LIMITED, SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INCORPORATED, AND SAMSUNG
`TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION, WHICH
`I WILL REFER TO COLLECTIVELY AS "SAMSUNG" UNLESS I THINK IT IS
`IMPORTANT TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THESE ENTITIES FOR THE
`PURPOSES OF A SPECIFIC INSTRUCTION.
`YOU MUST DECIDE THE CASE AS TO SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`COMPANY, SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, AND SAMSUNG
`TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA SEPARATELY REGARDLESS OF WHETHER I
`REFER TO THEM COLLECTIVELY AS "SAMSUNG" OR INDIVIDUALLY.
`THE CASE INVOLVES FIVE UNITED STATES PATENTS OWNED BY
`
`UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS
`
`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 2
`Page 12
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 350-2 Filed 11/06/21 PageID.32040 Page 9 of 13
`
`Case 5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document 1622 Filed 04/07/14 Page 26 of 231
`
`293
`
`APPLE AND TWO UNITED STATES PATENTS OWNED BY SAMSUNG.
`APPLE FILED THIS LAWSUIT AGAINST SAMSUNG SEEKING MONEY
`DAMAGES FROM SAMSUNG FOR ALLEGEDLY INFRINGING THE '647, '959,
`'414, '721, AND '172 PATENTS BY MAKING, IMPORTING, USING,
`SELLING, AND/OR OFFERING FOR SALE THE TABLET AND SMARTPHONE
`PRODUCTS THAT APPLE ARGUES ARE COVERED CLAIM 9 OF THE '647
`PATENT, CLAIM 25 OF THE '959 PATENT, CLAIM 20 OF THE '414
`PATENT, CLAIM 8 OF THE '721 PATENT, AND CLAIM 18 OF THE '172
`PATENT.
`APPLE ALSO ARGUES THAT SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS COMPANY
`ACTIVELY INDUCED SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. AND SAMSUNG
`TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA LLC TO INFRINGE.
`APPLE CONTENDS THAT SAMSUNG'S INFRINGEMENT HAS BEEN
`WILLFUL.
`SAMSUNG DENIES THAT IT HAS INFRINGED THE ASSERTED CLAIMS
`OF THE '647, '959, '414, AND '721 PATENTS AND ARGUES THAT, IN
`ADDITION, THE ASSERTED CLAIMS ARE INVALID. INVALIDITY IS A
`DEFENSE TO INFRINGEMENT.
`YOUR DUTY FOR APPLE'S '172 PATENT IS DIFFERENT FROM THE
`OTHER PATENTS. THE COURT HAS ALREADY FOUND THAT THE ADMIRE,
`GALAXY NEXUS, GALAXY NOTE (EXCLUDING ONE RELEASE), GALAXY SII
`(EXCLUDING ONE RELEASE), GALAXY SII EPIC 4G TOUCH (EXCLUDING
`ONE RELEASE), GALAXY SII SKYROCKET (EXCLUDING ONE RELEASE), AND
`STRATOSPHERE INFRINGE CLAIM 18 OF THE '172 PATENT. YOU NEED
`ONLY DETERMINE WHETHER CLAIM 18 IS INVALID.
`
`UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS
`
`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 2
`Page 13
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 350-2 Filed 11/06/21 PageID.32041 Page 10 of
`13
`Case 5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document 1622 Filed 04/07/14 Page 27 of 231
`
`294
`
`SAMSUNG HAS ALSO BROUGHT CLAIMS AGAINST APPLE FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT. SAMSUNG SEEKS MONEY DAMAGES FROM APPLE FOR
`ALLEGEDLY INFRINGING THE '449 AND '239 PATENTS BY MAKING,
`IMPORTING, USING, SELLING AND/OR OFFERING FOR SALE APPLE'S, 1,
`CERTAIN IPHONE AND IPOD TOUCH PRODUCTS THAT SAMSUNG ARGUES ARE
`COVERED BY CLAIM 27 OF THE '449 PATENT; AND, NUMBER 2, CERTAIN
`IPHONE AND IPAD PRODUCTS THAT SAMSUNG ARGUES ARE COVERED BY
`CLAIM 15 OF THE '239 PATENT.
`SAMSUNG ALSO CONTENDS THAT APPLE'S INFRINGEMENT HAS BEEN
`WILLFUL.
`APPLE DENIES THAT IT HAS INFRINGED THE CLAIMS ASSERTED BY
`SAMSUNG. APPLE DOES NOT ARGUE THAT SAMSUNG'S PATENTS ARE
`INVALID. THEREFORE, YOU NEED ONLY DETERMINE WHETHER THE '449
`AND THE '239 PATENTS ARE INFRINGED AND WHETHER THAT
`INFRINGEMENT HAS BEEN WILLFUL.
`IN THIS CASE, APPLE DOES NOT CONTEND THAT IT PRACTICES THE
`'414, '172 OR '959 PATENTS, AND SAMSUNG DOES NOT CONTEND THAT
`IT PRACTICES THE '449 PATENT.
`FOR EACH PARTY'S PATENT INFRINGEMENT CLAIMS AGAINST THE
`OTHER, THE FIRST ISSUE YOU WILL BE ASKED TO DECIDE IS WHETHER
`THE ALLEGED INFRINGER HAS INFRINGED THE CLAIMS OF THE PATENT
`HOLDER'S PATENTS. FOR APPLE'S PATENTS, YOU WILL ALSO BE ASKED
`TO DECIDE WHETHER THOSE PATENTS ARE VALID.
`IF YOU DECIDE THAT ANY CLAIM OF EITHER PARTY'S PATENTS HAS
`BEEN INFRINGED AND, FOR APPLE'S PATENTS, IS NOT INVALID, YOU
`
`UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS
`
`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 2
`Page 14
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 350-2 Filed 11/06/21 PageID.32042 Page 11 of
`13
`Case 5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document 1622 Filed 04/07/14 Page 28 of 231
`
`295
`
`WILL THEN NEED TO DECIDE ANY MONEY DAMAGES TO BE AWARDED TO THE
`PATENT HOLDER TO COMPENSATE IT FOR THE INFRINGEMENT.
`YOU WILL ALSO NEED TO MAKE A FINDING AS TO WHETHER THE
`INFRINGEMENT WAS WILLFUL.
`IF YOU DECIDE THAT ANY INFRINGEMENT WAS WILLFUL, THAT
`DECISION SHOULD NOT AFFECT ANY DAMAGE AWARD YOU GIVE. I WILL
`TAKE WILLFULNESS INTO ACCOUNT LATER.
`BEFORE YOU DECIDE WHETHER EITHER PARTY HAS INFRINGED THE
`OTHER'S PATENTS, OR WHETHER APPLE'S PATENTS ARE INVALID, YOU
`WILL NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE PATENT CLAIMS. AS I MENTIONED, THE
`PATENT CLAIMS ARE NUMBERED SENTENCES AT THE END OF THE PATENT
`THAT DESCRIBE THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PATENT'S PROTECTION.
`IT IS MY JOB AS JUDGE TO EXPLAIN TO YOU THE MEANING OF ANY
`LANGUAGE IN THE CLAIMS THAT NEEDS INTERPRETER.
`I HAVE ALREADY DETERMINED THE MEANING OF CERTAIN TERMS OF
`THE CLAIMS OF SOME OF THE PATENTS AT ISSUE. YOU WILL BE ASKED
`TO APPLY MY DEFINITIONS OF THESE TERMS IN THIS CASE.
`HOWEVER, MY INTERPRETATION OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE CLAIMS
`SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AS AN INDICATION THAT I HAVE A VIEW
`REGARDING ISSUES, SUCH AS INFRINGEMENT (EXCEPT FOR APPLE'S '172
`PATENT) AND INVALIDITY. THOSE ISSUES ARE YOURS TO DECIDE.
`I WILL PROVIDE YOU WITH MORE DETAILED INSTRUCTIONS ON THE
`MEANING OF THE CLAIMS BEFORE YOU RETIRE TO DELIBERATE YOUR
`VERDICT.
`FINAL INSTRUCTION.
`
`UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS
`
`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 2
`Page 15
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 350-2 Filed 11/06/21 PageID.32043 Page 12 of
`13
`Case 5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document 1622 Filed 04/07/14 Page 230 of 231
`CROSS SCHILLER
`
`497
`
`CHAPERONE.
`MR. MCELHINNY: ALL RIGHT.
`(PAUSE IN PROCEEDINGS.)
`MR. MCELHINNY: YOUR HONOR, THIS IS MR. CHRISTIE.
`HE'LL BE OUR NEXT WITNESS.
`THE COURT: OKAY.
`MR. MCELHINNY: YOU'LL HAVE WATER, YOU'LL HAVE YOUR
`OWN SET OF BINDERS. BE CAREFUL, DON'T ROLL OFF.
`(DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD.)
`THE WITNESS: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I APPRECIATE IT.
`THE COURT: OKAY.
`(THE EVENING RECESS WAS TAKEN AT 4:35 P.M.)
`
`UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS
`
`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 2
`Page 16
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 350-2 Filed 11/06/21 PageID.32044 Page 13 of
`13
`
`Case 5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document 1622 Filed 04/07/14 Page 231 of 231
`
`CERTIFICATE OF REPORTERS
`
`WE, THE UNDERSIGNED OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS OF THE
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
`CALIFORNIA, 280 SOUTH FIRST STREET, SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA, DO
`HEREBY CERTIFY:
`THAT THE FOREGOING TRANSCRIPT, CERTIFICATE INCLUSIVE, IS
`A CORRECT TRANSCRIPT FROM THE RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE
`ABOVE-ENTITLED MATTER.
`
`______________________________
`IRENE RODRIGUEZ, CSR, CRR
`CERTIFICATE NUMBER 8076
`
`_______________________________
`LEE-ANNE SHORTRIDGE, CSR, CRR
`CERTIFICATE NUMBER 9595
`
`DATED: APRIL 1, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS
`
`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 2
`Page 17
`
`
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
