Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 470 Filed 02/04/22 Page 1 of 6 PagelD #: 27144
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 470 Filed 02/04/22 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 27144
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE
`DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`) )
`
`ELM 3DS INNOVATIONS, LLC.,
`
`)
`) CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-CV-1430-LPS-JLH
`
`) )
`
`) )
`
`)
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`,
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICSCoO., LTD., ET AL,
`
`Defendant.
`
`SUSAN R. BROWN’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AS TO SUBPOENA FOR
`DOCUMENTS FROM DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE CASE AND SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION
`UNILATERALLY SCHEDULED BY SAMSUNG ELECTRONICSCO., LTD.
`
`SUSAN R. BROWN,in properperson, herebyfiles this, her Motion for Protective Order as to Subpoena
`
`for Documents from Dissolution of Marriage Case and Subpoena for Deposition Unilaterally Scheduled by
`
`SamsungElectronics Co., Ltd., and alleges as follows:
`
`Background
`
`1.
`
`Counsel for the Defendant, SAMSUNG ELECTRONICSCO., LTD., ET AL (hereinafter referred
`
`to as “Defendant”), has issued a Subpoena to Produce Documents and for Testimony of the undersigned. This
`
`Subpoenawasserved in Florida and emanatesfrom a case that is pending in Delaware District court. Defendant,
`
`Samsung’s, counsel appear to be located in California.
`
`2.
`
`The undersignedis a marital and family lawyerin the state of Florida. While the undersignedis
`
`admitted to Florida’s Southern District Federal Court, the undersigned is not admitted to the Federal Court in
`
`Delaware, where this Motion is being filed. Accordingly, the undersigned is filing this Motion as a pro se
`
`individual, as opposed to an attorney.
`
`3.
`
`The undersigned represented Julia Leedy, who appears not to be a party to this action, in a
`
`dissolution of marriage case in Broward County, Florida in 2012.
`
`4,
`
`The undersigned was served with a Subpoena for Deposition and records seeking documents and
`
`information regarding patent valuationsrelating to Julia and Glenn Leedy’s dissolution of marriage case that was
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 470 Filed 02/04/22 Page 2 of 6 PagelD #: 27145
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 470 Filed 02/04/22 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 27145
`
`filed in 2011 and settled via Marital Settlement Agreementover nine years ago. Thedissolution of marriage case
`
`ended with the January 7, 2013 Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage.
`
`5.
`
`The undersigned contacted Mrs. Leedy prior to filing this response. Mrs. Leedy advised the
`
`undersigned that she objects to production of her dissolution of marriage records (that are not otherwise in the
`
`public record). Because Mrs. Leedy is not a party to this action, this Objection is Mrs. Leedy’s only vehicle to
`
`object to her private information regarding a divorce case that was filed over ten years ago being provided to
`
`counsel for Samsung. The undersigned has already advised counsel for Samsung that she does not have any
`
`patent valuationsor records that actually value the patents owned by Plaintiff. Plaintiff was Mr. and Mrs. Leedy’s
`
`family business which Mr. Leedy was left in control of after the dissolution of marriage.
`
`Objection to Documents Requested
`
`6.
`
`The Subpoena on the undersigned is directed to the issue of valuation of patents in Mr. and Mrs.
`
`Leedy’s dissolution of marriage case. As reflected by the Marital Settlement Agreement, which counsel for
`
`Samsungclearly has a copy of, the patents in question were never valued because of the impossibility of valuing
`
`groups of “unsold”patents that include both patents created during the parties’ marriage and patents created after
`
`the cutoff date for defining assets as marital (which is the date offiling a dissolution of marriage action). As
`
`reflected in the Marital Settlement Agreementthat Mr. and Mrs. Leedy entered into, the parties thereto agreed that
`
`Mr. Leedy would needto perform “non-marital” work and spend “non-marital” moneyin orderto sell the patents.
`
`The valuation issue in the dissolution of marriage case was settled by the agreement for the implementation of
`
`different formulas that would control the marital portion of various patent groups. Because of the agreementto
`
`use these formulas, no documents exist that would showthe value of any patentor patent group.
`
`7.
`
`In addition, the dissolution of marriage case was settled over nine years ago, and any valuation
`
`agreed to in 2012 would not be determinative ofthe values ofthe patents in 2022.
`
`8.
`
`Besides the Marital Settlement Agreement, the only documentthat the undersigned found in the
`
`file available to her (which is a digital file) that addressed the valuation issue, is the transcript of the Wife’s
`
`deposition. The Broward County court docket reflects that the Wife’s deposition wasneverfiled. Any testimony
`
`of the Wife in her unfiled deposition was clearly not relied on in the Marital Settlement Agreement that included
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 470 Filed 02/04/22 Page 3 of 6 PagelD #: 27146
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 470 Filed 02/04/22 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 27146
`
`formulas for valuation ofthe different patent groups. From the face of the Marital Settlement Agreement,it is
`
`clear that the valuation formulas were not based on the Wife’s personal opinion ofthe valueofthe marital business,
`
`which is the only valuation issue that she testified to. A copy of relevant pages of Mrs. Leedy’s deposition
`
`transcript is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit “A”.
`
`9.
`
`Rule 502 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure defines the work productprivilege as tangible
`
`material (or its intangible equivalent) prepared in anticipationoflitigation or fortrial.
`
`10.
`
`The Wife’s unfiled deposition appears to fall under this definition since it was tangible material
`
`preparedin anticipationoflitigation andtrial.
`
`li.
`
`Because of the attorney-client privilege, the undersigned objects to providing a copy of the
`
`deposition transcript, which appearsto fall under the definition of work product.
`
`12.
`
`The undersigned is required to err on the side of caution and object to providing possibly
`
`privileged documents. This Court should determine whether the work product privilege applies prior to requiring
`
`the production of the unfiled unused deposition transcript.
`
`13.
`
`The undersigned has communicated with Mrs. Leedy, who objects to personal information from
`
`her dissolution of marriage case (that involves other issues besides the patents) dating back to 2011 and 2012
`
`being providedto an entity involved in litigation involving her late Husband’s business.
`
`Subpoena for the Undersigned’s Testimony via Deposition
`
`14,
`
`The February 15, 2022 deposition was not coordinated and was unilaterally scheduled by
`
`Defendant.
`
`15.
`
`16,
`
`There is no location for the deposition. There is no Zoom link provided.
`
`The Federal Rules provide limitations on the locations of witness depositions. Certainly, the
`
`undersigned is not required to travel to submit to a deposition. If a deposition occurs, the undersigned requests
`
`that it be taken by Zoom on a datethat is coordinated in advance.
`
`17.
`
`Whilethe undersigned doesnot recall much detail from a case almostten years ago, the discovery
`
`requested by Defendant places the undersigned in a position where she is being asked to disclose potentially
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 470 Filed 02/04/22 Page 4 of 6 PagelD #: 27147
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 470 Filed 02/04/22 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 27147
`
`confidential settlement negotiations in a case. The Marital Settlement Agreement speaksfor itself as to the lack
`
`of a specific valuation of patents.
`
`Relief Sought
`
`18.
`
`For the reasons stated above, this Honorable Court should enter an Order of Protectionrelative to
`
`the taking of the deposition of Susan R. Brown on February 15, 2022 and production of the unfiled deposition
`
`transcript.
`
`19,
`
`This court should also enter an Order of Protection as to production of Mrs. Leedy’s unfiled
`
`deposition transcript.
`
`20.
`
`The Defendant has improperly scheduled the depositionof the undersigned, and the Court should
`
`award the undersigned attorney’s fees.
`
`WHEREFORE, SUSAN R. BROWN respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter an Order of
`
`Protection relative to the Defendant’s request to take her deposition on February 15, 2022, production of the
`
`unfiled deposition transcript, award attorney’s fees and costs relative to the prosecution of this Motion, as well as
`
`grant such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper under the circumstances.
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`| HEREBY CERTIFYt rd and correct copy ofthe foregoing wasserved to all interested parties on
`
`the attached service list on this
`
`day of February, 2022.
`
`SUSAN R. BROWN, P.A.
`8211 W. Broward Blvd., PH-4
`Plantation, Florida 33324
`Susan(@susanbrownpa.com
`Staff(@susanbrownpa.com
`
`(954) 474-9500
`
`
`SUSAN R. BROWN
`
`Florida Bar No. 440795
`
`

`

`* Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 470 Filed 02/04/22 Page 5 of 6 PagelD #: 27148
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 470 Filed 02/04/22 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 27148
`Counsel
`for Samsung
`Adam W. Poff
`Pilar G. Kraman
`
`YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT &
`TAYLOR, LLP
`Rodney Square
`1000 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`apoff@ycst.com
`pkraman@ycst.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Samsung Electronics
`Co., Ltd., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.,
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and
`Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Allan M. Soobert
`Naveen Modi
`Phillip W. Citroen
`Koichiro Kidokoro
`
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`875 15th street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`
`allansoobert@paulhastings.com
`naveenmodi@paulhastings.com
`phillipcitroen@paulhastings.com
`koichirokidokoro@paulhastings.co
`
`m Y
`
`ar R. Chaikovsky
`Philip Ou
`Joseph J. Rumpler,Il
`PAUL HASTINGSLLP
`1 11 7 California Avenue
`94304
`Palo
`Alto,
`CA
`yarchaikovsky@paulhastings.com
`philipou@paulhastings.com
`josephrumpler@paulhastings.com
`
`Elizabeth L. Brann
`
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`4747 Executive Drive, 12th Floor
`San
`Diego,
`CA
`92121
`elizabethbrann@paulhastings.com
`
`Soyoung Jung
`PAUL HASTINGSLLP515 8S.
`FlowerStreet, 25th Floor
`90071
`Los
`Angeles,
`CA
`soyoungjung@paulhastings.com
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 470 Filed 02/04/22 Page 6 of 6 PagelD #: 27149
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 470 Filed 02/04/22 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 27149
`
`Counsel for Elm 3DS
`
`Brian E. Farnan
`
`Farnan LLP
`919 N. Market St., 12" Floor
`Wilmingon, DE 19801
`bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
`
`Joseph J. Farnan,Jr.
`Farnan LLP
`919N.Market St., 12" Floor
`Wilmingon, DE 19801
`farnan@farnanlaw.com
`
`Michael J. Farnan
`
`Farnan LLP
`919 N. Market St., 12" Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`mfarnan@farnanlaw.com
`
`Matthew R. Ford
`Matthew.ford@bartlit-beck.com
`
`Katherine L.I. Hacker
`Kat.hacker(@bartlitbeck.com
`
`John M. Hughes
`John.hughes@bartlitbeck.com
`
`Nosson D. Knobloch
`Nosson.knobloch@bartlit-beck.com
`
`