Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 478 Filed 02/22/22 Page 1 of 7 PagelD #: 27890
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 478 Filed 02/22/22 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 27890
`SEL
`FEB 22 2022
`Se
`
`
`DISTRICTOFDELAWARE
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`ELM 3DS INNOVATIONS,LLC.,
`
`)
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`ve
`
`) CIVIL ACTIONNO.14-CV-1430-LPS-JLH
`)
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICSCO., LTD., ET AL,
`
`)
`
`Defendant.
`ae)
`
`SUSAN R. BROWN’S_AMENDED MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AS TO SUBPOENA FOR
`DOCUMENTS FROM DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE CASE AND SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION
`
`——_—_—_—_A——__ENERAGECASEANDSUBPOENAFORDEPOSITION
`UNILATERALLY SCHEDULED BY SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`
`SUSAN R. BROWN,in properperson, herebyfiles this, her Amended Motion for Protective Orderas to
`
`Subpoena for Documents from Dissolution ofMarriage Case and Subpoenafor Deposition Unilaterally Scheduled
`
`by SamsungElectronics Co., Ltd., and alleges as follows:
`
`Background
`
`1,
`
`Counsel for the Defendant, SAMSUNG ELECTRONICSCO., LTD., ET AL (hereinafterreferred
`
`to as “Defendant”), has issued a Subpoena to Produce Documents and for Testimony of the undersigned. This
`
`Subpoenawas served in Florida and emanates from a casethat is pending in Delaware District court. Defendant,
`
`Samsung’s, counsel appear to belocated in California.
`
`The undersigned is a marital and family lawyer in the state ofFlorida. While the undersignedis
`2.
`admittedto Florida’s Southem 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 valuations relating to Julia and Glenn Leedy’s dissolution ofmarriage case that was
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 478 Filed 02/22/22 Page 2 of 7 PagelD #: 27891
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 478 Filed 02/22/22 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 27891
`
`filed in 2011 and settled via Marital Settlement Agreementover nine years ago. The dissolution ofmarriage case
`ended with the January 7, 2013 Final JudgmentofDissolution ofMarriage.
`
`The undersigned communicated with Mrs. Leedy immediately prior to filing this response. Mrs.
`5.
`Leedy advised the undersigned that she objects to production ofher dissolution ofmarriage 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 Samsungthat she does not
`have anypatent valuations or records that actually value the patents owned by Plaintiff. Plaintiff was Mr. and
`
`Mrs. Leedy’s family business which Mr. Leedy was left in controlofafterthe dissolution ofmarriage.
`
`Objection to Documents Requested
`
`6.
`
`The Subpoena onthe undersignedis directed to the issue ofvaluation ofpatents in Mr. and Mrs.
`
`Leedy’s dissolution of marriage case. As reflected by the Marital Settlement Agreement, which counsel for
`Samsungclearly has a copyof, the patents in question were never valued becauseofthe impossibility ofvaluing
`groupsof“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 of filing 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” money in orderto sell the patents.
`The valuation issue in the dissolution of marriage case was settled by the agreement for the implementation of
`different formulas thatwould control the marital portion ofvarious patent groups. Because oftheagreement to
`use these formulas,
`nno documents ¢exist that wouldshow the value ofany patent or 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 of the valuesofthe patents in 2022.
`
`8.
`
`Besides the Marital Settlement Agreement, the only documentthat the undersigned foundin the
`
`file available to her (which is a digital file) that addressed the valuation issue, is the transcript ofthe Wife’s
`
`deposition. The Broward County court docketreflects that the Wife’s deposition was neverfiled. Any
`
`testimony ofthe Wife in her unfiled deposition was clearly not relied on in the Marital Settlement Agreement
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 478 Filed 02/22/22 Page 3 of 7 PagelD #: 27892
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 478 Filed 02/22/22 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 27892
`
`that included formulas for valuation ofthe different patent groups. From the face ofthe Marital Settlement
`
`Agreement, it is clear that the settlement for equitable distribution ofPlaintiff Elm 3DS Innovations was based
`
`on several formulas that used “coverture fractions.” The valuation was clearly not based on Mrs. Leedy’s
`
`personal opinionofthe patents that Plaintiff owned.!
`
`Rule 502 ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure defines the work productprivilege as tangible
`9.
`material(or its intangible equivalent) prepared in anticipation oflitigation orfortrial.
`
`10.
`
`The Wife’s unfiled deposition appears to fall under this definition since it was tangible material
`
`preparedin anticipation oflitigation andtrial.
`
`Because of the attorney-client privilege, the undersigned objects to providing a copy of the
`11.
`deposition transcript, which appears to fall under the definition ofwork product.
`
`The undersigned is required to err on the side of caution and object to providing possibly
`12.
`privileged documents. This Court should determine whetherthe work product privilege applies prior to requiring
`the production ofthe 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 involvedinlitigation involving her late Husband’s business.
`
`Subpoenafor the Undersigned’s Testimony via Deposition
`
`The February 15, 2022 deposition was not coordinated and was unilaterally scheduled by
`
`14,
`Defendant.
`
`15.
`
`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
`16.
`undersignedis not required to travel to submit to a deposition. If a deposition occurs, the undersigned requests
`that it be taken by Zoom onadatethat is coordinated in advance.
`
`! The reference to attached pages ofMrs. Leedy’s deposition has been deleted. Its inclusion was an error that was based on
`the erroneoususe ofan earlier draft ofthis motion. (prepared prior to the undersigned communicating with Mrs. Leedy).
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 478 Filed 02/22/22 Page 4 of 7 PagelD #: 27893
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 478 Filed 02/22/22 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 27893
`
`17.
`
`While the undersigned does not recall much detail from a case almost ten years ago, the discovery
`
`requested by Defendantplaces the undersigned in a position where she is being asked to disclose potentially
`
`confidential settlement negotiations in a case. The Marital Settlement Agreement speaksforitself as to the lack
`
`of a specific valuation ofpatents.
`
`Relief Sought
`
`18.
`
`Forthe reasons stated above, this Honorable Court should enter an Order ofProtection relative 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 deposition ofthe 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 andcosts relative to the prosecution of this Motion, as well as
`
`grant such other and furtherrelief as this Court deemsjust and proper underthe circumstances.
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I HEREBY CERTIFYthata frue and correct copy ofthe foregoing was servedto all interested parties on
`the attached service list ontif
`day ofFebruary, 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 478 Filed 02/22/22 Page 5 of 7 PagelD #: 27894
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 478 Filed 02/22/22 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 27894
`?
`
`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
`
`Counsel
`
`for Samsung
`
`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
`1117 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 HASTINGSLLP 515 S.
`FlowerStreet, 25th Floor
`90071
`Los
`Angeles,
`CA
`soyoungjung@paulhastings.com
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 478 Filed 02/22/22 Page 6 of 7 PagelD #: 27895
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 478 Filed 02/22/22 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 27895
`
`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
`919 N. 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
`
`

`

`ae2/22/22 Page7‘|
`i
`
` i
`
`8211 W. Broward Blvd., PH-4
`Plantation, Florida 33324
`
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 478 Filed 02/22/22 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 27896
`27897.530
`LAW OFFICES114-6"
`US POSTAGE 3";
`SUSAN R. BROWN, PA.
`FIRST-CLASS=
`FROM 33324
`
`€2090S8000S290
`
`reeitsoe 3
`standicia
`
`port Prete
`Ly Utes
`
`ho
`
`
`
`FEB 22 2022
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF DELAWAWARE
`
`7019 2280 0001 7b0e b1l3
`
`Leff eegpegelad peg h peg [pg |[pfeterengyeg tp Elly [Upp tty
`
`Office of the Clerk
`United States District Court
`844 N. King Street Unit 18
`Wilmington DE 19801-3570
`
`&A
`S$:
`
` 3 Hpeedjepep [Eby Mbay Eby TpapegfleresM dT pb th ayfeepl
`
`