Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 508 Filed 05/04/22 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 28307
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`ELM 3DS INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 14-cv-1430-LPS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`RESPONSE LETTER TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE BURKE
`OBJECTING TO DISCOVERY RELATED TO THE FINANCIAL AFFAIRS OF
`GLENN LEEDY’S SURVIVING CHILDREN
`
`Dated: April 27, 2022
`
`Brian E. Farnan (#4089)
`Michael J. Farnan (#5165)
`FARNAN LLP
`919 North Market Street, 12th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 777-0300
`bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
`mfarnan@farnalaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Elm 3DS
`Innovations, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 508 Filed 05/04/22 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 28308
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 508 Filed 05/04/22 Page 2 of 5 PagelD #: 28308
`
`Dear Judge Burke,
`
`Plaintiff Elm 3DS Innovations, LLC respectfully requests that the Court deny Samsung’s
`motion to compel. This is a patent case in which Elmaccuses Samsungofinfringing several patents
`related to stacked semiconductors. Glenn Leedyis the sole inventor of the asserted patents and the
`former owner of Elm. Mr. Leedywasintegrally involvedin initiating this lawsuit but tragically
`passed awayduring the long pendencyofthis case.
`
`Mr.Leedy’s surviving heirs, his son Conor andhis daughter Genevieve, have no connection
`to this lawsuit. They have never owned or managed Elm, have never beenidentified as potential
`witnesses, and were not involved in their father’s inventive work. Still, Samsunghas aggressively
`pursued discovery into their personal and financial information. Samsung has sought and obtained
`their father’s will, an unredacted transcript of testimonytheir father gave in connection withhis
`divorce from their mother, documentsrelated to the trusts their father established for their benefit,
`and other personal, financial, and family information.
`
`Samsung’s present motion doubles-downonits intrusion into the privacy of Mr. Leedy’s
`heirs by seeking discovery into whatthey stand to receive from any recoveryinthis lawsuit. But to
`
`do so, Samsung would need
`
`
`
`Any marginal relevance of this discovery cannotjustify such an
`
`
`intrusioninto the personal affairs of Mr. Leedy’s heirs or the arrangement of Elm’s finances in
`litigating this case.
`
`Background
`I.
`Elm represents a significant portionof thelife’s work of Mr. Glenn Leedy. He wasa serial
`inventor for decades 1nSilicon Valley, focusing on emerging issues in semiconductor manufacture in
`the 1990s. Elm originally sued three different defendant groups almost a decade ago in 2014. The
`other two defendant groups have settled; only Samsung remains.
`
`Tragically, Mr. Leedy did not survive long enoughto see this case throughto the end.
`Shortly after he filed this lawsuit, Samsung obtained a stay to pursue anénterpartes review. 7/11/2016
`Oral Order Staying Case. While this case was stayed, Mr. Leedypassed away. He left behind an ex-
`wife and two children. Ownership of the company wentinto a trust, and Mr. Leedy’s colleague and
`friend Ron Epstein servesas the trustee for his estate and manages the Elm companies’affairs.
`
`Elm Has Already Disclosed Anything Remotely Relevant to This Issue
`II.
`Samsung has everything it could possibly need to understand howMr. Leedy’s estate was
`structured after his death. Elm produced the documents establishing Mr. Leedy’s and his children’s
`trusts, which showhowtheestate is divided amonghis children and the disposition of Elm’sassets.
`See, ¢.g., Ex. A. Samsung has procured Mr. Leedy’s divorce settlement and depositiontranscripts that
`address Mr. Leedy’s ex-wife’s interest in any recovery. D.I. 501 at 3 n.4. Samsung has subpoenaed
`both Mr. Leedy’s and his ex-wife’s former divorce attorneys and former consultants for additional
`financial information. DI. 450-455. Indeed, the executor of Mr. Leedy’s estate has been forced to
`hire additional outside counsel to review the many documents Samsung has sought from Mr.
`Leedy’s former divorce attorney.
`
`Samsung has everything it needs to argue that not everydollar of recovery will go to Mr.
`Leedy’s children and ex-wife. But still it wants more: an accounting of what Mr. Leedy’s heirs will
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 508 Filed 05/04/22 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 28309
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 508 Filed 05/04/22 Page 3 of 5 PagelD #: 28309
`
`receive from anyrecoveryin this case. Its stated need for this discovery is weak. This motionis
`really just an effort to further
`pry into the Leedy family’s personal affairs
`
`Suchan intrusion into an opposing party’s litigation costs would be unprecedented andthe resulting
`prejudice would not be proportional to the needs of the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Seegenerally
`Resol. Tr. Corp. v. Thornton, 41 F.3d 1539, 1547 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (“The federal discovery rules
`generally prohibit a litigant from discovering an opponent’sassets until after a judgment against the
`opponent has been rendered.”’) (quotation and citation omitted).
`
`Additional Details Concerning the Leedy Heirs’ Inheritance Are Not Relevant
`III.
`Samsung has the burdento establish the relevance of the Leedy heirs’ inheritance, and they
`fail to do so. UnitedAccess Techs., LLC v. ATe>T Corp., C.A. No. 11-338-LPS, 2020 WL 3128269, at
`*1 (D. Del. June 12, 2020). Mr. Leedy’s children could not haveless to do with this case. They were
`never involved in the company’saffairs. They have no knowledge of the technologyin the patents.
`They have no involvementinthis litigation. They are not on any party’s Rule 26 disclosures. Their
`onlyrelevanceis that their father was the sole inventor of the patents in suit who has passed away.
`
`Samsung’s stated rationales for the relevance of this discoveryare a stretch. Unlike Mr.
`Epstein, Mr. Leedy’s surviving children will not be witnessesat trial or deposition, so thei “bias” is
`irrelevant. In addition, the children’s inheritance cannot show that someone else—Mr.
`Epstein—could somehowbepaid additional sums. D.I. 501 at 2-3. Elm has produced documents
`showing Mr. Epstein’s interest in this litigation and has disclosed any payments he’s received.
`Samsungis free to ask further questions aboutthis financial interest in Mr. Epstein’s deposition. But
`it’s not necessary to know what Mr. Leedy’s surviving children will inherit to understand Mr.
`Epstein’s compensation. Sought discoveryis not relevant based on “mere suspicion or speculation.”
`Micro Motion, Inc. v. Kane Steel Co., 894 F.2d 1318, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Samsung has evenless here.
`
`Finally, Samsung says that “Elm wants the jury to make th[e] assumption” that Mr. Leedy’s
`children will receive any damagesthat the jury awards. Elm hasinfact told Samsung the opposite
`whentrying to stipulate around this dispute: Elm offered to stipulate that it will not say that the
`damages award will go to Mr. Leedy’s children. Ex. B, 4/6/2022 Email from J. Razick to Elm. But
`Samsung rejected Elm’s proposedstipulation. Id.
`
`Elm of courseis going to discussat trial Mr. Leedy’s background,his inventions, and the
`fact that he passed away.Infact, the jury would likely be confused if Elm did notgive this context.
`Elm mayalso provide some basic biographical information about Mr. Leedy, includingthat heleft
`behind two children. That legacy humanizes the man who dedicatedhislife’s work to the inventions
`claimedinthe patents. This is precisely the sort of basic biographical information routinely provided
`bywitnessestestifying at trial. Andit is the type of information Mr. Leedy would have shared with a
`jury if he had the opportunity to testify.
`
`Butthis is a far cry from Samsung’s claims that Elm will make an improper emotional appeal
`to the jury about Mr. Leedy’s surviving children. Samsung’s arguments rely on a chain of inferences
`it thinks could inflamethe jury into rendering a verdict divorced from the evidenceat trial. But
`Samsung presents no reason to assumethat the jury will go beyond the jury instructions andfacts at
`trial to ensure that two strangers whonevertestified at trial will get a larger inheritance. This concern
`is evenless understandable given Elm’s offered stipulation.
`
`‘Providing This Information Is Not Possible and Is Deeply Intrusive
`IV.
`Elm suspects Samsung’s real motivationis to force
`
`Samsung has long been focused onthis
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 508 Filed 05/04/22 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 28310
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 508 Filed 05/04/22 Page 4 of 5 PagelD #: 28310
`
`issue. As its own exhibits to this motion show, Samsung has for years sought detailed financial
`information on anyone witha “financial stake”in the case, agreements regarding funding of the
`case, and howa recovery in this case would be distributed to any party. DI. 501 Ex. 4 at 21; Ex. 7 at
`42, 45, 79; Ex. 8, 20. Each time, Elm has refused to provide this information,citing its irrelevance.
`Id. Samsung even moved to compel productionof anylitigation-funding documents, saying that they
`were relevant to damages, infringement, standing,trial themes, and witness credibility. D.I. 344.
`Judge Hall reviewed a sample of these documents é” camera and agreed with Elmthat they were
`urelevant or work product. D.I. 372.
`
`Now, Samsungis trying to get the same information through an accounting of the Leedy
`
`heirs’ inheritance resulting fromthis case.
`
`But Samsung’s motion goes even further thanthat: it wants information on what
`
`501 at 2. Elmhassettled with two ofthe three initial defendant
`
`groups inthis suit.
`
`
`
`
`
`The present motionis just a
`
`continuation of Samsung’s campaign to pry open Elm’s finances and personal details of Mr. Leedy’s
`
`life for either settlement pressure or harassment.
`
`Litigants frequently seek discovery into a plaintiffs finances, including information about
`howthe proceeds fromalitigation will be distributed, in the context of class actionlitigation. In a
`decision granting mandamusrelief from providing such discovery, the Tenth Circuit explained that
`“fo|rdinarily courts do not inquire into the financial responsibility oflitigants. We generally eschew
`the question of whetherlitigants are rich or poor. Instead, we address ourselves to the merits of the
`litigation.” Sanderson v. Winner, 507 F.2d 477, 479 (10th Cir. 1974). See also Pinkert v. John J. Olivieri,
`P.A., C.A. No. 99-380-SLR, 2001 WL 641737, at *7 (D. Del. May24, 2001) (“The Federal Rules of
`Civil Procedure do not permit pre-trial discovery of a defendant’s finances.”). Samsung presents no
`reasonto deviate from those general practices here.
`
`Finally, Samsung has withdrawnthe portion of its motion seeking Mr. Leedy’s will. D.I. 505.
`Elm respondsonlyto the extent Samsung implies that Elm ignored the Court’s order. As shownin
`the portion of the transcript that Samsung omitted, the parties’ dispute was over documents
`regarding the children’s trusts, which post-date Mr. Leedy’s passing and have nothing to do with Mr.
`Leedy’s will. Ex. C, 7/21/2021 Tr. at 5:12-24. Elm metand conferred with Samsung and was
`explicit about whatit was producing and howthat productionrelated to Judge Hall’s order. Ex. D,
`8/9/2021 Email fromS. Jung to Elm Counsel. And the parties submitted a status to the Court on
`Elm’s production following the July 2021 order. D.I. 433. No mention was made of Mr. Leedy’s will
`because it was notat issue. Samsung onlyfirst took the position that Mr. Leedy’s will fell within the
`Coutt’s July 2021 order whendrafting its letter here almosta year later. Ex. E, 4/18/2022 Email
`fromJ. Razick to M. Ford.
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 508 Filed 05/04/22 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 28311
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`cc: Counsel of Record (Via E-Mail)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Michael J. Farnan
`
`Michael J. Farnan
`
` 4
`
`