Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 1 of 65 PageID #: 28757
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 1 of 65 PagelD #: 28757
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 2 of 65 PageID #: 28758
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 2 of 65 PagelD #: 28758
`
`Samsung’s Responsive Documents
`
`

`

`Issue Raised by Elm
`
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 3 of 65 PageID #: 28759
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 3 of 65 PagelD #: 28759
`
`Samsung’s Responsive Documents
`
`

`

`Issue Raised by Elm
`
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 4 of 65 PageID #: 28760
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 4 of 65 PagelD #: 28760
`
`Samsung’s Responsive Documents
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 5 of 65 PageID #: 28761
`
`Issue Raised by Elm
`
`
`
`Samsung’s Responsive Documents
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 6 of 65 PageID #: 28762
`
`Issue Raised by Elm
`
`
`
`Samsung’s Responsive Documents
`
`

`

`Issue Raised by Elm
`
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 7 of 65 PageID #: 28763
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 7 of 65 PagelD #: 28763
`
`Samsung’s Responsive Documents
`
`

`

`Issue Raised by Elm
`
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 8 of 65 PageID #: 28764
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 8 of 65 PagelD #: 28764
`
`Samsung’s Responsive Documents
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 9 of 65 PageID #: 28765
`
`Issue Raised by Elm
`
`
`
`Samsung’s Responsive Documents
`
`

`

`Issue Raised by Elm
`
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 10 of 65 PageID #: 28766
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 10 of 65 PagelD #: 28766
`
`Samsung’s Responsive Documents
`
`

`

`Issue Raised by Elm
`
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 11 of 65 PageID #: 28767
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 11 of 65 PagelD #: 28767
`
`Samsung’s Responsive Documents
`
`

`

`Issue Raised by Elm
`
`Samsung’s Responsive Documents
`
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 12 of 65 PageID #: 28768
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 12 of 65 PagelD #: 28768
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 13 of 65 PageID #: 28769
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 13 of 65 PagelD #: 28769
`
`Samsung’s Responsive Documents
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 14 of 65 PageID #: 28770
`
`
`
`Samsung’s Responsive Documents
`
`Issue Raised by Elm
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 15 of 65 PageID #: 28771
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 15 of 65 PagelD #: 28771
`
`Issue Raised by Elm
`
`

`

`Issue Raised by Elm
`
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 16 of 65 PageID #: 28772
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 16 of 65 PagelD #: 28772
`
`Samsung’s Responsive Documents
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 17 of 65 PageID #: 28773
`
`Issue Raised by Elm
`
`
`
`Samsung’s Responsive Documents
`
`16
`
`

`

`Issue Raised by Elm
`
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 18 of 65 PageID #: 28774
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 18 of 65 PagelD #: 28774
`
`Samsung’s Responsive Documents
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 19 of 65 PageID #: 28775
`
`
`
`Samsung’s Responsive Documents
`
`Issue Raised by Elm
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 20 of 65 PageID #: 28776
`
`Issue Raised by Elm
`
`
`
`Samsung’s Responsive Documents
`
`19
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 21 of 65 PageID #: 28777
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 21 of 65 PagelD #: 28777
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT B
`EXHIBIT B
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 22 of 65 PageID #: 28778
`
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`Subject:
`
`Nosson, 
`
`Citroen, Phillip W.
`Wednesday, May 25, 2022 9:47 PM
`Nosson Knobloch
`Mailing List - Leedy; ServicePH Samsung-ELM 3DS; Michael J. Farnan; Poff, Adam
`Elm's Discovery Letter
`
`We want to update you on Samsung’s investigation of the issues relevant to Elm’s request for a discovery 
`teleconference, which has now been set to be heard by the Court on June 8. 
`
`As you know, when Elm filed its discovery dispute letter with the Court on May 13, we informed you that Samsung had 
`not yet completed its investigation into the specific issues raised in that letter. Yet, Elm decided to charge forward with 
`its premature letter anyway. 
`
`As we predicted, Samsung’s investigation has resulted in significant developments, which we believe moot Elm’s 
`requests for relief, as follows.  
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 23 of 65 PageID #: 28779
`
`In light of the above, the issues raised by Elm’s request for a discovery teleconference have been addressed, and there is 
`certainly no need to burden the Court. Samsung requests that Elm withdraw its request for a discovery teleconference, 
`and proposes that the parties work through any additional or follow up issues through a good faith meet and confer 
`process—rather than involving the Court prematurely and unnecessarily.   
` 
`Thanks, 
`Phillip 
`  
`
`Phillip Citroen | Partner, Litigation Department
`Paul Hastings LLP | 2050 M Street NW, Washington, DC 20036 | Direct: +1.202.551.1991
`Main: +1.202.551.1700 | Fax: +1.202.551.0491 | phillipcitroen@paulhastings.com |
`www.paulhastings.com  
`
` 
`
` 
` 
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 24 of 65 PageID #: 28780
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 24 of 65 PagelD #: 28780
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT C
`EXHIBIT C
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 25 of 65 PageID #: 28781
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 25 of 65 PagelD #: 28781
`
`
`
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`
`Ce:
`Subject:
`
`Nosson,
`
`Citroen, Phillip W.
`Friday, May 27, 2022 1:37 PM
`Nosson Knobloch
`
`Mailing List - Leedy; ServicePH Samsung-ELM 3Ds; MichaelJ. Farnan; Poff, Adam
`RE: Elm's Discovery Letter
`
`| believe | addressed most of your questions below duringour call earlier today, but, to be sure, I’ve memorialized our
`responses belowas well, and also addressed any remaining questions that were notdiscussed.
`
`That aside, despite no real remaining disputes, | understand from ourcall that Elm will move forwardwithfiling it’s a
`letter with the court today anyway. And it appears Elm’s letter will focus primarily on new issues that were never before
`raised with Samsung, some of which | address in my responsesto your questions below.As you know,it is improper to
`seek relief from the Court on anyissue before the parties sufficiently meet and confer.It’s disappointing that Elm has
`abandonedthe meet and conferprocess here.
`
`Thanks,
`Phillip
`
`From: Nosson Knobloch <nosson.knobloch@bartlitbeck.com>
`
`Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2022 5:57 PM
`To: Citroen, Phillip W. <phillipcitroen@paulhastings.com>
`Cc: Mailing List - Leedy <leedy@bartlit-beck.com>; ServicePH Samsung-ELM 3DS <ServicePHSamsung-
`ELM3DS@paulhastings.com>; Michael J. Farnan <mfarnan@farnanlaw.com>; Poff, Adam <apoff@ycst.com>
`Subject: [EXT] RE: Elm's Discovery Letter
`
`Phillip,
`
`Weare happy to work with you to try and avoid motionspractice. But the documents you have
`producedto date do not materially narrow the issues for June 8, let alone resolve them.
`Nonetheless, I look forward to discussing these issues further with you tomorrow morning and
`hope that we canat least narrow the scope of our dispute.
`
`In advance of our discussion tomorrow,here are someinitial concerns with your latest
`production. These issues are not comprehensive; they are merely intendedto aid in our efforts
`to narrow theparties’ disputes.
`
`
`
`

`

`On the second andthird items, can you
`
`please specify which documents address these issues?
`As you know,that documentis
`almost entirely in Korean. Without any English translation or summary,it will be difficult if
`not impossible for us to evaluate its contents before filing our brief tomorrow.
`
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 26 of 65 PageID #: 28782
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 26 of 65 PagelD #: 28782
`
`On our call today, for the first time, you complained aboutthe lack of any documents describing other, more specific
`issues, such as
`. Documents addressing this specific issue, to
`the extent they exist, may have already been produced;or, if not already produced, we could investigate the possible
`existence of such documents with Samsung. Unfortunately, because this issue wasraisedforthe first time today, we
`have not been given the opportunity to do either. This is clearly not a ripe dispute.
`
`[PH] Correct; the documentregardin
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 27 of 65 PageID #: 28783
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 27 of 65 PagelD #: 28783
`
`To the
`
`extent it addresses relevant databases, 1t would be great if you could specify the pages
`addressing those databases and provide any English-language translations or summaries you
`may haveofthosesections. At this stage, it is difficult for us to evaluate this documentwithout
`
`additional guidance.
`
`I look forward to discussing these issues further tomorrow.
`
`-Nosson
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 28 of 65 PageID #: 28784
`
`BartlitBeck LLP
` 
`Nosson D. Knobloch | p: 303.592.3122 | c: 773.301.2851 | Nosson.Knobloch@BartlitBeck.com | 1801 Wewatta Street, 12th Floor, Denver, CO
`80202
`This message may contain confidential and privileged information. If it has been sent to you in error, please reply to advise the sender of the error and then immediately delete this
`message.
`
`From: Citroen, Phillip W. <phillipcitroen@paulhastings.com>  
`Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2022 12:34 PM 
`To: Nosson Knobloch <nosson.knobloch@bartlitbeck.com> 
`Cc: Mailing List ‐ Leedy <leedy@bartlit‐beck.com>; ServicePH Samsung‐ELM 3DS <ServicePHSamsung‐
`ELM3DS@paulhastings.com>; Michael J. Farnan <mfarnan@farnanlaw.com>; Poff, Adam <apoff@ycst.com> 
`Subject: RE: Elm's Discovery Letter 
`
`Caution: External Message 
`Nosson, 
`
`The materials were promptly produced first thing this morning. 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`On the second and third issues, the documents were not withheld; they were discovered this week and produced right 
`away, in this morning’s production.   
`
`Thanks, 
`Phillip 
`
`From: Nosson Knobloch <nosson.knobloch@bartlitbeck.com>  
`Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2022 1:07 AM 
`To: Citroen, Phillip W. <phillipcitroen@paulhastings.com> 
`Cc: Mailing List ‐ Leedy <leedy@bartlit‐beck.com>; ServicePH Samsung‐ELM 3DS <ServicePHSamsung‐
`ELM3DS@paulhastings.com>; Michael J. Farnan <mfarnan@farnanlaw.com>; Poff, Adam <apoff@ycst.com> 
`Subject: [EXT] RE: Elm's Discovery Letter 
`
`Phillip,
`
`On the first issue, the documents you’ve identified do not address the relevant warpage
`measurements. You say you will be producing a relevant document tomorrow. Why not just
`email me the document now? If Samsung is serious about avoiding any burden on the Court,
`waiting for your vendor to Bates-stamp the document before sharing it with us cuts against that
`purported goal.
`
`On the second and third issues, you should similarly just email me the relevant documents
`now. There is no reason to delay sharing them. Samsung improperly withheld these documents
`for long enough.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 29 of 65 PageID #: 28785
`Thanks,
`
`-Nosson
`
`BartlitBeck LLP
` 
`Nosson D. Knobloch | p: 303.592.3122 | c: 773.301.2851 | Nosson.Knobloch@BartlitBeck.com | 1801 Wewatta Street, 12th Floor, Denver, CO
`80202
`This message may contain confidential and privileged information. If it has been sent to you in error, please reply to advise the sender of the error and then immediately delete this
`message.
`
`From: Citroen, Phillip W. <phillipcitroen@paulhastings.com>  
`Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2022 10:47 PM 
`To: Nosson Knobloch <nosson.knobloch@bartlitbeck.com> 
`Cc: Mailing List ‐ Leedy <leedy@bartlit‐beck.com>; ServicePH Samsung‐ELM 3DS <ServicePHSamsung‐
`ELM3DS@paulhastings.com>; Michael J. Farnan <mfarnan@farnanlaw.com>; Poff, Adam <apoff@ycst.com> 
`Subject: Elm's Discovery Letter 
`
`Caution: External Message 
`Nosson, 
`
`We want to update you on Samsung’s investigation of the issues relevant to Elm’s request for a discovery 
`teleconference, which has now been set to be heard by the Court on June 8. 
`
`As you know, when Elm filed its discovery dispute letter with the Court on May 13, we informed you that Samsung had 
`not yet completed its investigation into the specific issues raised in that letter. Yet, Elm decided to charge forward with 
`its premature letter anyway. 
`
`As we predicted, Samsung’s investigation has resulted in significant developments, which we believe moot Elm’s 
`requests for relief, as follows.  
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 30 of 65 PageID #: 28786
`
`In light of the above, the issues raised by Elm’s request for a discovery teleconference have been addressed, and there is 
`certainly no need to burden the Court. Samsung requests that Elm withdraw its request for a discovery teleconference, 
`and proposes that the parties work through any additional or follow up issues through a good faith meet and confer 
`process—rather than involving the Court prematurely and unnecessarily.   
`
`Thanks, 
`Phillip 
`
`Phillip Citroen | Partner, Litigation Department
`Paul Hastings LLP | 2050 M Street NW, Washington, DC 20036 | Direct: +1.202.551.1991
`Main: +1.202.551.1700 | Fax: +1.202.551.0491 | phillipcitroen@paulhastings.com |
`www.paulhastings.com  
`
`******************************************************************************************
`This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received
`this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.
`If you reply to this message, Paul Hastings may collect personal information including your name, business name
`and other contact details, and IP address. For more information about Paul Hastings’ information collection, privacy
`and security principles please click HERE. If you have any questions, please contact Privacy@paulhastings.com.
`
`******************************************************************************************
`This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received
`this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.
`If you reply to this message, Paul Hastings may collect personal information including your name, business name
`and other contact details, and IP address. For more information about Paul Hastings’ information collection, privacy
`and security principles please click HERE. If you have any questions, please contact Privacy@paulhastings.com.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 31 of 65 PageID #: 28787
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 31 of 65 PagelD #: 28787
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT D
`EXHIBIT D
`
`

`

`| APHIS HOY ZEAJ7| BESLI CY.
`
`industrie
`The above messageis intended solely for the named addressee and may contain trade secret,
`
`
`
`t JyOFf j and confidential information otherwise protected under applicable law including the
`
`
`
`r Competition Preventio:
`de Secret Protection Act.
`Any
`un:
`orized
`dissemina
`tributic
`g
`j
`i
`f
`din
`tt
`trictly
`bited.
`If you have received
`this communication in error,
`please notify the sender by email and delete this communication immediately.
`AP] HS AE FANE SBF
`AO ]oy HZBF
`juIU Vso] BESS x
`FSO} Sia + MSU = BA
`Dies HEY ol cele} ASO)
`CH At
`oFoHy| OE,
`zee
`S At E> ASS AS W461 SA
`BUC, = H20| 2
`
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 32 of 65 PageID #: 28788
`NNthiNeyeeTDeg| /
`
`eloloal
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 33 of 65 PageID #: 28789
`
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 33 of 65 PagelD #: 28789
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 34 of 65 PageID #: 28790
`
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 34 of 65 PagelD #: 28790
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 35 of 65 PageID #: 28791
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 35 of 65 PagelD #: 28791
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 36 of 65 PageID #: 28792
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 36 of 65 PagelD #: 28792
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT E
`EXHIBIT E
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 37 of 65 PageID #: 28793
`
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`Subject:
`
`Phillip,
`
`Nosson Knobloch <nosson.knobloch@bartlitbeck.com>
`Wednesday, June 1, 2022 9:34 PM
`Citroen, Phillip W.; Mailing List - Leedy
`ServicePH Samsung-ELM 3DS
`[EXT] RE: Elm v. Samsung
`
`As discussed, we reserve the right to ask all appropriate follow-up questions about these
`documents. Given the nature of these materials, those questions may well include issues that
`Samsung asserts are privileged or protected. While Elm reserves the right to challenge any such
`assertions, we agree not to base such a challenge on the argument that Samsung’s production of
`these documents constitute a waiver of its privileges or protections over the subject matter they
`address.
`
`One additional caveat: Elm reserves the right to argue that, to the extent Samsung seeks to
`affirmatively rely in this case on any of the allegedly privileged portions of these documents,
`such efforts will constitute a subject-matter waiver. While we do not expect this to be an issue,
`we want to be clear that Samsung cannot use privilege as a “sword and shield,” simultaneously
`relying on privileged materials and then seeking to maintain its privilege over that subject
`matter.
`
`Thanks,
`
`-Nosson
`
`BartlitBeck LLP
` 
`Nosson D. Knobloch | p: 303.592.3122 | c: 773.301.2851 | Nosson.Knobloch@BartlitBeck.com | 1801 Wewatta Street, 12th Floor, Denver, CO
`80202
`This message may contain confidential and privileged information. If it has been sent to you in error, please reply to advise the sender of the error and then immediately delete this
`message.
`
`From: Citroen, Phillip W. <phillipcitroen@paulhastings.com>  
`Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2022 2:23 PM 
`To: Nosson Knobloch <nosson.knobloch@bartlitbeck.com>; Mailing List ‐ Leedy <leedy@bartlit‐beck.com> 
`Cc: ServicePH Samsung‐ELM 3DS <ServicePHSamsung‐ELM3DS@paulhastings.com> 
`Subject: Elm v. Samsung 
`
`Caution: External Message 
`Nosson, 
`
`Thanks for the call today. 
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 38 of 65 PageID #: 28794
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 38 of 65 PagelD #: 28794
`
`As discussed, it has come to our attention that SAMSUNG-ELM-000914796 (and also SAMSUNG-ELM-000914797)
`includes inadvertently produced information that is protected by at least the attorney-client privilege. Rather than claw
`back that document, we asked whether Elm would agree that the production of those documents does notconstitute a
`waiveras to any attorney-client privilege, work product immunity, or other privilege, doctrine, right, or immunity.
`
`Similarly, regarding
`we asked whether Elm would agreethat the production would not constitute a waiver as to any attorney-client
`privilege, work product immunity, or otherprivilege, doctrine, right, or immunity.
`
`You said Elm would agree to both. Can you please confirm in response to this email?
`
`Regards,
`Phillip
`
`Phillip Citroen | Partner, Litigation Department
`Paul Hastings LLP | 2050 M Street NW, Washington, DC 20036 | Direct: +1.202.551.199:
`PA WU L
`Main: +1.202.551.1700 | Fax: +1.202.551.0491 | phillipcitroen@paulhastings.com |
`HASTINGS www.paulhastings.com
`
`DRRAK KK ARKKK IKK KK AKKA OKKK OKI IKKK KK AK KKKKK
`
`This messageis sent by a law firm and maycontain information thatis privileged or confidential. If you received
`this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.
`If you reply to this message, Paul Hastings may collect personal information including your name, business name
`and other contact details, and IP address. For more information about Paul Hastingsa€™ information collection, privacy
`
`and security principles please click HERE. If you have any questions, please contact Privacy@paulhastings.com.
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 39 of 65 PageID #: 28795
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 39 of 65 PagelD #: 28795
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT F
`EXHIBIT F
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 40 of 65 PageID #: 28796
`
`Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Maryellen Noreika - Telephone
`Conference held on 3/4/2020. The plaintiff's request to amend the complaint is DENIED.
`IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that: Before any future discovery dispute is brought to the
`Court in this matter, local counsel and senior outside counsel (i.e. the person(s) trying
`the case) must engage in reasonable efforts to resolve the issue in dispute or confirm
`they are at an impasse. These reasonable efforts shall consist of discussions in person
`lasting no less than thirty (30) minutes. If the parties are unable to resolve the dispute,
`the parties shall submit to the Court a certification that local and lead trial counsel made
`such reasonable efforts to reach agreement and confirmed that they were unable to do
`so, and this certification shall identify by name each individual who participated in the
`meet and confer, when and where that meet and confer occurred and how long it lasted,
`as well as identify (in two agreed-upon sentences or less) the subject matter of the
`remaining dispute(s). The Court will then decide whether it will hear the dispute. (Court
`Reporter Dale Hawkins.) (mdb) (Entered: 03/04/2020)
`
`As of March 5, 2020, PACER did not contain a publicly available document associated
`with this docket entry. The text of the docket entry is shown above.
`
`AgroFresh Inc. v. Hazel Technologies, Inc.
`1-18-cv-01486 (DDE), 3/4/2020, docket entry
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 41 of 65 PageID #: 28797
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 41 of 65 PagelD #: 28797
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT G
`EXHIBIT G
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 42 of 65 PageID #: 28798
`
`NO. 09-4714
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
`NORDETEK ENVIRONMENTAL, INC., :
`CIVIL ACTION
`et al.
` :
` :
` v.
` :
` :
`RDP TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
` :
`
`ORDER
`AND NOW, this 28th day of November, 2011, upon
`consideration of counterclaim defendants Paul G. Christy and
`Nordetek Environmental, Inc.’s (“the Nordetek parties’” or
`“Nordetek’s”) motion to compel (docket entry # 133), counterclaim
`plaintiff RDP Technologies, Inc.’s (“RDP’s”) response in
`opposition thereto (docket entry # 134), RDP’s motion to compel
`deposition testimony of Lisa Christy (“Mrs. Christy”) (docket
`entry # 135), and Mrs. Christy’s response in opposition thereto
`(docket entries # 140 and 141), and the Court finding that:
`(a)
`In the Nordetek parties’ motion to compel, they ask
`“this Court for an Order compelling Defendant RDP Technologies,
`Inc. to produce documents as requested under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 in
`Requests Nos. 2-4, 26, and 21,” Nordetek’s Mot. at 1;
`(b)
`RDP responds that “[t]he Court should . . . deny
`Paul Christy’s motion, both on procedural grounds for failure to
`comply with Local Rule 26.1(f), and on the merits because RDP has
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 43 of 65 PageID #: 28799
`
`already produced the information Paul Christy has requested, and
`further production would be unduly burdensome,” RDP’s Resp. at 1;
`(c)
`In support of the first ground, RDP argues that
`Nordetek’s “Local Rule 26.1(f) certification was invalid and
`inappropriate, both because they were not waiting more than two
`days for a response to the issues they had raised, and because
`their motion to compel was filed before they even reviewed the
`documents that RDP was producing,” id. (emphasis in original);
`(d)
`The communications attached to RDP’s response
`reveal that on September 7, 2011, the Nordetek parties’ counsel
`sent a letter to RDP’s counsel challenging the sufficiency of
`“some of RDP Technologies’ responses to Plaintiffs’ Third Set of
`Requests for the Production of Documents,” Ex. A to RDP’s Resp.;
`(e)
`The Nordetek parties asked that RDP’s counsel
`“contact me . . . by the end of business today [to] discuss
`whether or not RDP will be producing all documents that are
`responsive to Requests Nos. 1-4, 21, and 26,” id.;
`(f)
`On that same day, at 12:04 p.m., Nordetek’s counsel
`sent an email to RDP’s counsel, noting that “[i]n response to a
`number of Plaintiff’s Third Set of Requests for the Production of
`Documents, RDP stated that it will produce documents,” and asking,
`“When will RDP be producing the documents,” Ex. B to RDP’s Resp.;
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 44 of 65 PageID #: 28800
`
`Less than five hours later, at 4:37 p.m., RDP’s
`(g)
`counsel responded by email that RDP would produce the documents
`“[h]opefully by the end of the week,” and that “I will respond to
`the letter you sent me today shortly,” id.;
`(h)
`On September 9, 2011, at 11:58 a.m., Nordetek’s
`counsel sent an email to RDP’s counsel in which he noted that “I
`have not yet received a response from you. In light of not
`receiving a response, you are leaving me no alternative but to
`file a motion later today with Judge Dalzell to compel production
`of the requested documents,” Ex. D to RDP’s Resp.;
`(i)
`An hour later, at 12:59 p.m., Nordetek’s counsel
`sent RDP’s counsel another email in which he stated that “[i]n an
`effort to narrow and resolve the disputes regarding RDP’s
`responses . . . Plaintiffs are willing to accept RDP’s 2010 year-
`end payroll list, rather than the W-2's issued by RDP for 2010 as
`requested in Document Request No. 1,” Ex. E to RDP’s Resp.;
`(j)
`At 3:43 p.m., Nordetek’s counsel sent an email to
`RDP’s counsel attaching “Plaintiffs’ motion to compel production
`of documents which will be filed electronically with the Court
`later this afternoon,” Ex. F to RDP’s Resp.;
`(k)
`Eight minutes later, RDP’s counsel responded via
`email with the observation that “your Rule 26.1(f) certification
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 45 of 65 PageID #: 28801
`
`is both invalid and inappropriate. You are filing a motion less
`than two days after raising discovery issues, and without waiting
`for my response (a response which I hope to get out by the end of
`the day),” Ex. G to RDP’s Resp.;
`(l)
`In a September 9, 2011 letter, RDP’s counsel
`explained to Nordetek’s counsel that he was “enclos[ing] a CD with
`documents,” and noting with respect to Nordetek’s motion to compel
`that “[y]ou raised your concerns without first reviewing the
`documents RDP is producing. As a result, you cannot know whether
`the documents RDP is producing contain the information you are
`seeking,” Ex. C to RDP’s Resp.;
`(m)
`The docket reflects that the Nordetek parties filed
`their motion to compel on September 9, 2011;
`(n)
`However, on September 13, 2011, Nordetek’s counsel
`sent a letter to RDP’s counsel in which he appeared usefully to
`clarify Nordetek’s document requests and to respond to RDP’s
`arguments regarding the necessity of responding to these requests;
`(o)
`On September 14, 2011, RDP filed a twelve-page
`response in opposition to Nordetek’s motion to compel;
`(p)
`Loc. R. Civ. P. 26.1(f) provides that “[n]o motion
`or other application pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil
`Procedure governing discovery or pursuant to this rule shall be
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 46 of 65 PageID #: 28802
`
`made unless it contains a certification of counsel that the
`parties, after reasonable effort, are unable to resolve the
`dispute,” and Judge Shapiro has clarified that this rule “imposes
`a substantial obligation on counsel to resolve discovery problems
`before bringing them to the attention of the court,” Pioneer Lemel
`FAbrics, Inc. v. Paul Rothman Indus., Ltd., 1988 WL 36343, at *1
`(E.D. Pa. 1988) (emphasis in original);
`(q)
`Judge Pollak has noted, moreover, that
`This rule is not merely a formalistic requirement
`developed by this court to increase the volume of each
`discovery motion filed. It was intended to reduce the
`unnecessary burden on the court and added expense to the
`parties caused by the expectation that the court would
`interject itself in minor pretrial skirmishes. . . .
`Discovery disputes should not be referred to the court
`unless such serious differences exist between counsel
`that further efforts at negotiation are pointless or
`unless court intervention is necessary to resolve a
`disputed issue of law.
`Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc. v. Chemed Corp., 101 F.R.D. 105, 106-
`07 (E.D. Pa. 1984) (emphasis added);
`(r)
`This case has now reposed on our docket for more
`than two years, the docket records nearly 150 entries, the
`Nordetek parties note that “RDP has stated repeatedly that [it] is
`seeking to recover in excess of $518,763 in attorneys fees and
`costs,” Nordetek’s Mot. ¶ 7, and we can infer that the Nordetek
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 47 of 65 PageID #: 28803
`
`parties have expended comparable amounts on the prosecution and
`defense of this action;
`(s)
`Under these circumstances, it would appear
`especially important to avoid any “unnecessary burden on the court
`and added expense to the parties,” Crown Cork, 101 F.R.D. at 106;
`(t)
`Instead, Nordetek filed its motion to compel
`without (1) waiting for RDP’s response to its discovery demands,
`(2) engaging in substantive negotiations, or (3) examining the
`documents that RDP produced on September 9, 2011;
`(u)
`We find Nordetek’s “inexplicable rush to the
`Courthouse,” RDP’s Resp. at 1, inexcusable, especially given that
`it has compelled RDP to expend yet more time and expense in
`composing its response to Nordetek’s motion;
`(v)
`Judge Rufe has noted that a “brief volley of
`letters between counsel regarding the sufficiency of Plainiffs’
`production does not reflect reasonable efforts to resolve the
`disputes raised by that exchange,” AFSCME Dist. Council 47 Health
`& Welfare Fund v. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharm., 2010 WL 5186088, at
`*5 (E.D. Pa. 2010), and has thus concluded that “without the
`benefit of the Parties’ good efforts to winnow the disputes, the
`Court will not resolve the parties differences,” id.; see also
`Disantis v. Koolvent Aluminum Prods., Inc., 1998 WL 472753, at *1
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525-1 Filed 06/14/22 Page 48 of 65 PageID #: 28804
`
`(Green, J.) (“[P]laintiff’s counsel has failed to file the instant
`motion in accordance with . . . Local Rule 26.1(f). Thus,
`plaintiff motion will be dismissed without prejudice.”);
`(w)
`We will similarly deny without prejudice Nordetek’s
`motion to compel due to its failure to comply with Rule 26.1(f)
`and note that should Nordetek choose to reassert these claims, it
`should be prepared to demonstrate that it first engaged in
`substantial and diligent efforts to resolve any disputes with RDP,
`and that it is genuinely true that “further efforts at negotiation
`are pointless,” Crown Cork, 101 F.R.D. at 106;
`(x)
`Turning to RDP’s motion to compel, RDP notes --
`with exhaustive references to the record -- that
`During Lisa Christy’s deposition, Attorney Joseph
`Chovanes instructed the witness not to answer on more
`than 180 occasions. He also interposed speaking
`objections to most of the questions he did not instruct
`the witness not to answer. Finally, he instructed the
`witness how to testify, and repeatedly engaged in
`personal attacks against RDP’s counsel and its
`president. In fact, Attorney Chovanes talked lite