`
`REDACTED - PUBLIC VERSION
`Filed: January 21, 2016
`
`
`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 59 Filed 01/21/16 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 1312
`Case 1:15—cv—OO311—RGA Document 59 Filed 01/21/16 Page 2 of 5 Page|D #: 1312
`
`The Honorable Richard G. Andrews
`
`January 12, 2016
`Page 2
`
`
`
`s ecifications” that were located after a reasonable search.
`
`Plaintiffs contention that
`
`Defendants did not produce s11cl1 documents is inexplicable. Plaintiffs motion acknowledges EA’s
`production includes such docurnents. and.
`iii fact. during Plaintiffs inspection of EA’s source code
`materials. MS Word and PowerPoint were installed o11 the so1u‘ce code inspection computer at the
`request of Plaintiffs coiuisel just so he could View such documents.
`
`C. Defendants are not withholdin
`
`“core technical documents.”
`
`
`
`D. Plaintiffs complaints about burdens of inspecting source code are irrelevant and incorrect.
`Plaintiff. before even inspecting all of the code. argues both that the so1u‘ce code materials produced by
`Defendants are ( 1) too b111'(‘l€11SOl11€
`to review and (2) incomplete because they are filiihkely" to “fully
`disclose[]
`the accused network topology and functionality.”
`Plaintiffs burden argurnents are
`irrelevant: its incon1plete11ess argurnents are 1n1fo11nded.
`Indeed. Plaintiff had 11ot even connnenced its
`review of the so1u'ce code materials before it initiated this motion, it spent less than a day reviewing the
`so1u‘ce code materials for EA and Take-Two before it filed its letter. and it l1as yet to raise a single
`complaint about the sufficiency of any Defendant’s actual production of so1u‘ce code.
`
`discover
`
`011 these entities.
`
`1sc iarge De en ant’s
`t1e1r pro uct1o11
`a11
`
`initial discovery requirements. See, e. g., DX3, C_\'Z)erF0ne Svs, LLC v. Ce//co P(lI‘fIIeI‘.S'/lip, C .A. No.
`11-827-SLR. Tr. at 34 (D. Del. Sept. 20. 2012) (Source code is “where the rubber meets the road in a
`software case”).
`
`B.
`
`Defendants also
`
`roduced “o eration manuals
`
`roduct
`
`literature
`
`schematics
`
`and
`
`
`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 59 Filed 01/21/16 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 1313
`Case 1:15—cv—OO311—RGA Document 59 Filed 01/21/16 Page 3 of 5 Page|D #: 1313
`
`The Honorable Richard G. Andrews
`
`January 12. 2016
`Page 3
`
`H.
`
`Plaintiff’ s Motion Is Premature And Unreasonable.
`
`Plaintiff made clear before it had reviewed anything that it was going to raise this issue with the
`Co111t. Plaintiff declined to inspect the documents produced to it and then to raise an issues with
`Defendants before seeking relief. and then misre resented Defendants’
`roduction.
`
`
`
`IH.
`
`Defendants Have Not Refused To Produce Any Documents And Plaintiff Has Identified
`No Specific Deficiencies In Defendants’ Production.
`
`Defendants complied with their C‘ore Technical Doc11111ent production obligations. Further.
`Defendants informed Plaintiff that they would continue to make reasonable inquiries for and produce
`technical documents. and they have been doing so. Additional productions were made after
`Defendants resumed operations on January 4. 2016. (DX5-6).
`
`IV.
`
`Plaintiffs Motion Should Be Denied.
`
`Defendants confnmed the production of teclmical doc11111entatio11 that Plaintiff claimed to be
`missing witho11t reviewing the materials that were produced. Defendants are prepared to continue
`discussing any issues raised by Plaintiff alter it has reviewed their documents. But Defendants should
`not be ordered to produce imdefmed and undescribed additional technical docun1e11ts. Defendants
`respectfillly request the C otut deny Plaintiffs requested relief and award costs to Defendants.
`
`initial
`its
`time beyond February 17 for
`Plaintiff sl1o11ld also not be given additional
`infi'ingement contentions. Plaintiff should aheady l1ave good-faith infiingement co11tentio11s prepared
`as part of its basic
`re-filing due diligence 1111der Octane Fitness. The games themselves and the
`
`produced are everything Plaintiff needs to prepare its initial
`
`infringement
`
`contentions. and it l1as not shown that it needs anything more.
`
`
`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 59 Filed 01/21/16 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 1314
`The Honorable Richard G. Andrews
`January 12, 2016
`Page 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Jack B. Blumenfeld
`
`Respectfully,
`
`
`
`
`
`JBB/dlw
`Enclosures
`cc:
`Clerk of Court (Via Hand Delivery; w/ encl.)
`
`All Counsel of Record (Via Electronic Mail; w/ encl.)
`
`
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`
`
`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 59 Filed 01/21/16 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 1315
`Case 1:15—cv—OO311—RGA Document 59 Filed 01/21/16 Page 5 of 5 Page|D #: 1315
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT EXHIBITS
`
`Ex. No.
`
`Document Name
`
`DX1
`
`DX2
`
`DX3
`
`Afluo, LLC‘ v. Adobe S119. Inc. C.A. No. 12-1459-SLR. T1‘. (D. Del. Nov. 6. 2013)
`
`Chief Judge Sta1'k’s Revised Patent Fonn Sclleduling Order (Jun. 2014)
`
`Cvbeifone Sm, LLC‘ v. Ce//co P(lI‘I}leI‘S/Iij). C .A. No. 11-827-SLR. T1‘. (D. Del.
`Sept. 20. 2012)
`
`
`
`
`ACTIVISION CONFIDENTIAL EXHIBITS
`
`EA CONFIDENTIAL EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`TAKE-TVVO CONFIDENTIAL EXHIBITS