`1
`
` IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
` FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`ACCELERATION BAY, LLC :
` :
` Plaintiff, : No. 16-453-RGA
` :
` v. :
` :
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC. :
` :
` Defendant. :
`ACCELERATION BAY, LLC :
` : No. 16-454-RGA
` Plaintiff, :
` v. :
` :
`ELECTRONIC ARTS, INC., :
` :
` Defendant. :
`ACCELERATION BAY, LLC :
` : No. 16-455-RGA
` Plaintiff, :
` v. :
` :
`TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE :
`SOFTWARE, INC., ROCKSTAR :
`GAMES, INC. and 2K SPORTS,:
`INC., :
` Defendants. :
`
`
` Friday, April 14, 2017
` 9:00 a.m., Discovery Dispute Hearing
`
` Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A.
` 920 North King Street, Suite 2
` Wilmington, Delaware 19801
`
` BEFORE: SPECIAL MASTER Allen M. Terrell
`
`
` Hawkins Reporting Service
`715 North King Street - Wilmington, Delaware 19801
` (302) 658-6697 FAX (302) 658-8418
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 504 Filed 04/26/20 Page 2 of 203 PageID #: 34662
`2
`
` APPEARANCES:
`
` POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLC
` BY: PHILIP ROVNER, ESQ.
`
` -and-
`
` KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP
` BY: PAUL ANDRE, ESQ.
` BY: AARON FRANKEL, ESQ.
`
` On behalf of Plaintiff
`
` MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
` BY: JACK BLUMENFELD, ESQ.
`
` -and-
`
` WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
` BY: KATHLEEN BARRY, ESQ.
`
` On behalf of Defendants
`
` PHILIPS, GOLDMAN, McLAUGHLIN & HILL,
` P.A.
` BY: MEGAN HANEY, ESQ.
`
` On behalf of Boeing
`
`
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
` 10
`
` 11
`
` 12
`
` 13
`
` 14
`
` 15
`
` 16
`
` 17
`
` 18
`
` 19
`
` 20
`
` 21
`
` 22
`
` 23
`
` 24
`
` Hawkins Reporting Service
`715 North King Street - Wilmington, Delaware 19801
` (302) 658-6697 FAX (302) 658-8418
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 504 Filed 04/26/20 Page 3 of 203 PageID #: 34663
`3
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
` 10
`
` 11
`
` 12
`
` 13
`
` 14
`
` 15
`
` 16
`
` 17
`
` 18
`
` 19
`
` 20
`
` 21
`
` 22
`
` 23
`
` 24
`
`THE SPECIAL MASTER: So we're on
`
`the record. For the record, I'm Allen Terrell,
`
`Special Master, in the case of Acceleration Bay
`
`LLC vs. Activision Blizzard, Inc, Civil Action
`
`No. 16-453 and the related cases 16-454 and
`
`16-455. This is a hearing on Plaintiff's Motion
`
`to Compel and on Defendants' Motion to Compel.
`
`We're going to begin by counsel
`
`identifying themselves around the table for the
`
`sake of the court reporter and this record.
`
`MR. ANDRE: Paul Andre for
`
`Plaintiff.
`
`MR. FRANKEL: Aaron Frankel for
`
`Plaintiff and with us is Phil Rovner also for
`
`the Plaintiff.
`
`MR. BLUMENFELD: Jack Blumenfeld
`
`for the Defendants along with Kathleen Barry.
`
`MS. HANEY: And Megan Haney also
`
`for the Defendants and I'm just here for the
`
`Boeing motion.
`
`THE SPECIAL MASTER: We will begin
`
`by agreement among the parties to consider the
`
`first item being the Motion of Defendant to
`
`Compel compliance with the Rule 45 subpoena to
`
` Hawkins Reporting Service
`715 North King Street - Wilmington, Delaware 19801
` (302) 658-6697 FAX (302) 658-8418
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 504 Filed 04/26/20 Page 4 of 203 PageID #: 34664
`4
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
` 10
`
` 11
`
` 12
`
` 13
`
` 14
`
` 15
`
` 16
`
` 17
`
` 18
`
` 19
`
` 20
`
` 21
`
` 22
`
` 23
`
` 24
`
`the Boeing company. On behalf of Defendants is
`
`Ms. Haney. You can go ahead.
`
`MS. HANEY: Actually, I believe
`
`that Ms. Barry will do the arguments for
`
`Defendants.
`
`right?
`
`THE SPECIAL MASTER: Is that
`
`MS. BARRY: Yes.
`
`THE SPECIAL MASTER: Let me also
`
`tell counsel that I've read all of your briefs
`
`and exhibits and I have suggested that we have
`
`some reasonable limitations on time as we
`
`proceed. But do your best and if you need more
`
`time, I assure you can have it.
`
`MS. BARRY: Thank you, Your Honor,
`
`and counsel for the Plaintiff for the courtesy
`
`of doing the Boeing motion first since Ms. Haney
`
`is co-counsel with us with regards to the Boeing
`
`motion. As an initial matter on the Boeing
`
`motion, Boeing has agreed to have this motion
`
`heard before the Special Master in the
`
`procedures that are set up here for the Special
`
`Master.
`
`So we have two issues that we are
`
` Hawkins Reporting Service
`715 North King Street - Wilmington, Delaware 19801
` (302) 658-6697 FAX (302) 658-8418
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 504 Filed 04/26/20 Page 5 of 203 PageID #: 34665
`5
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
` 10
`
` 11
`
` 12
`
` 13
`
` 14
`
` 15
`
` 16
`
` 17
`
` 18
`
` 19
`
` 20
`
` 21
`
` 22
`
` 23
`
` 24
`
`moving to compel Boeing on at this point. The
`
`first issue is we are seeking an order requiring
`
`Boeing to provide a privilege log for any
`
`documents that have been withheld on the basis
`
`of privilege. And in response to that, Boeing
`
`has made a couple of arguments.
`
`First of all, Boeing has said that
`
`they are not required to by reason of the
`
`protective order. We don't believe that is
`
`correct. As an initial matter, the scheduling
`
`order, which was issued after the protective
`
`order, provides a requirement that -- and
`
`supersedes the protective order and provides
`
`that all withheld documents with some limited
`
`exceptions must be logged in full compliance
`
`with Rule 26(b)(5)(a). I would direct the
`
`Special Master to Paragraph 19 of the scheduling
`
`order.
`
`Second, even if the scheduling
`
`order, which was signed by Judge Andrews several
`
`days after the protective order, is not the
`
`governing provision, the provision of the
`
`protective order with regard to third parties as
`
`the third parties may designate documents as
`
` Hawkins Reporting Service
`715 North King Street - Wilmington, Delaware 19801
` (302) 658-6697 FAX (302) 658-8418
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 504 Filed 04/26/20 Page 6 of 203 PageID #: 34666
`6
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
` 10
`
` 11
`
` 12
`
` 13
`
` 14
`
` 15
`
` 16
`
` 17
`
` 18
`
` 19
`
` 20
`
` 21
`
` 22
`
` 23
`
` 24
`
`confidential under the protective order, it does
`
`not provide that third parties do not have to
`
`log documents under the protective order. And
`
`that makes sense because with regard to the
`
`provision of the protective order that Boeing is
`
`pointing to, it talks about litigation counsel
`
`of record.
`
`Boeing continuously says in this
`
`litigation that it is a third party, and we take
`
`issue with that. It is not a third party, but
`
`it doesn't have litigation counsel of record.
`
`And I say it's not a third party because Boeing
`
`was the original assignee of these patents.
`
`Boeing was the party who employed the inventors
`
`at the time of the invention. Boeing was the
`
`party who owned these patents for almost 20
`
`years.
`
`Boeing then sold these patents.
`
`When it sold these patents, it retained a
`
`significant right in interest in the proceeds of
`
`this litigation so Boeing has had more
`
`documentation about these patents than any other
`
`party to this litigation, but yet it doesn't
`
`have, as the protective order provides,
`
` Hawkins Reporting Service
`715 North King Street - Wilmington, Delaware 19801
` (302) 658-6697 FAX (302) 658-8418
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 504 Filed 04/26/20 Page 7 of 203 PageID #: 34667
`7
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
` 10
`
` 11
`
` 12
`
` 13
`
` 14
`
` 15
`
` 16
`
` 17
`
` 18
`
` 19
`
` 20
`
` 21
`
` 22
`
` 23
`
` 24
`
`litigation counsel.
`
`Even if those provisions of the
`
`protective order would mean that Boeing wasn't
`
`required to provide it with a privilege log,
`
`there's a provision in the protective order that
`
`says that if there's good cause, we can request
`
`a protective order. And I would submit that
`
`there is more than good cause here.
`
`In particular, we have had very,
`
`very minimal production of documents from Boeing
`
`despite the fact that, as I mentioned, Boeing
`
`was the original assignee of these patents,
`
`Boeing was the employer of the inventors of
`
`these patents and Boeing itself made effort to
`
`sell these patents for quite a few years.
`
`We have, for instance, no
`
`documents regarding the actual negotiation and
`
`discussion of the sale of these patents from
`
`Boeing to Acceleration Bay. Those documents
`
`would be from the 2014, 2015 time frame and
`
`those documents certainly would not be
`
`privileged. It would be between parties that
`
`had adverse positions because they were trying
`
`to negotiate an agreement, but we have none of
`
` Hawkins Reporting Service
`715 North King Street - Wilmington, Delaware 19801
` (302) 658-6697 FAX (302) 658-8418
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 504 Filed 04/26/20 Page 8 of 203 PageID #: 34668
`8
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
` 10
`
` 11
`
` 12
`
` 13
`
` 14
`
` 15
`
` 16
`
` 17
`
` 18
`
` 19
`
` 20
`
` 21
`
` 22
`
` 23
`
` 24
`
`those documents.
`
`We also have no documents
`
`regarding the amendment to the Sale Agreement
`
`that was entered into between Boeing and
`
`Acceleration Bay to address the standing issue.
`
`That would have been another situation in which
`
`Acceleration Bay were adverse and had adverse
`
`interests, so we have none of those documents
`
`either.
`
`In fact, this is what we will get
`
`to in the second part of the request of the
`
`relief on Boeing, which is we're asking for an
`
`order requiring Boeing to search and produce
`
`responsive emails and electronically stored
`
`information because we have a complete dearth of
`
`documents from Boeing.
`
`Going back to the timeline, this
`
`started back in 1996 and Boeing owned these
`
`patents until it sold them in 2015. And yet the
`
`documents that have been produced in this case
`
`are essentially the paper file histories, and we
`
`recently this week got a very limited production
`
`of emails. The email production that we did get
`
`was 900 pages, except of that 900 pages two of
`
` Hawkins Reporting Service
`715 North King Street - Wilmington, Delaware 19801
` (302) 658-6697 FAX (302) 658-8418
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 504 Filed 04/26/20 Page 9 of 203 PageID #: 34669
`9
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
` 10
`
` 11
`
` 12
`
` 13
`
` 14
`
` 15
`
` 16
`
` 17
`
` 18
`
` 19
`
` 20
`
` 21
`
` 22
`
` 23
`
` 24
`
`the files were Excel files which constitute
`
`about 600 pages, so essentially we've got 300
`
`pages of documents that Boeing has produced of
`
`about 110 documents.
`
`Tellingly, there are no
`
`communications between Boeing and Acceleration
`
`Bay. There are no communications between Boeing
`
`and Joe Ward. In fact, there doesn't appear to
`
`be any communication between Boeing and anybody
`
`who was involved in the sale of these patents to
`
`Acceleration Bay. There also does not appear to
`
`be and hasn't been produced any of the source
`
`code that Boeing had back in the 1990s regarding
`
`their implementation of the invention.
`
`We know from documents that would
`
`have been produced by the inventors that there
`
`was a whole collection of source code files that
`
`the inventors asked for from Boeing when they
`
`left Boeing. None of those have been produced.
`
`There were also other documents associated with
`
`the invention at the time and the implementation
`
`in Boeing systems. We haven't gotten any of
`
`that from Boeing.
`
`So we're seeking here both an
`
` Hawkins Reporting Service
`715 North King Street - Wilmington, Delaware 19801
` (302) 658-6697 FAX (302) 658-8418
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 504 Filed 04/26/20 Page 10 of 203 PageID #: 34670
`10
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
` 10
`
` 11
`
` 12
`
` 13
`
` 14
`
` 15
`
` 16
`
` 17
`
` 18
`
` 19
`
` 20
`
` 21
`
` 22
`
` 23
`
` 24
`
`order requiring Boeing to give us a privilege
`
`log and an order requiring Boeing to do a search
`
`for its responsive documents, both paper and
`
`electronically email and explaining to us what
`
`that search was.
`
`If as Boeing contends there are no
`
`other responsive documents, we would like an
`
`order from you requiring them to explain to us
`
`what their reasonable search was, what the
`
`custodians they searched were, what electronic
`
`sources they searched, what efforts they did to
`
`identify and collect and produce responsive
`
`documents, because for something that was with
`
`Boeing for 20 years would have generated and we
`
`know generated a large volume of documents, and
`
`we just don't have those documents.
`
`THE SPECIAL MASTER: Thank you.
`
`Mr. Andre?
`
`MR. ANDRE: Yes. So let me kind
`
`of take in the order that Ms. Barry discussed
`
`asking for a protective order. She makes a
`
`representation that Boeing is not a third party.
`
`They are not a party to this litigation. They
`
`have divested all of their interests in the
`
` Hawkins Reporting Service
`715 North King Street - Wilmington, Delaware 19801
` (302) 658-6697 FAX (302) 658-8418
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 504 Filed 04/26/20 Page 11 of 203 PageID #: 34671
`11
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
` 10
`
` 11
`
` 12
`
` 13
`
` 14
`
` 15
`
` 16
`
` 17
`
` 18
`
` 19
`
` 20
`
` 21
`
` 22
`
` 23
`
` 24
`
`patents to Acceleration Bay and retained no
`
`rights to the patents.
`
`THE SPECIAL MASTER: Can I just
`
`interrupt you? I think she says they retain a
`
`financial interest in this litigation; is that
`
`true?
`
`MR. ANDRE: That's not correct.
`
`They have sold the patents to Acceleration Bay
`
`and Acceleration Bay has a payment plan in place
`
`to pay that over time.
`
`THE SPECIAL MASTER: And it's not
`
`contingent in any way on the outcome of the
`
`case?
`
`MR. ANDRE: No. It's contingent
`
`upon Acceleration Bay obtaining revenues through
`
`sales and products, either licensing revenues or
`
`anything else, but it's revenue that
`
`Acceleration Bay gets or obtains. Then they
`
`have to pay off that payment. They've already
`
`paid some of it, but they haven't paid all of
`
`it. And Judge Andrews has addressed this, that
`
`this is not a relevant issue in the case. And
`
`the rights that Boeing divested were clearly
`
`stated in the Patent Purchase Agreement and
`
` Hawkins Reporting Service
`715 North King Street - Wilmington, Delaware 19801
` (302) 658-6697 FAX (302) 658-8418
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 504 Filed 04/26/20 Page 12 of 203 PageID #: 34672
`12
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
` 10
`
` 11
`
` 12
`
` 13
`
` 14
`
` 15
`
` 16
`
` 17
`
` 18
`
` 19
`
` 20
`
` 21
`
` 22
`
` 23
`
` 24
`
`revised Patent Purchase Agreement.
`
`Boeing is a true third party and
`
`Boeing has agreed to subject itself or submit
`
`itself to the jurisdiction of the Delaware
`
`court. It didn't have to do so and even in this
`
`proceeding with the Special Master. And under
`
`that circumstance, Boeing should at least get
`
`the same consideration that the parties have,
`
`meaning that there's an agreement between the
`
`parties as stated in the protective order that
`
`no privilege log needs to be provided for any
`
`documents created after the litigation began,
`
`and then only under special showing would be a
`
`privilege log, and I think there's been no such
`
`showing.
`
`Ms. Barry complains that there are
`
`no documents that she would like to receive such
`
`as drafts of the Patent Purchase Agreement,
`
`which they do have a draft of the first Patent
`
`Purchase Agreement. There's the first draft,
`
`the final revision and then when there was an
`
`Amended Patent Purchase Agreement, they got the
`
`only draft that exists, the signed version.
`
`There were no drafts going back and forth.
`
` Hawkins Reporting Service
`715 North King Street - Wilmington, Delaware 19801
` (302) 658-6697 FAX (302) 658-8418
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 504 Filed 04/26/20 Page 13 of 203 PageID #: 34673
`13
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
` 10
`
` 11
`
` 12
`
` 13
`
` 14
`
` 15
`
` 16
`
` 17
`
` 18
`
` 19
`
` 20
`
` 21
`
` 22
`
` 23
`
` 24
`
`Boeing has made a representation
`
`that they have produced all documents relating
`
`to the acquisition between Acceleration Bay and
`
`Boeing. It's not living up to Ms. Barry's
`
`expectations. That's not Boeing's problem.
`
`Boeing has produced those documents and those
`
`documents are not being withheld on a privilege
`
`ground so they just don't exist and they never
`
`did exist.
`
`THE SPECIAL MASTER: What about
`
`the point that she makes that Boeing has not
`
`produced its source code or any communications
`
`between Plaintiff and Ward presumably other than
`
`the acquisition document?
`
`MR. ANDRE: There are no
`
`communications between Mr. Ward and Boeing. All
`
`communications were done verbally so it's kind
`
`of impossible to have documents when you are on
`
`a phone call. As to the source code, to the
`
`extent source code existed Boeing searched and
`
`there's no source code available for Boeing.
`
`Source code has been provided because what
`
`Boeing did is they gave the source code to the
`
`inventors Mr. Bourassa and Holt.
`
` Hawkins Reporting Service
`715 North King Street - Wilmington, Delaware 19801
` (302) 658-6697 FAX (302) 658-8418
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 504 Filed 04/26/20 Page 14 of 203 PageID #: 34674
`14
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
` 10
`
` 11
`
` 12
`
` 13
`
` 14
`
` 15
`
` 16
`
` 17
`
` 18
`
` 19
`
` 20
`
` 21
`
` 22
`
` 23
`
` 24
`
`Mr. Bourassa and Mr. Holt did a
`
`spin-off company from Boeing. Boeing sponsored
`
`that spin-off company, Panthesis. They
`
`transferred all of the document about the
`
`invention, all of the source code to Panthesis
`
`and there were various colleagues in our office
`
`two weeks ago for an entire day looking at that
`
`source code so the source code is there, what
`
`Panthesis has of that source code and how it
`
`modified it over time. Panthesis has retained a
`
`copy of the source code.
`
`So Boeing sitting here today with
`
`the first request for a protective order --
`
`Defendants are asking us to treat Boeing more
`
`exceptional than the parties in not giving them
`
`the same courtesy and the same considerations,
`
`so I see no basis for the protective order. As
`
`for the documents, they are asking us to produce
`
`documents that don't exist. As we stated in our
`
`opposition brief, we've already produced emails.
`
`To the extent emails exist, they have them.
`
`Mr. Bourassa and Mr. Holt have not
`
`worked at Boeing for years and years. I don't
`
`think you can expect a company of Boeing's size
`
` Hawkins Reporting Service
`715 North King Street - Wilmington, Delaware 19801
` (302) 658-6697 FAX (302) 658-8418
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 504 Filed 04/26/20 Page 15 of 203 PageID #: 34675
`15
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
` 10
`
` 11
`
` 12
`
` 13
`
` 14
`
` 15
`
` 16
`
` 17
`
` 18
`
` 19
`
` 20
`
` 21
`
` 22
`
` 23
`
` 24
`
`to maintain emails of employees for over 10
`
`years. The complaint about there are not enough
`
`documents, Boeing has produced over 5,000 pages
`
`of documents, more recently another production
`
`close to 1,000 pages.
`
`And when we look at that, as a
`
`third party who hasn't had this information for
`
`a long time and compared to what has been
`
`produced by the Defendant, it is comparable. In
`
`fact, if you look at the Defendant individually,
`
`for example, Take-Two it's more. So the volume
`
`of documents is immaterial and to say they
`
`haven't got enough and expect more, we can't
`
`make this stuff up.
`
`Now, the most outlandish request
`
`is asking Boeing to now reveal the work product
`
`of the Boeing legal team as to how they did the
`
`search and what they searched. And what we can
`
`represent is that Boeing, the entire legal team,
`
`did a diligent search for documents based on the
`
`subpoena that was issued to them. They have
`
`made representations and I will make a
`
`representation on their behalf that all
`
`documents located based on that subpoena have
`
` Hawkins Reporting Service
`715 North King Street - Wilmington, Delaware 19801
` (302) 658-6697 FAX (302) 658-8418
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 504 Filed 04/26/20 Page 16 of 203 PageID #: 34676
`16
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
` 10
`
` 11
`
` 12
`
` 13
`
` 14
`
` 15
`
` 16
`
` 17
`
` 18
`
` 19
`
` 20
`
` 21
`
` 22
`
` 23
`
` 24
`
`been produced. Nothing is being withheld.
`
`To the extent there are some
`
`privileged emails with Boeing and Boeing's
`
`counsel, those are not going to be produced
`
`because they are not relevant to what Ms. Barry
`
`is talking about, the invention, source code, et
`
`cetera. They have four or five sources of
`
`getting these documents, Boeing, Panthesis which
`
`was the start-up company, two inventors and of
`
`course Acceleration Bay. They subpoenaed each
`
`inventor separately. They subpoenaed Panthesis
`
`the start-up company that Boeing started with
`
`the inventors. They subpoenaed Boeing, and of
`
`course Acceleration Bay has produced their
`
`documents. And there have been thousands and
`
`thousands of pages of documents produced
`
`relating to this invention.
`
`I think their complaints are
`
`unfounded and asking Boeing to do more than any
`
`party would ever have to do to reveal privileged
`
`information and work product I think is
`
`egregious.
`
`MR. FRANKEL: If I can briefly
`
`address two points?
`
` Hawkins Reporting Service
`715 North King Street - Wilmington, Delaware 19801
` (302) 658-6697 FAX (302) 658-8418
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 504 Filed 04/26/20 Page 17 of 203 PageID #: 34677
`17
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
` 10
`
` 11
`
` 12
`
` 13
`
` 14
`
` 15
`
` 16
`
` 17
`
` 18
`
` 19
`
` 20
`
` 21
`
` 22
`
` 23
`
` 24
`
`THE SPECIAL MASTER: Yes.
`
`MR. FRANKEL: On the issue of the
`
`provisions in the protective order, these were
`
`regarding providing privilege logs. Those were
`
`specifically negotiated by the parties to reduce
`
`burden and there was no intention in the
`
`scheduling order which includes some default
`
`language actually limiting privilege log, would
`
`trump these specifically negotiated provisions,
`
`that's Section 14 and 17 of the protective
`
`order. If counsel is suggesting that the
`
`scheduling order has negated the parties'
`
`agreement that they don't need to provide
`
`privilege logs, then we would expect to receive
`
`Defendants' privilege logs for all of their
`
`emails and documents that they have withheld on
`
`privilege or similar reasons.
`
`Section 17 of the protective order
`
`says, A third party shall receive the same level
`
`of protection under the protective order as any
`
`party of this lawsuit. So Boeing is not a
`
`party, but it's entitled to the same level of
`
`protection and should not have to provide a
`
`privilege log. And then Section 17 also
`
` Hawkins Reporting Service
`715 North King Street - Wilmington, Delaware 19801
` (302) 658-6697 FAX (302) 658-8418
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 504 Filed 04/26/20 Page 18 of 203 PageID #: 34678
`18
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
` 10
`
` 11
`
` 12
`
` 13
`
` 14
`
` 15
`
` 16
`
` 17
`
` 18
`
` 19
`
` 20
`
` 21
`
` 22
`
` 23
`
` 24
`
`requires that any party that receives a subpoena
`
`be provided a copy of the protective order and
`
`be made aware of their rights.
`
`On the issue of requiring the
`
`disclosure of work product as to how documents
`
`were searched for and collected, we have been to
`
`the Special Master and the Court many times for
`
`Defendants' document deficiencies which is
`
`remarkable to us and they've represented time
`
`and time again that they haven't been able to
`
`locate these documents. So if we're going to
`
`make a third party reveal their work, and we
`
`don't think we should, then Defendant should
`
`also be held to that same standard and tell us
`
`what they have done and who they have searched
`
`and where they have searched and all of that
`
`same information. Thank you.
`
`THE SPECIAL MASTER: Thank you.
`
`Ms. Barry?
`
`MS. BARRY: So a couple of
`
`responses, Your Honor. First of all, Boeing is
`
`not appearing here in Delaware by its good
`
`graces. Boeing is a Delaware corporation.
`
`Boeing can properly be held here into court in
`
` Hawkins Reporting Service
`715 North King Street - Wilmington, Delaware 19801
` (302) 658-6697 FAX (302) 658-8418
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 504 Filed 04/26/20 Page 19 of 203 PageID #: 34679
`19
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
` 10
`
` 11
`
` 12
`
` 13
`
` 14
`
` 15
`
` 16
`
` 17
`
` 18
`
` 19
`
` 20
`
` 21
`
` 22
`
` 23
`
` 24
`
`Delaware. And second of all, we take strong
`
`issue with Mr. Andre's statements regarding what
`
`Boeing is entitled to in regards to this
`
`litigation. You can look at the Patent Purchase
`
`Agreement, specifically Section 3.4(b) which
`
`says, In addition to the initial payment to
`
`Seller, Purchaser shall pay Seller a fee of 75
`
`percent on all amounts from settlement sales or
`
`licensing revenues and fees received by
`
`Purchaser for its licensing efforts, the
`
`provision goes on. But the import of that
`
`section is whatever the result is of this
`
`litigation, Boeing gets 75 percent of those
`
`results. Boeing is a very interested party in
`
`this litigation.
`
`Now, to Mr. Frankel's point, the
`
`scheduling order which was entered after the
`
`protective order specifically provides that the
`
`parties aren't required to log activities
`
`related to the duty to preserve information and
`
`they are not required to log activities that are
`
`generated after the filing of the 2015 cases
`
`but, otherwise, the parties are required to log
`
`in full compliance.
`
` Hawkins Reporting Service
`715 North King Street - Wilmington, Delaware 19801
` (302) 658-6697 FAX (302) 658-8418
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 504 Filed 04/26/20 Page 20 of 203 PageID #: 34680
`20
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
` 10
`
` 11
`
` 12
`
` 13
`
` 14
`
` 15
`
` 16
`
` 17
`
` 18
`
` 19
`
` 20
`
` 21
`
` 22
`
` 23
`
` 24
`
`Regardless of what the parties
`
`wanted to suggest in the protective order, Judge
`
`Andrews thought that the appropriate provision
`
`was that the parties would log in full
`
`compliance any activities up to the date of the
`
`2015 cases. And the fact of the matter is that
`
`Boeing has engaged in a lot of activities
`
`related before the 2015 cases and all of that
`
`should be either produced or logged.
`
`Now, counsel also made the point
`
`that Boeing, the so-called third party that gets
`
`75 percent of the proceeds of this litigation,
`
`that Boeing's document production is comparable
`
`to the document production of my clients.
`
`That's not a relevant issue here. The question
`
`is what responsive and relevant documents does
`
`Boeing have.
`
`We would expect that Boeing who
`
`has been involved with these patents for about
`
`20 years would have a large volume of documents
`
`related to these inventions. And yet they have
`
`produced, as counsel pointed out, a mere 6,000
`
`pages. And of those 6,000 pages, a large
`
`portion of those 6,000 pages is the file
`
` Hawkins Reporting Service
`715 North King Street - Wilmington, Delaware 19801
` (302) 658-6697 FAX (302) 658-8418
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 504 Filed 04/26/20 Page 21 of 203 PageID #: 34681
`21
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
` 10
`
` 11
`
` 12
`
` 13
`
` 14
`
` 15
`
` 16
`
` 17
`
` 18
`
` 19
`
` 20
`
` 21
`
` 22
`
` 23
`
` 24
`
`histories from the patents. So Boeing has
`
`essentially produced no documents.
`
`And now we hear for the first time
`
`that Boeing is taking the position that there
`
`were no written communications about the
`
`negotiation of an agreement where they sold six
`
`of their patents for about $1 million and
`
`they're going to get 75 percent of the proceeds
`
`of any litigation that comes out of that. That
`
`is just not credible, and nobody at Boeing has
`
`any internal communication about the negotiation
`
`of this agreement.
`
`What appears to be the one
`
`custodian that they gave us documents from,
`
`Natasha Radowski(ph), who has put in a
`
`declaration saying that she was involved in the
`
`negotiation and knows about them, she apparently
`
`made this decision on all on her own without
`
`doing any kind of written communications within
`
`Boeing to get approval to sell these patents.
`
`There are no documents about this. It just
`
`doesn't make any sense. A company of the size
`
`of Boeing has layers of management where they
`
`have to get approval for this and yet we're
`
` Hawkins Reporting Service
`715 North King Street - Wilmington, Delaware 19801
` (302) 658-6697 FAX (302) 658-8418
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 504 Filed 04/26/20 Page 22 of 203 PageID #: 34682
`22
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
` 10
`
` 11
`
` 12
`
` 13
`
` 14
`
` 15
`
` 16
`
` 17
`
` 18
`
` 19
`
` 20
`
` 21
`
` 22
`
` 23
`
` 24
`
`being told there are no documents.
`
`We don't ask for the order
`
`directing Boeing to tell us what they have done
`
`to conduct a reasonable search. The reason we
`
`ask for it is because it just makes no sense
`
`that Boeing with layers of management and layers
`
`of approval processes, and Ms. Radowski who was
`
`personally involved in the negotiation of this
`
`agreement but didn't sign it, has no written
`
`documents with anybody in the company saying you
`
`have approval to negotiate this deal.
`
`THE SPECIAL MASTER: All right.
`
`Thank you.
`
`point?
`
`ahead.
`
`MR. ANDRE: Can I address this
`
`THE SPECIAL MASTER: Yes. Go
`
`MR. ANDRE: She was talking
`
`earlier the communications between Acceleration
`
`Bay and Boeing, and my representation was any
`
`communications between Acceleration Bay and
`
`Boeing regarding the Patent Purchase Agreement
`
`have been produced. She's talking about
`
`internal communications within the legal team of
`
` Hawkins Reporting Service
`715 North King Street - Wilmington, Delaware 19801
` (302) 658-6697 FAX (302) 658-8418
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 504 Filed 04/26/20 Page 23 of 203 PageID #: 34683
`23
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
` 10
`
` 11
`
` 12
`
` 13
`
` 14
`
` 15
`
` 16
`
` 17
`
` 18
`
` 19
`
` 20
`
` 21
`
` 22
`
` 23
`
` 24
`
`Boeing, that's a different argument than what
`
`she made earlier. I didn't make the
`
`representation -- if there are internal
`
`communications within the legal team of Boeing,
`
`then those would clearly be privileged
`
`communications within Boeing.
`
`The people who we're talking about
`
`are all in the legal group, the lawyers, so that
`
`was not asked in the opening argument. It was
`
`communication between Acceleration Bay and
`
`Boeing regarding the Patent Purchase Agreement.
`
`And that is what my representation is, if there
`
`are any communications, they have been produced.
`
`MS. BARRY: Your Honor, if I may
`
`respond just briefly. Our document requests and
`
`subpoena to Boeing certainly includes all Boeing
`
`internal communications about the sale of this
`
`agreement. And all of those communications
`
`would have certainly been before this
`
`litigation.
`
`So if they are withholding them,
`
`they need to be logged. This is all the more
`
`reason we need a privilege log from Boeing
`
`detailing what all of their communications are,
`
` Hawkins Reporting Service
`715 North King Street - Wilmington, Delaware 19801
` (302) 658-6697 FAX (302) 658-8418
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 504 Filed 04/26/20 Page 24 of 203 PageID #: 34684
`24
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
` 10
`
` 11
`
` 12
`
` 13
`
` 14
`
` 15
`
` 16
`
` 17
`
` 18
`
` 19
`
` 20
`
` 21
`
` 22
`
` 23
`
` 24
`
`what all of their documents are that they are
`
`withholding, because from what Mr. Andre just
`
`said here, they are clearly withholding
`
`documents that are responsive to our subpoena.
`
`THE SPECIAL MASTER: All right.
`
`Very good. I have your argument. Ms. Haney,
`
`you're excused. I think that completes this
`
`particular motion.
`
`MS. HANEY: Thank you.
`
`THE SPECIAL MASTER: How would the
`
`parties want to proceed with respect to the
`
`motions for today? I'm happy to go in any order
`
`that you want. It seems to me you might want to
`
`next consider Defendants' motion, Mr. Holt and
`
`Bourassa to comply with the subpoena, only
`
`because it seems to be somewhat related to the
`
`Boeing matter.
`
`MR. ANDRE: Th