Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 104-2 Filed 03/19/20 Page 1 of 56 PageID #: 3113
`Case 1:17-cv-00868—CFC-SRF Document 104-2 Filed 03/19/20 Page 1 of 56 PageID #: 3113
`
`EXHIBIT “(cid:36)”
`
`EXHIBIT “A”
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 104-2 Filed 03/19/20 Page 2 of 56 PageID #: 3114
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS and
`CARMEL LABORATORIES, LLC,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`L’ORÉAL USA, INC.,
`
`Case No. 17-cv-868-CFC-SRF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
`DEFENDANT L’ORÉAL USA, INC.’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR THE
`PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS TO PLAINTIFFS
`(NOS. 1-131)
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 and the Local Rules of this Court, Plaintiffs
`
`University of Massachusetts (“UMass”) and Carmel Laboratories, LLC (“Carmel Labs” and,
`
`together, “Plaintiffs”) submit supplemental objections and responses to certain of the First Set of
`
`Requests for Production (“Requests”) of Defendant L’Oréal USA, Inc., dated September 11, 2019.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`1.
`
`These answers are made solely for the purpose of this action. Each answer is
`
`subject to all objections, as to competence, relevance, materiality, propriety, and admissibility, and
`
`to any and all other objections on any grounds that would require the exclusion of any statements
`
`contained herein if such interrogatory were asked of, or statements contained herein were made by
`
`a witness present and testifying in Court, all of which objections and grounds are expressly
`
`reserved and may be interposed at the time of trial.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiffs’ responses are based upon information presently available to and located
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 104-2 Filed 03/19/20 Page 3 of 56 PageID #: 3115
`
`by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have not completed investigation of the facts relating to this case, discovery
`
`in this action, or preparation for trial. The responses are given without prejudice to Plaintiffs’ right
`
`to produce evidence of any additional facts. As such, these responses are subject to
`
`supplementation and amendment as discovery in this case progresses, should future investigation
`
`or discovery indicate that supplementation or amendment is necessary. Plaintiffs reserve the right
`
`to make any use of, or introduce at any hearing or trial, information or documents that are
`
`responsive to these Requests, but discovered subsequent to Plaintiffs’ service of these responses,
`
`including, but not limited to, any information or documents obtained in discovery herein.
`
`3.
`
`No incidental or implied admissions are intended by the responses herein. The fact
`
`that Plaintiffs have responded to any Request should not be taken as an admission that Plaintiffs
`
`accept or admit the existence of any “fact” set forth or assumed by such Request. That Plaintiffs
`
`have answered all or part of any Request is not intended to be, and shall not be construed to be, a
`
`waiver by Plaintiffs of any objection to any Request or any portion of any Request.
`
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS
`
`Plaintiffs make the following numbered general objections to the requests, instructions,
`
`and definitions set forth in Defendant’s Requests, which objections are incorporated by
`
`reference into each and every request response that follows:
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiffs object to each Request and the Definitions and Instructions to the
`
`extent they seek to impose any obligation or duty upon Plaintiffs greater or different than those
`
`required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules for the United States District
`
`Court for the District of Delaware, any other applicable local rules, or any order entered in this
`
`case.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiffs object to each Request to the extent it seeks documents, or things (a)
`
`not maintained in the ordinary course of business, and/or (b) the collection of which would
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 104-2 Filed 03/19/20 Page 4 of 56 PageID #: 3116
`
`require an unreasonable amount of time and resources.
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiffs object to each Request as unduly burdensome to the extent it seeks
`
`information, documents, or things that (a) are not in Plaintiffs’ possession, custody, or control as
`
`those terms are defined in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34, or (b) are as easily available to
`
`Defendant.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiffs object to each Request to the extent it seeks information protected from
`
`disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, the joint defense
`
`or common-interest privilege, or any other privilege or immunity under federal or state
`
`statutory, constitutional or common law. The inadvertent production of any information or
`
`documents that contain information that is privileged, were prepared in anticipation of litigation
`
`or for trial, or that are otherwise protected from discovery, shall not constitute a waiver of any
`
`privilege or of any ground for objection to discovery with respect to such document, or the
`
`subject matter thereof, or of the right of Plaintiffs to object to the use of any such document or
`
`information during any subsequent proceeding, hearing, or trial. Plaintiffs will produce a
`
`privilege log of any responsive, privileged documents withheld from production, subject to the
`
`reservation that work product and attorney-client privileged documents generated after the filing
`
`date of the instant action need not be identified on the privilege log.
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiffs object to the extent that each Request fails to specify a reasonable time
`
`period for which information is sought, or is not limited by a reasonable or relevant time period,
`
`and consequently is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and/or not relevant to a claim or defense of
`
`a party and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
`
`6.
`
`Identification or production of documents or information responsive to any
`
`request should not be construed as:
`
`a)
`
`an admission or stipulation that the documents or their content or subject
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 104-2 Filed 03/19/20 Page 5 of 56 PageID #: 3117
`
`matter are relevant;
`
`b)
`
`a waiver by Plaintiffs of their General Objections or of the specific
`
`objections asserted in response to a specific request; or
`
`c)
`
`an agreement that requests for similar information will be treated in a
`
`similar manner.
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiffs object to each Request to the extent it seeks “all” subject matter as
`
`overbroad and unduly burdensome. “All” shall be understood to mean the information,
`
`documents, or things that Plaintiffs are able to locate using reasonable diligence and judgment
`
`concerning the whereabouts of responsive information, documents, or things. Such phraseology
`
`should not be construed as a representation that each and every piece of information,
`
`documents, or things in the possession of Plaintiffs has been examined in connection with these
`
`responses or any production pursuant thereto.
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiffs object to each Request to the extent it calls for production of
`
`electronically stored information (ESI) beyond the requirements of this District’s default ESI
`
`order.
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiffs object to each Request to the extent it calls for the production of
`
`information, documents, or things that are publicly available or within Defendant’s custody or
`
`control. Plaintiffs will not produce information, documents, or things that are publicly available
`
`or within Defendant’s custody or control.
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiffs object to each Request to the extent it calls for the production of
`
`information, documents, or things that are within the custody or control of the patent inventors,
`
`who are third parties. Plaintiffs will endeavor to collect and produce responsive, relevant
`
`documents in the possession of the third-party inventors as a courtesy, not an obligation.
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiffs object to the definitions of “You,” “Your,” “UMass,” “Carmel Labs,”
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 104-2 Filed 03/19/20 Page 6 of 56 PageID #: 3118
`
`and “Plaintiffs” to the extent they include subsidiary or affiliate companies, or attorneys, agents,
`
`and representatives of Plaintiffs which are not parties to this action, or otherwise to the extent
`
`this definition improperly expands the scope of discovery by seeking information and
`
`documents that are not currently in the possession, custody, or control of Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs
`
`further object to these definitions as overbroad, unduly burdensome, legally incorrect, and
`
`irrelevant to the extent that they purport to include within their scope all representatives or
`
`entities owned or controlled in whole or in part by Plaintiffs, all present and past partners,
`
`agents, employees, attorneys and affiliates of Plaintiffs, and all predecessors in interest,
`
`successors in interest, and other persons and entities related to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs further object
`
`to the definitions of “You,” “Your,” “UMass,” “Carmel Labs,” and “Plaintiffs” as vague and
`
`ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome and calling for information that is neither relevant to
`
`any party’s claims or defenses nor proportional to the needs of the case, the parties’ relative
`
`access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in
`
`resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its
`
`likely benefit to the extent these definitions include excessively long lists of vaguely defined
`
`persons and entities. Plaintiffs further object to the extent the below Requests use “You” and
`
`“Your” indiscriminately, without specifying whether the Request is addressed to UMass,
`
`Carmel Labs, or both.
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiffs object to the definitions of the terms “documents,” “things,”
`
`“communication,” “each,” “all,” and “any,” and Instructions No. 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, and 36,
`
`as overly broad, vague, ambiguous and unduly burdensome, and further to the extent they
`
`impose obligations on Plaintiffs beyond those dictated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiffs object to the term “Related Patents and Applications” as overly broad,
`
`vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome and calling for information that is neither relevant to
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 104-2 Filed 03/19/20 Page 7 of 56 PageID #: 3119
`
`any party’s claims or defenses nor proportional to the needs of the case insofar as it includes
`
`patents and patent applications that are indirectly related to the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`14.
`
`Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the General Objections set forth above into
`
`each response set forth below. Plaintiffs may repeat a General Objection for emphasis or some
`
`other reason. The failure to repeat any General Objection does not waive any General Objection
`
`to the interrogatory. Plaintiffs expressly reserve the right to amend his General Objections, any
`
`specific objection, or any specific response provided herein.
`
`REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
`
`DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 11
`
`All Documents Concerning Teresian Carmelites, including without limitation, all
`
`Documents concerning all Communications with Teresian Carmelites and any Person(s) relating
`
`to Teresian Carmelites, all Documents Concerning any financial relationships and/or efforts
`
`(including investment(s), ownership of any rights, and the like) Concerning Teresian Carmelites
`
`and any assets and/or liability relating to Teresian Carmelites, including, without limitation, all
`
`Documents Concerning the “leveraging” of “property owned by the monastery” identified in
`
`paragraph 17 of the FAC.
`
`RESPONSE TO NO. 11:
`
`Plaintiffs object to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected from
`
`disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, the joint defense
`
`or common-interest privilege, or any other privilege or immunity. Plaintiffs further object to this
`
`Request as overbroad and unduly burdensome insofar as it calls for “All Documents.” Plaintiffs
`
`further object to this Request as seeking documents or things that are not relevant to any claims
`
`or defenses in this case, and not proportional to the needs of the case. Plaintiffs further object to
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 104-2 Filed 03/19/20 Page 8 of 56 PageID #: 3120
`
`this Request insofar as it calls for documents that are not within Plaintiffs’ custody or control,
`
`and calls for documents that are publicly available.
`
`Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiffs are willing to meet
`
`and confer with Defendant regarding this Request.
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO NO. 11:
`
`Plaintiffs reincorporate all previous objections by reference, and respond additionally as
`
`follows: Plaintiffs hereby represent that they will not seek to introduce evidence or argument at
`
`summary judgment or trial regarding the leveraging of property owned by Teresian Carmelites,
`
`Teresian Carmelites’ inability to pay the monastery’s mortgage, Teresian Carmelites’ sale of
`
`property to prevent foreclosure on the monastery, Teresian Carmelites’ inability to maintain
`
`health insurance for its members, or Teresian Carmelites’ inability to use projected Easeamine
`
`profits to fund its charitable works.
`
`DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 30
`
`All Documents Concerning Your contentions in paragraph 29 of the FAC that
`
`“Teresian Carmelites’ plummeting funds left it unable to pay the monastery’s mortgage, and to
`
`lapse payments on obligations it undertook to finance the launch of Easeamine.”
`
`RESPONSE TO NO. 30:
`
`Plaintiffs object to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected from
`
`disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, the joint defense
`
`or common-interest privilege, or any other privilege or immunity. Plaintiffs further object to this
`
`Request as overbroad and unduly burdensome insofar as it calls for “All Documents.”
`
`Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiffs are willing to meet
`
`and confer with Defendant regarding this Request.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 104-2 Filed 03/19/20 Page 9 of 56 PageID #: 3121
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO NO. 30:
`
`Plaintiffs reincorporate all previous objections by reference, and respond additionally as
`
`follows: Plaintiffs hereby represent that they will not seek to introduce evidence or argument at
`
`summary judgment or trial regarding the leveraging of property owned by Teresian Carmelites,
`
`Teresian Carmelites’ inability to pay the monastery’s mortgage, Teresian Carmelites’ sale of
`
`property to prevent foreclosure on the monastery, Teresian Carmelites’ inability to maintain
`
`health insurance for its members, or Teresian Carmelites’ inability to use projected Easeamine
`
`profits to fund its charitable works.
`
`DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 31
`
`All Documents and Communications Concerning the obligations undertaken by
`
`Teresian Carmelites to finance the development and launch of Your Easeamine Products.
`
`RESPONSE TO NO. 31:
`
`Plaintiffs object to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected from
`
`disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, the joint defense
`
`or common-interest privilege, or any other privilege or immunity. Plaintiffs further object to this
`
`Request as overbroad and unduly burdensome insofar as it calls for “All Documents and
`
`Communications.” Plaintiffs further object to this Request as calling for irrelevant information,
`
`insofar as Teresian Carmelites is not a party to this case and did not develop or launch the
`
`Easeamine products.
`
`Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiffs are willing to meet
`
`and confer with Defendant regarding this Request.
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO NO. 31:
`
`Plaintiffs reincorporate all previous objections by reference, and respond additionally as
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 104-2 Filed 03/19/20 Page 10 of 56 PageID #:
` 3122
`
`follows: Plaintiffs hereby represent that they will not seek to introduce evidence or argument at
`
`summary judgment or trial regarding the leveraging of property owned by Teresian Carmelites,
`
`Teresian Carmelites’ inability to pay the monastery’s mortgage, Teresian Carmelites’ sale of
`
`property to prevent foreclosure on the monastery, Teresian Carmelites’ inability to maintain
`
`health insurance for its members, or Teresian Carmelites’ inability to use projected Easeamine
`
`profits to fund its charitable works.
`
`DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 32
`
`All Documents and Communications Concerning Teresian Carmelites’ sale of “certain
`
`properties it owned to prevent foreclosure on the monastery” and its inability to maintain
`
`health insurance for its members, as alleged in paragraph 29 of the FAC.
`
`RESPONSE TO NO. 32:
`
`Plaintiffs object to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected from
`
`disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, the joint defense
`
`or common-interest privilege, or any other privilege or immunity. Plaintiffs further object to this
`
`Request as overbroad and unduly burdensome insofar as it calls for “All Documents and
`
`Communications.” Plaintiffs further object to this Request as seeking documents or things that
`
`are not relevant to any claims or defenses in this case, and not proportional to the needs of the
`
`case.
`
`Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiffs are willing to meet
`
`and confer with Defendant regarding the scope of this Request.
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO NO. 32:
`
`Plaintiffs reincorporate all previous objections by reference, and respond additionally
`
`as follows: Plaintiffs hereby represent that they will not seek to introduce evidence or
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 104-2 Filed 03/19/20 Page 11 of 56 PageID #:
` 3123
`
`argument at summary judgment or trial regarding the leveraging of property owned by
`
`Teresian Carmelites, Teresian Carmelites’ inability to pay the monastery’s mortgage, Teresian
`
`Carmelites’ sale of property to prevent foreclosure on the monastery, Teresian Carmelites’
`
`inability to maintain health insurance for its members, or Teresian Carmelites’ inability to use
`
`projected Easeamine profits to fund its charitable works.
`
`DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 33
`
`All Documents and Communications Concerning Teresian Carmelites’ inability to use
`
`“the projected Easeamine profits to fund its charitable works, including efforts to benefit the
`
`underprivileged through educational and outreach programs,” as alleged in paragraph 29 of
`
`the FAC.
`
`RESPONSE TO NO. 33:
`
`Plaintiffs object to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected from
`
`disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, the joint defense
`
`or common-interest privilege, or any other privilege or immunity. Plaintiffs further object to this
`
`Request as overbroad and unduly burdensome insofar as it calls for “All Documents and
`
`Communications.” Plaintiffs further object to this Request as calling for irrelevant information,
`
`insofar as Teresian Carmelites is not a party to this case.
`
`Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiffs are willing to meet
`
`and confer with Defendant regarding the scope of this Request.
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO NO. 33:
`
`Plaintiffs reincorporate all previous objections by reference, and respond additionally
`
`as follows: Plaintiffs hereby represent that they will not seek to introduce evidence or
`
`argument at summary judgment or trial regarding the leveraging of property owned by
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 104-2 Filed 03/19/20 Page 12 of 56 PageID #:
` 3124
`
`Teresian Carmelites, Teresian Carmelites’ inability to pay the monastery’s mortgage, Teresian
`
`Carmelites’ sale of property to prevent foreclosure on the monastery, Teresian Carmelites’
`
`inability to maintain health insurance for its members, or Teresian Carmelites’ inability to use
`
`projected Easeamine profits to fund its charitable works.
`
`DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 45
`
`Documents and Things sufficient to show Teresian Carmelites’ annual, quarterly, and
`monthly profits and losses from the time it first began its relationship with Carmel Labs to the
`
`present.
`
`RESPONSE TO NO. 45:
`
`Plaintiffs object to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected from
`
`disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, the joint defense
`
`or common-interest privilege, or any other privilege or immunity. Plaintiffs further object to this
`
`Request as overbroad and unduly burdensome insofar as it calls for Teresian Carmelites’ profits
`
`and losses “from the time it first began its relationship with Carmel Labs to the present.”
`
`Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiffs are willing to meet
`
`and confer with Defendant regarding this Request.
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO NO. 45:
`
`Plaintiffs reincorporate all previous objections by reference, and respond additionally
`
`as follows: Plaintiffs hereby represent that they will not seek to introduce evidence or
`
`argument at summary judgment or trial regarding the leveraging of property owned by
`
`Teresian Carmelites, Teresian Carmelites’ inability to pay the monastery’s mortgage, Teresian
`
`Carmelites’ sale of property to prevent foreclosure on the monastery, Teresian Carmelites’
`
`inability to maintain health insurance for its members, or Teresian Carmelites’ inability to use
`
`projected Easeamine profits to fund its charitable works.
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 104-2 Filed 03/19/20 Page 13 of 56 PageID #:
` 3125
`
`DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 58
`
`All Documents and Things Concerning any efforts, actions, Communications,
`
`discussions, or the like, regarding any non-infringing alternatives to the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`RESPONSE TO NO. 58:
`
`Plaintiffs object to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected from
`
`disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, the joint defense
`
`or common-interest privilege, or any other privilege or immunity. Plaintiffs further object to this
`
`Request as vague, overbroad, and unduly burdensome insofar as it calls for “All Documents and
`
`Things.”
`
`Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiffs are willing
`
`to meet and confer with Defendant regarding this Request.
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO NO. 58:
`
`Plaintiffs reincorporate all previous objections by reference, and respond additionally
`
`as follows: Plaintiffs will produce relevant and non-privileged documents reasonably related
`
`to non-infringing alternatives to the Patents-in-Suit, to the extent such documents exist, can be
`
`located upon a reasonable search, and are within Plaintiffs’ possession, custody, or control.
`
`DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 60
`
`All Documents and Things Concerning all products that You contend are or were sold
`
`in the same in the market as Your Easeamine Products.
`
`RESPONSE TO NO. 60:
`
`Plaintiffs object to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected from
`
`disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, the joint defense
`
`or common-interest privilege, or any other privilege or immunity. Plaintiffs further object to this
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 104-2 Filed 03/19/20 Page 14 of 56 PageID #:
` 3126
`
`Request as vague, overbroad, and unduly burdensome insofar as it calls for “All Documents and
`
`Things.” Plaintiffs further object to this Request to the extent it calls for documents that are not
`
`within Plaintiffs’ custody and control, and for documents that are within Defendant’s custody or
`
`control.
`
`Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiffs are willing
`
`to meet and confer with Defendant regarding this Request.
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO NO. 60:
`
`Plaintiffs reincorporate all previous objections by reference, and respond additionally
`
`as follows: Plaintiffs will produce relevant and non-privileged documents reasonably related
`
`to Plaintiffs’ knowledge of products they contend are or were sold in the same market as their
`
`Easeamine products prior to the filing of the Complaint in this action, to the extent such
`
`documents exist, can be located upon a reasonable search, and are within Plaintiffs’
`
`possession, custody, or control.
`
`DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 64
`
`All Documents identifying all source(s) for the ingredients in Your Products from
`
`inception to present, including all contract manufacturers, suppliers, or other entities that provide
`
`each ingredient in Your Products.
`
`RESPONSE TO NO. 64:
`
`Plaintiffs object to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected from
`
`disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, the joint defense
`
`or common-interest privilege, or any other privilege or immunity. Plaintiffs further object to this
`
`Request as overbroad and unduly burdensome insofar as it calls for “All Documents.”
`
`Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiffs are willing
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 104-2 Filed 03/19/20 Page 15 of 56 PageID #:
` 3127
`
`to meet and confer with Defendant regarding this Request.
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO NO. 64:
`
`Plaintiffs reincorporate all previous objections by reference, and respond additionally
`
`as follows: Plaintiffs will produce relevant and non-privileged documents reasonably related
`
`to contracts with manufacturers and/or suppliers that provide ingredients in Carmel Labs’
`
`Easeamine Products, to the extent such documents exist, can be located upon a reasonable
`
`search, and are within Plaintiffs’ possession, custody, or control.
`
`DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 65
`
`All Documents Concerning any tests, analysis, assessments, evaluations, and the like
`
`Concerning any adenosine or adenosine analog consistent with that described in the Patents-in-
`
`Suit used in any of Your Easeamine Products, including all Documents identifying all Person(s)
`
`involved with such analysis, the date(s) of such analysis, and the results of such analysis.
`
`RESPONSE TO NO. 65:
`
`Plaintiffs object to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected from
`
`disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, the joint defense
`
`or common-interest privilege, or any other privilege or immunity. Plaintiffs further object to this
`
`Request as vague, overbroad, and unduly burdensome insofar as it calls for “All Documents.”
`
`Plaintiffs further object to the Request to the extent that it seeks draft expert reports or expert
`
`work product, or service of final expert reports in advance of the deadline set forth in the Court’s
`
`scheduling order. Plaintiffs will serve their expert reports on the date set forth in the scheduling
`
`order.
`
`Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiffs are willing
`
`to meet and confer with Defendant regarding this Request.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 104-2 Filed 03/19/20 Page 16 of 56 PageID #:
` 3128
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO NO. 65:
`
`Plaintiffs reincorporate all previous objections by reference, and respond additionally
`
`as follows: Plaintiffs will produce relevant and non-privileged documents reasonably related
`
`to tests and/or analysis concerning adenosine or adenosine analogs applied topically to the
`
`skin to enhance the condition of the skin, to the extent such documents exist, can be located
`
`upon a reasonable search, and are within Plaintiffs’ possession, custody, or control.
`
`DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 74
`
`Full and complete copies of the prosecution file histories for each Patent-in-Suit and any
`
`Related Patents and Applications.
`
`RESPONSE TO NO. 74:
`
`Plaintiffs object to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected from
`
`disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, the joint defense
`
`or common-interest privilege, or any other privilege or immunity. Plaintiffs further object to this
`
`Request as overbroad and unduly burdensome to the extent it seems prosecution file histories for
`
`patents or applications beyond the Patents-in-Suit. Plaintiffs further object to this Request as
`
`seeking documents or things that are not relevant to any claims or defenses in this case, and not
`
`proportional to the needs of the case.
`
`Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiffs will produce the
`
`prosecution file histories for each Patent-in-Suit.
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO NO. 74:
`
`Plaintiffs reincorporate all previous objections by reference, and respond additionally
`
`as follows: Plaintiffs will produce prosecution file histories for patents and/or patent
`
`applications that share inventorship and subject matter with the Patents-in-Suit, to the extent
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 104-2 Filed 03/19/20 Page 17 of 56 PageID #:
` 3129
`
`such documents exist, can be located upon a reasonable search, and are within Plaintiffs’
`
`possession, custody, or control.
`
`DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 75
`
`All Documents and Things Concerning the prosecution, examination, opposition, post
`
`grant review (including any Post Grant Review, Inter partes Review, reexamination), or any
`
`other patentability or validity activities for any and all of Your patent application(s)
`
`and/orpatent(s) concerning methods and/or compositions, formulations and the like relating to
`
`the subject matter of the Patents-in-Suit (including the use of adenosine or adenosine analogs
`
`for skin care) and any Related Patents and Applications, in the United States and in a foreign
`
`country, including, but not limited to, for each such patent application and/or patent: (1) all
`
`file history, prosecution, and examination related Documents concerning the patent
`
`application and/or patent, and (2) all Documents and Things related to any opposition
`
`proceeding, post-grant review proceeding, reexamination proceeding, or the like, concerning
`
`the patent application and/or patent, whether foreign or in the United States.
`
`RESPONSE TO NO. 75:
`
`Plaintiffs object to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected from
`
`disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, the joint defense
`
`or common-interest privilege, or any other privilege or immunity. Plaintiffs further object to this
`
`Request as overbroad and unduly burdensome insofar as it seeks discovery for “any Related
`
`Patents and Applications.” Plaintiffs further object to this Request as seeking documents or
`
`things that are not relevant to any claims or defenses in this case, and not proportional to the
`
`needs of the case. Plaintiffs further object to this Request as seeking information that is not
`
`within Plaintiffs’ custody or control, and information that is within Defendant’s custody or
`
`control.
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 104-2 Filed 03/19/20 Page 18 of 56 PageID #:
` 3130
`
`Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiffs are willing to
`
`meet and confer with Defendant regarding this Request.
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO NO. 75:
`
`Plaintiffs reincorporate all previous objections by reference, and respond additionally
`
`as follows: Plaintiffs will produce relevant and non-privileged documents regarding
`
`patentability or validity challenges lodged against the Patents-in-Suit and/or other patents that
`
`share inventorship and subject matter with the Patents-in-Suit, to the extent such documents
`
`exist, can be located upon a reasonable search, and are within Plaintiffs’ possession, custody,
`
`or control. Plaintiffs do not interpret this Request to encompass documents concerning
`
`L’Oréal’s challenges to the patentability or validity of the Patents-in-Suit which are already in
`
`L’Oréal’s possession.
`
`DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 83
`
`All Documents and Things regarding the formation of Carmel Labs, including all
`
`agreements between any Person or companies, including any agreements relating to any disputes
`
`involving ownership of Carmel Labs, or any assets Concerning Carmel Labs.
`
`RESPONSE TO NO. 83:
`
`Plaintiffs object to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected from
`
`disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, the joint defense
`
`or common-interest privilege, or any other privilege or immunity. Plaintiffs further object to this
`
`Request as overbroad and unduly burdensome insofar as it calls for “All Documents and
`
`Thi