Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 109-2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 1 of 71 PageID #: 3556
`Case 1:17-cv-00868—CFC-SRF Document 109-2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 1 of 71 PageID #: 3556
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 109-2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 2 of 71 PageID #: 3557
`
`Category
`
`Missing financial data
`
`
`Missing formulation/ingredient list
`
`
`Missing product packaging
`
`
`
`
`Missing marketing materials
`
`
`
`Products
` La Roche-Posay Redermic R (2011-2012)
` Vichy LiftActiv Retinol Anti-Wrinkle Cream (2011-2012)
` Vichy LiftActiv Retinol HA Night (2011-2012)
` Vichy LiftActiv Retinol HA Eyes (2011-2012)
` Vichy Liftactiv Supreme Eyes (2011-2012)
` Lancome Renergie Eclat Multi-Lift
`
` Giorgio Armani Crema Nera Extrema High Recovery Elixir
` Giorgio Armani Regenessence 3.R High Lift Eyes
` Lancome Absolue Revitalizing Eye Cream
` Lancome Visionnaire Advanced Skin Corrector
` L'Oreal Paris True Match Lumi Cushion Foundation
` Biotherm Blue Therapy Eye
` Biotherm Blue Therapy Night
` Biotherm Blue Therapy Serum in Oil
` Biotherm Blue Therapy Eye-Opening Serum
` Biotherm Blue Therapy Accelerated Serum
` Garnier Ultra-Lift Anti-Wrinkle Night Cream
` Giorgio Armani Crema Nera Extrema High Recovery Elixir
` Giorgio Armani Regenessence 3.R High Lift Eyes
` L'Oreal Paris Revitalift Double Eye Lift
` L'Oreal Paris RevitaLift Triple Power Intensive Anti-Aging Day Cream Moisturizer
`Fragrance Free
` L'Oreal Paris Wrinkle Expert 55+ Anti-Wrinkle Eye Treatment
` Lancome Absolue Premium BX Eye
` Lancome Absolue Premium BX Lotion SPF 15
` Lancome Absolue Revitalizing Oleo Serum
` Lancome Absolue Rich Cream
` Lancome Absolue Revitalizing Eye Cream
` Lancome Advanced Genifique Yeux Light-Pearl Hydrogel Melting Eye Mask
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 109-2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 3 of 71 PageID #: 3558
`
` Lancome High Resolution Night Refill 3X
` Lancome Renergie Lift Multi-Action Firming Mask
` Lancome Renergie Lift Multi-Glow Rosy Skin Tone Reviving Cream
` Lancome Renergie Lift Multi-Action Light Cream
` Lancome Renergie Night
` Lancome Renergie Yeux Multi-Glow Glow Awakening and Reinforcing Eye Cream
` Vichy LiftActiv Retinol Anti-Wrinkle Cream
` Vichy Liftactiv Supreme
` Vichy Liftactiv Supreme Serum 10
` Vichy Liftactiv Hyalu Mask
` Vichy LiftActiv Retinol HA Night
` Vichy LiftActiv Retinol HA Eyes
` Vichy Liftactiv Supreme Eyes
` Vichy Liftactiv Supreme Serum 10 Eyes & Lashes
` Vichy Idéalia Night Cream
` Vichy Idéalia Life Serum
` Vichy Idéalia Radiance Serum
` Vichy Idéalia Day Cream
` Vichy Neovadiol Compensating Complex
` Vichy Neovadiol Eye & Lip Contours
` Vichy ProEven Daily Dark Spot Serum Corrector
` Yves Saint Laurent Top Secrets Instant Matte Pore Refiner
` Biotherm Blue Therapy Eye-Opening Serum
` Garnier Ultra-Lift Anti-Wrinkle Night Cream
` Giorgio Armani Designer Lift Smoothing Firming Foundation SPF 20
` Kiehl's Powerful Wrinkle Reducing Cream
` Kiehl's Powerful Wrinkle Reducing Cream with SPF 30
` Kiehl's Precision Lifting and Pore Tightening Concentrate
` Kiehl's Super Multi-Corrective Eye Opening Serum
` L'Oreal Paris RevitaLift Volume Filler Eye Treatment
` L'Oreal Paris RevitaLift Triple Power Eye Treatment
`
`Missing Publicly Advertised Testing
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 109-2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 4 of 71 PageID #: 3559
`
` L'Oreal Paris RevitaLift Triple Power Intensive Skin Revitalizer Serum +
`Moisturizer
` L'Oreal Paris Wrinkle Expert 55+ Moisturizer
` L'Oreal Paris Youth Code Serum Intense
` L'Oreal Paris Youth Code Skin Recharger Day-Night Cream
` L'Oreal Paris Youth Code Texture Perfector Serum Concentrate
` L'Oreal Paris Collagen Moisture Filler Day Lotion
` Lancome Absolue Premium BX Day Cream SPF 15
` Lancome Absolue Premium BX Eye
` Lancome Absolue Premium BX Lotion SPF 15
` Lancome Absolue Revitalizing Brightening Soft Cream
` Lancome Absolue Revitalizing Oleo Serum
` Lancome Absolue Rich Cream
` Lancome High Resolution Eye Refill 3X
` Lancome Renergie Yeux Multi-Glow Glow Awakening and Reinforcing Eye Cream
` Lancome Teint Visionnaire
` Lancome Visionnaire Skin Solutions Retinol
` Lancome Absolue Revitalizing Eye Cream
` Vichy Idéalia Radiance Serum
` Vichy Idéalia Day Cream
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 109-2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 5 of 71 PageID #: 3560
`Case 1:17-cv-00868—CFC-SRF Document 109-2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 5 of 71 PageID #: 3560
`
`EXHIBIT A-2
`
`EXHIBIT A-2
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 109-2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 6 of 71 PageID #: 3561
`As of March 3, 2020
`
`Category
`
`Missing financial data
`
`Missing any technical documentation
`
`Missing formulation/ingredient list
`
`Missing product packaging
`
`Missing marketing materials
`
`Products
`• La Roche-Posay Redermic R (2011-2012)
`• Vichy LiftActiv Retinol Anti-Wrinkle Cream (2011-2012)
`• Vichy LiftActiv Retinol HA Night (2011-2012)
`• Vichy LiftActiv Retinol HA Eyes (2011-2012)
`• Vichy Liftactiv Supreme Eyes (2011-2012)
`• Lancome Absolue Revitalizing Eye Cream
`• Lancome Advanced Genifique Sensitive
`• Lancome Absolue Revitalizing Brightening Soft Cream
`• Lancome Absolue Rich Cream
`• Lancome Renergie Eclat Multi-Lift
`• Lancome Renergie Lift Multi-Glow Rosy Skin Tone Reviving Cream
`• Lancome Teint Visionnaire
`• Giorgio Armani Crema Nera Extrema High Recovery Elixir
`• Giorgio Armani Regenessence 3.R High Lift Eyes
`• Lancome Advanced Genifique Hydrogel Melting Sheet Mask
`• Lancome Advanced Genifique Yeux Light-Pearl Hydrogel Melting Eye Mask
`• Lancome Visionnaire Advanced Skin Corrector
`• L'Oreal Paris True Match Lumi Cushion Foundation
`• Biotherm Blue Therapy Eye
`• Biotherm Blue Therapy Night
`• Biotherm Blue Therapy Serum in Oil
`• Biotherm Blue Therapy Eye-Opening Serum
`• Biotherm Blue Therapy Accelerated Serum
`• Garnier Miracle Anti-Fatigue Sleeping Cream
`• Garnier Ultra-Lift Anti-Wrinkle Night Cream
`• Garnier Miracle Anti-Fatigue Eye Gel Cream
`• Giorgio Armani Armani Prima Glow-On Moisturizing Cream
`• Giorgio Armani Crema Nera Extrema High Recovery Elixir
`• Giorgio Armani Regenessence 3.R High Lift Eyes
`• L'Oreal Paris Revitalift Double Eye Lift
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 109-2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 7 of 71 PageID #: 3562
`
`• L'Oreal Paris RevitaLift Triple Power Intensive Anti-Aging Day Cream Moisturizer
`Fragrance Free
`• L'Oreal Paris Wrinkle Expert 55+ Anti-Wrinkle Eye Treatment
`• Lancome Absolue Premium BX Eye
`• Lancome Absolue Premium BX Lotion SPF 15
`• Lancome Absolue Revitalizing Oleo Serum
`• Lancome Absolue Rich Cream
`• Lancome Advanced Genifique Yeux Light-Pearl Hydrogel Melting Eye Mask
`• Lancome High Resolution Night Refill 3X
`• Lancome Renergie Lift Multi-Action Firming Mask
`• Lancome Renergie Lift Multi-Glow Rosy Skin Tone Reviving Cream
`• Lancome Renergie Lift Multi-Action Light Cream
`• Lancome Renergie Night
`• Lancome Renergie Yeux Multi-Glow Glow Awakening and Reinforcing Eye Cream
`• Vichy LiftActiv Retinol Anti-Wrinkle Cream
`• Vichy Liftactiv Supreme
`• Vichy Liftactiv Supreme Serum 10
`• Vichy Liftactiv Hyalu Mask
`• Vichy LiftActiv Retinol HA Night
`• Vichy LiftActiv Retinol HA Eyes
`• Vichy Liftactiv Supreme Eyes
`• Vichy Liftactiv Supreme Serum 10 Eyes & Lashes
`• Vichy Idéalia Night Cream
`• Vichy Idéalia Life Serum
`• Vichy Idéalia Radiance Serum
`• Vichy Idéalia Day Cream
`• Vichy Neovadiol Compensating Complex
`• Vichy Neovadiol Eye & Lip Contours
`• Vichy ProEven Daily Dark Spot Serum Corrector
`• Yves Saint Laurent Top Secrets Instant Matte Pore Refiner
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 109-2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 8 of 71 PageID #: 3563
`Case 1:17-cv-00868—CFC-SRF Document 109-2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 8 of 71 PageID #: 3563
`
`(cid:40)(cid:59)(cid:43)(cid:44)(cid:37)(cid:44)(cid:55)(cid:3)(cid:37)(cid:3)
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 109-2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 9 of 71 PageID #: 3564
`
`From:
`To:
`
`Cc:
`Subject:
`Date:
`Attachments:
`
`Beatrice Franklin
`Mowery, Katharine Lester; Murray, Katherine F.; Polatoglu, Serli; Ellis, Dennis S.; PH-UMASS v. L’Oreal USDC; Dittmann, Eric W.; Cottrell, Fred; Ashkenazi, Isaac S.;
`Rawnsley, Jason J.; Moyer, Jeffrey L.; Palys, Joseph E.; Modi, Naveen; Tymoczko, Nicholas
`Justin A. Nelson; Tamar Lusztig; Brian Farnan; Michael Farnan; Rodney Polanco
`RE: UMass, et al. v. L"Oreal USA, 17-868-CFC-SRF
`Friday, March 13, 2020 4:56:00 PM
`image001.png
`
`Kathy, Judge Fallon’s procedures require us to list three dates for the conference (see
`https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/chambers/Discovery%20Matters%20-%20Motion%20to%20Resolve%20Dispute.pdf). Please
`let us know immediately which of the other three dates we proposed (March 20, 23, 24) works for you, or we’ll just pick one and note that
`Plaintiffs at least are available on that date.
`
`Many thanks,
`Beatrice
`
`
`Beatrice Franklin | Susman Godfrey LLP
`212.729.2021 (o) | 617.710.7850 (c)
`
`From: Mowery, Katharine Lester <Mowery@rlf.com>
`Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 4:48 PM
`To: Beatrice Franklin <BFranklin@susmangodfrey.com>; Murray, Katherine F. <katherinemurray@paulhastings.com>; Polatoglu, Serli
`<serlipolatoglu@paulhastings.com>; Ellis, Dennis S. <DennisEllis@paulhastings.com>; PH-UMASS v. L’Oreal USDC <PH-UMass-LOreal-
`USDC@paulhastings.com>; Dittmann, Eric W. <ericdittmann@paulhastings.com>; Cottrell, Fred <Cottrell@RLF.com>; Ashkenazi, Isaac S.
`<isaacashkenazi@paulhastings.com>; Rawnsley, Jason J. <Rawnsley@RLF.com>; Moyer, Jeffrey L. <moyer@RLF.com>; Palys, Joseph E.
`<josephpalys@paulhastings.com>; Modi, Naveen <naveenmodi@paulhastings.com>; Tymoczko, Nicholas
`<nicholastymoczko@paulhastings.com>
`Cc: Justin A. Nelson <jnelson@SusmanGodfrey.com>; Tamar Lusztig <TLusztig@susmangodfrey.com>; Brian Farnan
`<bfarnan@farnanlaw.com>; Michael Farnan <mfarnan@farnanlaw.com>; Rodney Polanco <RPolanco@susmangodfrey.com>
`Subject: RE: UMass, et al. v. L'Oreal USA, 17-868-CFC-SRF
`
`Beatrice,
`
`Please see attached changes to the motion from L’Oreal USA.
`
`Best regards,
`Kate
`
`Katharine Lester Mowery
`Richards, Layton & Finger PA
`(302) 651-7623
`
`
`The information contained in this electronic communication is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above
`and may be privileged and/or confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
`that any unauthorized dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited by law. If you have
`received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by return e-mail or telephone (302-651-7700) and destroy
`the original message. Thank you.
`
`
`From: Beatrice Franklin <BFranklin@susmangodfrey.com>
`Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 2:53 PM
`To: Murray, Katherine F. <katherinemurray@paulhastings.com>; Polatoglu, Serli <serlipolatoglu@paulhastings.com>; Ellis, Dennis S.
`<DennisEllis@paulhastings.com>; PH-UMASS v. L’Oreal USDC <PH-UMass-LOreal-USDC@paulhastings.com>; Dittmann, Eric W.
`<ericdittmann@paulhastings.com>; Cottrell, Fred <Cottrell@RLF.com>; Ashkenazi, Isaac S. <isaacashkenazi@paulhastings.com>;
`Rawnsley, Jason J. <Rawnsley@RLF.com>; Moyer, Jeffrey L. <moyer@RLF.com>; Palys, Joseph E. <josephpalys@paulhastings.com>;
`Mowery, Katharine Lester <Mowery@rlf.com>; Modi, Naveen <naveenmodi@paulhastings.com>; Tymoczko, Nicholas
`<nicholastymoczko@paulhastings.com>
`Cc: Justin A. Nelson <jnelson@SusmanGodfrey.com>; Tamar Lusztig <TLusztig@susmangodfrey.com>; Brian Farnan
`<bfarnan@farnanlaw.com>; Michael Farnan <mfarnan@farnanlaw.com>; Rodney Polanco <RPolanco@susmangodfrey.com>
`Subject: RE: UMass, et al. v. L'Oreal USA, 17-868-CFC-SRF
`
`Thanks, Kathy. Because at this point L’Oreal still has not provided us a list of the custodians whose files it searched, we’ll leave it in our
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 109-2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 10 of 71 PageID #:
` 3565
`
`letter. As we said yesterday, please provide us dates for which you are available for a teleconference (and any issues you want to include)
`by 5pm ET today, otherwise we will go ahead and file on our own.
`
`
`Beatrice Franklin | Susman Godfrey LLP
`212.729.2021 (o) | 617.710.7850 (c)
`
`From: Murray, Katherine F. <katherinemurray@paulhastings.com>
`Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 2:17 PM
`To: Beatrice Franklin <BFranklin@susmangodfrey.com>; Polatoglu, Serli <serlipolatoglu@paulhastings.com>; Ellis, Dennis S.
`<DennisEllis@paulhastings.com>; PH-UMASS v. L’Oreal USDC <PH-UMass-LOreal-USDC@paulhastings.com>; Dittmann, Eric W.
`<ericdittmann@paulhastings.com>; Frederick Cottrell <cottrell@rlf.com>; Ashkenazi, Isaac S. <isaacashkenazi@paulhastings.com>; Jason
`Rawnsley <rawnsley@rlf.com>; Jeffrey Moyer <moyer@rlf.com>; Palys, Joseph E. <josephpalys@paulhastings.com>; Katharine Mowery
`<mowery@rlf.com>; Modi, Naveen <naveenmodi@paulhastings.com>; Tymoczko, Nicholas <nicholastymoczko@paulhastings.com>
`Cc: Justin A. Nelson <jnelson@SusmanGodfrey.com>; Tamar Lusztig <TLusztig@susmangodfrey.com>; Brian Farnan
`<bfarnan@farnanlaw.com>; Michael Farnan <mfarnan@farnanlaw.com>; Rodney Polanco <RPolanco@susmangodfrey.com>
`Subject: RE: UMass, et al. v. L'Oreal USA, 17-868-CFC-SRF
`
`Thanks Beatrice,
`
`As we mentioned on the call yesterday, L’Oréal USA is prepared to comply with the Default Discovery Standard and disclose 10 custodians
`likely to have discoverable information. In addition, and while it is under no obligation to do so, L’Oréal USA also will provide supplemental
`discovery responses next week to identify additional custodians whose files were searched, in lieu of waiting for Plaintiffs to serve an
`interrogatory, so that Plaintiffs have this information sooner than the typical 30-day response period.
`
`The ten L’Oréal USA custodians who are likely to have discoverable information are:
`
`Valerie Robert
`Peter Foltis
`Sang Lee Bang
`Rukil Patel
`Jodi Goldberg
`Angelike Galdi
`Catherine Chiou
`Meriam Kelada
`Noah Wieder
`Mark Zaw
`
`Kathy
`
`Katherine Murray | Of Counsel, Litigation Department
`Paul Hastings LLP | 515 South Flower Street, Twenty-Fifth Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071 | Direct:
`+1.213.683.6273 | Main: +1.213.683.6000 | Fax: +1.213.627.0705 |
`katherinemurray@paulhastings.com | www.paulhastings.com
`
`
`
`
`
`From: Beatrice Franklin <BFranklin@susmangodfrey.com>
`Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 10:02 AM
`To: Polatoglu, Serli <serlipolatoglu@paulhastings.com>; Murray, Katherine F. <katherinemurray@paulhastings.com>; Ellis, Dennis S.
`<DennisEllis@paulhastings.com>; PH-UMASS v. L’Oreal USDC <PH-UMass-LOreal-USDC@paulhastings.com>; Dittmann, Eric W.
`<ericdittmann@paulhastings.com>; Frederick Cottrell <cottrell@rlf.com>; Ashkenazi, Isaac S. <isaacashkenazi@paulhastings.com>; Jason
`Rawnsley <rawnsley@rlf.com>; Jeffrey Moyer <moyer@rlf.com>; Palys, Joseph E. <josephpalys@paulhastings.com>; Katharine Mowery
`<mowery@rlf.com>; Modi, Naveen <naveenmodi@paulhastings.com>; Tymoczko, Nicholas <nicholastymoczko@paulhastings.com>
`Cc: Justin A. Nelson <jnelson@SusmanGodfrey.com>; Tamar Lusztig <TLusztig@susmangodfrey.com>; Brian Farnan
`<bfarnan@farnanlaw.com>; Michael Farnan <mfarnan@farnanlaw.com>; Rodney Polanco <RPolanco@susmangodfrey.com>
`Subject: [EXT] RE: UMass, et al. v. L'Oreal USA, 17-868-CFC-SRF
`
`Counsel,
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 109-2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 11 of 71 PageID #:
` 3566
`
`We are happy to identify 10 custodians likely to have discoverable information but, as we explained on our call, because the document
`production deadline has passed, we are asking L’Oreal to identify the custodians whose files it actually searched to satisfy its discovery
`obligations. The list of custodians whose files Plaintiffs searched is below. Please let us know by 3pm ET whether you will provide the same
`information, in which case we can remove it from our letter seeking a discovery teleconference.
`
`Many thanks,
`Beatrice
`
`Custodial files searched:
`Dennis Wyrzykowski (Carmel Labs)
`James Dobson (UMass)
`Michael Ethier (UMass)
`Debra Valle (UMass)
`Frank Gallagher (UMass)
`James McNamara (UMass)
`Kevin Lehman (UMass)
`Satinder Rawat (UMass)
`Marina Ruths (UMass)
`Maolin Guo (UMass)
`UMass OTM shared drives
`
`
`
`Beatrice Franklin | Susman Godfrey LLP
`212.729.2021 (o) | 617.710.7850 (c)
`
`From: Polatoglu, Serli <serlipolatoglu@paulhastings.com>
`Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2020 11:32 PM
`To: Beatrice Franklin <BFranklin@susmangodfrey.com>; Murray, Katherine F. <katherinemurray@paulhastings.com>; Ellis, Dennis S.
`<DennisEllis@paulhastings.com>; PH-UMASS v. L’Oreal USDC <PH-UMass-LOreal-USDC@paulhastings.com>; Dittmann, Eric W.
`<ericdittmann@paulhastings.com>; Frederick Cottrell <cottrell@rlf.com>; Ashkenazi, Isaac S. <isaacashkenazi@paulhastings.com>; Jason
`Rawnsley <rawnsley@rlf.com>; Jeffrey Moyer <moyer@rlf.com>; Palys, Joseph E. <josephpalys@paulhastings.com>; Katharine Mowery
`<mowery@rlf.com>; Modi, Naveen <naveenmodi@paulhastings.com>; Tymoczko, Nicholas <nicholastymoczko@paulhastings.com>
`Cc: Justin A. Nelson <jnelson@SusmanGodfrey.com>; Tamar Lusztig <TLusztig@susmangodfrey.com>; Brian Farnan
`<bfarnan@farnanlaw.com>; Michael Farnan <mfarnan@farnanlaw.com>; Rodney Polanco <RPolanco@susmangodfrey.com>
`Subject: RE: UMass, et al. v. L'Oreal USA, 17-868-CFC-SRF
`
`Counsel,
`
`As we discussed during our call earlier today, we are prepared to identify 10 custodians likely to have discoverable information, pursuant
`to the Delaware Default Standard for Discovery, as you requested in your prior email correspondence. Please let us know by 3 p.m. EST
`tomorrow whether Plaintiffs will agree to a mutual exchange of this information. If Plaintiffs do not agree to this reciprocal exchange, we
`will add this to the issues to be addressed by the Court in the parties’ joint motion for teleconference.
`
`Best,
`-Serli
`
`From: Polatoglu, Serli
`Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2020 3:20 PM
`To: 'Beatrice Franklin' <BFranklin@susmangodfrey.com>; Murray, Katherine F. <katherinemurray@paulhastings.com>; Ellis, Dennis S.
`<DennisEllis@paulhastings.com>; PH-UMASS v. L’Oreal USDC <PH-UMass-LOreal-USDC@paulhastings.com>; Dittmann, Eric W.
`<ericdittmann@paulhastings.com>; Frederick Cottrell <cottrell@rlf.com>; Ashkenazi, Isaac S. <isaacashkenazi@paulhastings.com>; Jason
`Rawnsley <rawnsley@rlf.com>; Jeffrey Moyer <moyer@rlf.com>; Palys, Joseph E. <josephpalys@paulhastings.com>; Katharine Mowery
`<mowery@rlf.com>; Modi, Naveen <naveenmodi@paulhastings.com>; Tymoczko, Nicholas <nicholastymoczko@paulhastings.com>
`Cc: Justin A. Nelson <jnelson@SusmanGodfrey.com>; Tamar Lusztig <TLusztig@susmangodfrey.com>; Brian Farnan
`<bfarnan@farnanlaw.com>; Michael Farnan <mfarnan@farnanlaw.com>; Rodney Polanco <RPolanco@susmangodfrey.com>
`Subject: RE: UMass, et al. v. L'Oreal USA, 17-868-CFC-SRF
`
`Beatrice,
`
`We are available at 3:00 p.m. PST tomorrow. I will send around dial-in information shortly.
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 109-2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 12 of 71 PageID #:
` 3567
`
`
`Best,
`-Serli
`
`From: Beatrice Franklin <BFranklin@susmangodfrey.com>
`Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2020 11:38 AM
`To: Polatoglu, Serli <serlipolatoglu@paulhastings.com>; Murray, Katherine F. <katherinemurray@paulhastings.com>; Ellis, Dennis S.
`<DennisEllis@paulhastings.com>; PH-UMASS v. L’Oreal USDC <PH-UMass-LOreal-USDC@paulhastings.com>; Dittmann, Eric W.
`<ericdittmann@paulhastings.com>; Frederick Cottrell <cottrell@rlf.com>; Ashkenazi, Isaac S. <isaacashkenazi@paulhastings.com>; Jason
`Rawnsley <rawnsley@rlf.com>; Jeffrey Moyer <moyer@rlf.com>; Palys, Joseph E. <josephpalys@paulhastings.com>; Katharine Mowery
`<mowery@rlf.com>; Modi, Naveen <naveenmodi@paulhastings.com>; Tymoczko, Nicholas <nicholastymoczko@paulhastings.com>
`Cc: Justin A. Nelson <jnelson@SusmanGodfrey.com>; Tamar Lusztig <TLusztig@susmangodfrey.com>; Brian Farnan
`<bfarnan@farnanlaw.com>; Michael Farnan <mfarnan@farnanlaw.com>; Rodney Polanco <RPolanco@susmangodfrey.com>
`Subject: [EXT] RE: UMass, et al. v. L'Oreal USA, 17-868-CFC-SRF
`
`Counsel,
`
`You have not responded to our list of Accused Products for which documents are missing, you have not explained why you are justified in
`withholding information for certain Accused Products that are covered by the Court’s February 18 Order, and you have not yet identified
`custodians whose files you searched for your production to date. And we already explained the relevance of Requests 8, 25, 49, 50, and 65
`on our call last week—including for Request No. 49, which you suggested was included as a joke. Because you have not changed your
`position on these issues, we will file our letter for a discovery teleconference at the end of the day tomorrow, unilaterally if we must. We
`will also include the 30(b)(6) deposition noticed for tomorrow. If you would like to discuss these issues again, and the issues you raise for
`the first time below, we can make ourselves available anytime after 9am PT tomorrow.
`
`All the best,
`Beatrice
`
`
`Beatrice Franklin | Susman Godfrey LLP
`212.729.2021 (o) | 617.710.7850 (c)
`
`From: Polatoglu, Serli <serlipolatoglu@paulhastings.com>
`Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 9:31 PM
`To: Beatrice Franklin <BFranklin@susmangodfrey.com>; Murray, Katherine F. <katherinemurray@paulhastings.com>; Ellis, Dennis S.
`<DennisEllis@paulhastings.com>; PH-UMASS v. L’Oreal USDC <PH-UMass-LOreal-USDC@paulhastings.com>; Dittmann, Eric W.
`<ericdittmann@paulhastings.com>; Frederick Cottrell <cottrell@rlf.com>; Ashkenazi, Isaac S. <isaacashkenazi@paulhastings.com>; Jason
`Rawnsley <rawnsley@rlf.com>; Jeffrey Moyer <moyer@rlf.com>; Palys, Joseph E. <josephpalys@paulhastings.com>; Katharine Mowery
`<mowery@rlf.com>; Modi, Naveen <naveenmodi@paulhastings.com>; Tymoczko, Nicholas <nicholastymoczko@paulhastings.com>
`Cc: Justin A. Nelson <jnelson@SusmanGodfrey.com>; Tamar Lusztig <TLusztig@susmangodfrey.com>; Brian Farnan
`<bfarnan@farnanlaw.com>; Michael Farnan <mfarnan@farnanlaw.com>; Rodney Polanco <RPolanco@susmangodfrey.com>
`Subject: RE: UMass, et al. v. L'Oreal USA, 17-868-CFC-SRF
`
`Beatrice,
`
` I
`
` write to address the points raised in your latest email correspondence, as well as Plaintiffs’ objections and responses to L’Oréal USA’s
`Requests for Production. Please let us know when you are available to meet and confer regarding the issues below this week. We remain
`willing to do so, rendering any request for a teleconference with the Court premature at this stage.
`
`Document Production Pursuant to Paragraph 6 of the Scheduling Order:
`We agree to update L’Oréal USA’s disclosures under Paragraph 6 of the Scheduling Order with Bates numbers, in accordance with the
`requirements set forth in the Scheduling Order. Subject to ongoing discovery and investigation, and based on evidence available to date,
`L’Oréal USA identifies the following documents in connection with Paragraph 6 of the Court’s Scheduling Order, as amended:
`
`
`Paragraph 6(a): LOUSA0000001-LOUSA0001828, LOUSA0001860-LOUSA0002105, LOUSA0002510-LOUSA0003039,
`LOUSA0003060-LOUSA0003090, LOUSA0003092-LOUSA0003302, LOUSA0003707, LOUSA0003716-LOUSA0004276,
`LOUSA0004540-LOUSA0005913, LOUSA0006035-LOUSA0007413, LOUSA0008754-LOUSA8995, LOUSA0009014-
`LOUSA0009017; LOUSA0009022-LOUSA00029681, LOUSA00029688-LOUSA0029721.
`Paragraph 6(b): LOUSA0002106-LOUSA0002509
`Paragraph 6(c): L’Oréal USA has no documents to produce that correspond to this category at this time.
`Paragraph 6(d): LOUSA0003040-LOUSA0003059, LOUSA0003303-LOUSA0003305, LOUSA0003708-LOUSA0003715,
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 109-2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 13 of 71 PageID #:
` 3568
`
`LOUSA0005914-LOUSA0006034, LOUSA0009018-LOUSA0009021, LOUSA00029682-LOUSA00029687.
`Paragraph 6(e): L’Oréal USA has no documents to produce that correspond to this category at this time.
`
`
`As we previously discussed, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e), we reserve the right to supplement the above productions in
`due course.
`
`Your assertion that L’Oréal USA is obligated to produce documents under Paragraph 6 of the Scheduling Order for the twelve products on
`Plaintiffs’ Accused Products list that were launched after the expiration of the Asserted Patents is not well-taken. Indeed, you represented
`that you are not accusing any products that were launched after the expiration of the asserted patents. Please explain your change in
`position on this, especially as the authority cited in your March 4, 2020 email is not on point. Magna Electronics, Inc. v. TRW Auto.
`Holdings Corp., 2015 WL 11434373 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 31, 2015), does not address the issue at hand – namely, whether products first
`launched after the expiration of an asserted patent can be properly accused. If you have any authority that is on point, we would be
`happy to consider it.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production:
`With respect to custodians, you first raised this issue during our meet and confer. We explained that we have no obligation to produce
`this information to you, and you were unable to point to any authority stating otherwise. Subsequently, in your email, you claimed that
`the parties had agreed to follow the Delaware Default Standard for Discovery. As you know, that Standard requires the disclosure of 10
`custodians likely to have discoverable information. We have agreed to do that, and have asked for confirmation that Plaintiffs will do the
`same. We have yet to receive your response. If you instead are seeking the names of persons whose files were searched, it is
`inappropriate to request this information for the first time during a meet and confer. Certainly, Plaintiffs are free to propound an
`interrogatory on this issue. Nevertheless, we do plan to update our discovery responses with this information pursuant to Federal Rule of
`Civil Procedure 26, even without awaiting a further discovery request from you on this issue.
`
`Regarding Request Nos. 8, 25, and 50, it appears that there is no dispute here. Rather, your complaint centers on your demand that
`L’Oréal USA provide privileged information regarding its testing of the Accused Products during our meet-and-confer call last week. Please
`provide us with any authority that supports your position that you can move to compel an attorney’s response to a question first raised
`during a meet and confer.
`
`Regarding Request No. 49, which seeks all expert reports and deposition transcripts produced in the Liqwd, Inc. v. L’Oréal USA, Inc. matter,
`you mischaracterize our discussion. When you were unable to provide an explanation as to why these documents were relevant to this
`case, we explained that we maintained our objections to this Request. We further explained the basis for those objections during our call,
`including their lack of relevance. We also explained that such documents were confidential, per the Protective Order governing the Liqwd
`action. You were unable to explain why, all of this notwithstanding, Plaintiffs were entitled to documents responsive to this Request.
`Please provide an explanation as to why you believe documents responsive to this Request would be relevant.
`
`Regarding Request No. 65, you asked for documents relating to the FTC’s inquiry into you the Youth Code products. When we asked why
`the FTC’s inquiry was relevant, you were unable to provide a response. We then confirmed that we have produced technical and
`marketing documents for the accused Youth Code products. Please explain why documents concerning an unrelated FTC investigation
`would be relevant to this matter.
`
`Plaintiffs’ 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice:
`We have provided our objections to the Topics noticed for the March 12, 2020 deposition, which will not proceed on that date, as we
`explained during our meet-and-confer call last week. We did not state that we would serve objections to the remainder of the Topics
`“early this week,” as you state in your latest email correspondence. Rather, we stated that we will serve objections to the remainder of
`the Topics contained in your notice this week, which we will do, as promised. We remain available to meet and confer regarding the scope
`of the deposition topics.
`
`L’Oréal USA’s Requests for Production (the “Requests”):
`With respect to Request Nos. 11, 30-33, 45, 84, 87, 92, and 95, you refused to produce responsive documents, contending that no such
`production was necessary, given your representation that Plaintiffs “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.” This is
`insufficient, as these Requests cover relevant topics beyond the ones you enumerated. For instance, Request No. 30 seeks documents
`relating to Plaintiffs’ allegations in paragraph 29 of the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) that “Teresian Carmelites’ plummeting funds . . .
`[led it] to lapse payments on obligations it undertook to finance the launch of Easeamine”; Request No. 45 seeks documents sufficient to
`show the Teresian Carmelites’ financial status for the duration of its relationship with Carmel Labs; and Request No. 87 seeks, among
`other things, all agreements between Plaintiffs and the Teresian Carmelites. The relevance of the documents responsive to these and
`other Requests concerning the Teresian Carmelites cannot seriously be contested, as they relate directly to the allegations in Plaintiffs’
`FAC. However, if Plaintiffs do not intend to introduce any evidence or argument regarding Teresian Carmelites during summary judgment
`or at trial, we again request, as we did in November, that Plaintiffs confirm that through a stipulation. Thus, please execute the attached
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 109-2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 14 of 71 PageID #:
` 3569
`
`stipulation confirming this representation. Otherwise, please confirm that you will produce all documents responsive to these Requests.
`
`With respect to Request Nos. 60, 75, 83, 88, 89, 94, and 98-103, you agreed to produce some, but not all, of the documents responsive to
`these Requests. These responses are inadequate, for the reasons enumerated below.
`
`Request No. 60 seeks all documents relating to products that Plaintiffs contend were sold in the same market as Easeamine. In your
`supplemental response to this Request, you only agreed to produce 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.” This
`temporal limitation is improper. Unless you are foregoing any claim for lost profits post-dating the initiation of this action, L’Oréal USA is
`entitled to documents relating to market competitors, as such information is plainly relevant to Plaintiffs’ damages claims.
`
`Request No. 75 seeks all documents concerning the “prosecution, examination, opposition, post grant review . . . or any other
`patentability or validity activities for any and all of Your patent application(s) and/or patent(s) concerning methods and/or compositions,
`formulations and the like relating to the subject matter of the Patents-in-Suit . . . .” In your supplemental response, you agreed to produce
`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,” excluding any mention of prosecution, examination, or opposition documents responsive to
`this Request. Please confirm that any such prosecution, examination, or opposition documents have been produced, as such documents
`are clearly relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims and L’Oréal USA’s defenses, and their exclusion from production would be improper.
`
`Request Nos. 83 and 94 seek documents regarding the formation and ownership of Carmel Labs, including all agreements relating
`thereto. Your supplemental responses to these Requests indicate that you will produce responsive documents only insofar as they
`concern Plaintiffs’ damages claims or the ownership and/or assignment of the asserted patents. This is improper. All documents
`responsive to Request Nos. 83 and 94 should be produced, as these Requests concern allegations made in the FAC. For instance, the FAC
`contains allegations regarding the Teresian Carmelites’ ownership in Carmel Labs. (See, e.g., FAC ¶¶ 3, 15, 28.) As such, Plaintiffs have
`put Carmel Labs’ ownership at issue. The FAC also makes explicit reference to Carmel Labs’ contracts with third parties. (