Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 124-1 Filed 04/21/20 Page 1 of 35 PageID #: 4243
`Case 1:17-cv-00868—CFC-SRF Document 124-1 Filed 04/21/20 Page 1 of 35 PageID #: 4243
`
`EXHIBIT “(cid:36)”
`
`EXHIBIT “A”
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 124-1 Filed 04/21/20 Page 2 of 35 PageID #: 4244
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`- - -
`
`UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS
`and CARMEL LABORATORIES,
`LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`CIVIL ACTION
`
`NO. 17-868-CFC-SRF
`
`:::::::::::
`
` vs.
`L'ORÉAL USA, INC.,
` Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` - - -
` Wilmington, Delaware
` Thursday, March 26, 2020
` 11:19 o'clock, a.m.
` ***Telephone conference
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` - - -
`BEFORE: HONORABLE SHERRY F. FALLON, U.S.D.C.J.
` - - -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
` FARNAN LLP
` BY: MICHAEL J. FARNAN, ESQ.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` -and-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Valerie J. Gunning
` Official Court Reporter
`
`1 of 36 sheets
`
`Page 1 to 1 of 86
`
`04/01/2020 11:44:31 AM
`
`

`

`2
`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 124-1 Filed 04/21/20 Page 3 of 35 PageID #: 4245
`4
`APPEARANCES (Continued):
`
` SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
` BY: BEATRICE C. FRANKLIN, ESQ. and
` TAMAR LUSZTIG, ESQ.
` (New York, New York)
`
` -and-
`
` SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
` BY: JUSTIN A. NELSON, ESQ.
` (Houston, Texas)
`
` Counsel for Plaintiffs
`
` RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A.
` BY: FREDERICK L. COTTRELL, III, ESQ. and
` KATHERINE L. MOWERY, ESQ.
`
` -and-
`
` PAUL HASTINGS LLP
` BY: KATHERINE F. MURRAY, ESQ.,
` ISAAC S. ASHKENAZI, ESQ. and
` SERLI POLATOGLU, ESQ.
` (New York, New York)
`
` Counsel for Defendants
`
` - - -
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`All right, then. Who is on the line for
`
`L'Oréal?
`
`MS. MOWERY: Good morning, Your Honor. This is
`Kate Mowery from Richards, Layton & Finger for L'Oréal USA.
`On the line with me today is Fred Cottrell from
`my office and then Isaac Askenazi, Kathy Murray and Serli
`
`Polatoglu, all from Paul Hastings.
`THE COURT: All right. Very well.
`Is there anyone else on the line who has not yet
`identified themselves?
`All right. Hearing none, we'll proceed forward.
`
`I was just wondering if any client
`representatives were participating on this call as well. If
`either side is aware of any, please bring that to my
`attention so that all appearances can be noted on the
`
`transcript.
`
`As you know, I've read the material and I'm
`ready to proceed. Let me first say, however, that I hope
`everyone is doing well and adapting as best as you can to
`the environment that we're living in these days. I can
`
`assure you that the Court is doing its very best to adjust
`as well. If there are little bumps in the road as we go
`along with everybody joined remotely on this call, then just
`please bring them to my attention and we will try to work
`through this very smoothly so that we have a clear
`
`3
`
`5
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`(The telephone conference commenced at 11:19
`
`a.m.)
`
`1 2
`
`3
`
`4 5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`1
`
`2
`3
`
`4 5
`
`line.
`
`THE COURT: All right. Good afternoon,
`everyone, or good morning. Magistrate Judge Sherry Fallon.
`Before we proceed, I know that my law clerk, Ms.
`Polito, is on the line. Do we have our court stenographer,
`I belive it is Ms. Gunning, on the line?
`MS. GUNNING: Yes, Judge Fallon. I am on the
`
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`THE COURT: Thank you very much.
`14
`I will now start with appearances of counsel for
`15
`the plaintiffs, the University of Massachusetts and Carmel
`16
`Laboratories.
`17
`MR. FARNAN: Good morning, Your Honor. It's
`18
`Michael Farnan for the plaintiffs and with me on the line
`19
`are Justin Nelson, Tamar Lusztig and Beatrice Franklin from
`20
`Susman Godfrey.
`21
`THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Bear with me
`22
`for a moment. There's a little bit of a delay when we're
`23
`doing this remotely, so I want to make sure I hear everyone
`24
`and get all of the correct identification of counsel on my
`25
`end, so just bear with me for a minute.
`04/01/2020 11:44:31 AM
`
`1
`transcript and record of our proceeding.
`2
`Having read the submissions, what I would like
`3
`to do is change it up a bit. As you know, I usually start
`4
`with the first chronologically filed submission and then go
`5
`in that order. However, because it appears to me that
`6
`L'Oréal's issues vis-a-vis the plaintiffs might lend
`7
`themselves to a more expeditious resolution, I think I'd
`8
`like to start with L'Oréal's issues first. So whoever was
`9
`prepared to address that for L'Oréal, please identify
`10
`yourselves for the record, and for my benefit and for Ms.
`11
`Gunning's benefit, any time new counsel starts speaking on
`12
`the record, please announce your name. That would be
`13
`helpful. So thank you.
`14
`MS. MURRAY: Thank you, Your Honor. This is
`15
`Kathy Murray on behalf of L'Oréal. I will address the issue
`16
`regarding our submission, which was DI 104. And as Your
`17
`Honor noted, it's really just one limited issue on several
`18
`requests for production that focus on this entity called
`19
`Teresian Carmelites.
`20
`The first amended complaint identifies or lists
`21
`the Teresian Carmelites as a party even though they are not
`22
`a named party. Based upon allegations in the first amended
`23
`complaint, L'Oréal served discovery, asking plaintiffs to
`24
`provide information regarding the Teresian Carmelites who,
`25
`based on the negotiations in the complaint, negotiated a
`Page 2 to 5 of 86
`2 of 36 sheets
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 124-1 Filed 04/21/20 Page 4 of 35 PageID #: 4246
`6
`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
`25
`
`license on the asserted patent.
`The first time that we sent out the discovery,
`there were no responses back other than plaintiffs saying
`they were willing to meet and confer on the responses.
`We then had a meet and confer. Plaintiffs
`served supplemental responses basically saying they weren't
`going to provide information because they would agree not to
`introduce any evidence relating specifically to the
`financial condition of Teresian Carmelites at trial.
`We then following the close of document
`production and seeing what documents they got for basic
`housekeeping sent over a stipulation asking them to confirm
`that there will not be any mention of Teresian Carmelites.
`This entity does not or never did make any products either
`before or after plaintiffs were going to pursue lost
`profits. It really has no relevance to the case as we see
`and as plaintiffs seem to agree.
`Unfortunately, during the meet and confer they
`did express that they had some edits to a stipulation that
`they would send over. We were happy to receive those edits.
`We never did. And when we see the submission that they just
`provided to the Court in DI 106, they are now saying that
`they want to provide information at trial about the parties
`and that they don't want to sign a stipulation preventing
`them from discussing Teresian Carmelites.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`and resist a stipulated set of facts as to the scope of what
`you're going to do with the Teresian Carmelites. You have
`to make a decision.
`So what is that decision?
`MS. FRANKLIN: Good morning Your Honor. This is
`Beatrice Franklin from Susman Godfrey on behalf of
`plaintiff.
`
`Your Honor, I will start by saying that
`plaintiffs have produced a great deal of position about core
`and Carmelites. I think it's telling that L'Oréal hasn't
`pointed to any deficiencies in our production and hasn't
`discussed any specific request for production. We've
`produced communications regarding Teresian Carmelites. We
`produced communications regarding Teresian Carmelites. We
`produced documents involving, you know, board meetings,
`financial plan for investors, Teresian Carmelites.
`What we objected to as we made clear in the
`stipulation in our objections and responses to requests for
`production that I believe we submitted four months ago, we
`stipulated we would not introduce any financial condition
`about Teresian Carmelites or about any alleged harm to
`Teresian Carmelites, financial health from L'Oréal's alleged
`infringement. We did this in response to specific RFPs that
`we thought were overly broad that sought relevant
`information regarding Teresian Carmelites' mortgages, loans,
`
`7
`
`9
`
`1
`1
`operation of the monastery.
`We don't see how Teresian Carmelites is relevant
`2
`2
`One RFP that simply seeks all documents
`to the case, but if now plaintiffs believe they are, then we
`3
`3
`regarding Teresian Carmelites, which is contrary to what
`have a right to discovery on this entity. We don't want to
`4
`4
`counsel said, and they are not a party to this case. They
`be sandbagged at trial with plaintiffs providing some kind
`5
`5
`are not a licensee on the patent and they do not create the
`of narrative on this entity and us not having had the
`6
`6
`products at issue.
`opportunity to get this discovery.
`7
`7
`So rather than agree to the incredibly broad
`So our position is basically pretty simple.
`8
`8
`stipulation which would preclude us from mentioning the
`Either they agree not to reference this entity, which
`9
`9
`Teresian Carmelites at all, or introducing evidence,
`plaintiffs seem to suggest has no relevance, or they give us
`10
`10
`argument, comment, reference to or testimony at any stage of
`the discovery that we've asked for so that we can have an
`11
`11
`the litigation regarding any witnesses related to Teresian
`opportunity to challenge whatever narrative they plan to
`12
`12
`Carmelites, we believe that our previous stipulation not to
`present regarding Teresian Carmelites at trial.
`13
`13
`discuss the financial health or financial harm to Teresian
`THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
`14
`14
`Carmelites and the stipulation that we made in our recently
`Let me hear from plaintiffs, and if plaintiffs
`15
`15
`served initial disclosures, not to discuss any lost profits,
`would address the fact that I understand that there may be a
`16
`16
`that should be sufficient because that goes to the -- that
`concern about no one wants to -- you know, all lawyers have
`17
`17
`essentially makes irrelevant any of the requests that
`this hesitancy in general to concede too much or be afraid
`18
`18
`L'Oréal is currently pursuing.
`that they are going to concede too much in a stipulation,
`19
`19
`The reason we don't want to sign this overly
`but decisions have to be made. Either you are not going to
`20
`20
`broad stipulation is that there's going to be basic
`pursue something, or if you are going to pursue it, then at
`21
`21
`narrative information potentially at trial about the
`the very least you produce the discovery that is relevant to
`22
`22
`Teresian Carmelites because they're the entity that is
`the portion you intend to pursue either through summary
`23
`23
`sometimes referenced in news reports that discuss the
`judgment and/or at trial.
`24
`24
`licenses between the University of Massachusetts and Carmel
`So you can't have it both ways. You can't
`25
`25
`resist production or answering these requests for production
`Labs that discuss the creation of products, and even if
`3 of 36 sheets
`Page 6 to 9 of 86
`04/01/2020 11:44:31 AM
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 124-1 Filed 04/21/20 Page 5 of 35 PageID #: 4247
`12
`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
`25
`
`we're not seeking a profits model, I can imagine that
`essentially at trial a year from now we might want to
`introduce some kind of narrative background, and we believe
`that we've produced more than enough documents to make that
`kind of information get fairly introduced.
`What we object to is the overly broad discovery
`that L'Oréal is seeking, which, again, L'Oréal has never
`made any argument for why it is relevant, why any document
`related to this monastery is relevant to this case, why any
`document related to Mr. Wyrzykowski's decision to cease
`Monastic life is relevant to this case, and without that
`showing of relevance, relevancy, I don't believe L'Oréal has
`met its burden to be entitled to this discovery.
`THE COURT: All right. You have not exactly
`addressed my question, but let me hear very briefly from the
`defendant on this, just very briefly, because I can assure
`everyone that I'm prepared to make a bench ruling on this.
`MS. MURRAY: Thank you, Your Honor. It's Kathy
`
`Murray.
`
`Just to confirm, we're not willing to submit a
`stipulation or even provide a red line. They just now said
`that down the road they may provide a narrative regarding
`the Teresian Carmelites and the monastery at trial. We have
`not received the documents relating to that narrative. We
`ask that they need to pick a aline and either sign the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`The plaintiffs shall provide a response to that
`narrowly tailored request for production within two weeks
`after being served with it, and that is how this issue,
`disputed issue will be addressed today. As everyone is
`aware, my rulings are pursuant to Rule 72(a) of the Federal
`Rules of Civil Procedure.
`Any party who wishes to take an objection to the
`district judge may do so within the time limit set under
`that rule and the district judge will review my orders to
`determine if they are clearly erroneous or contrary to law
`and that will carry through with respect to any ruling I
`make from the bench today.
`So that is my ruling with respect to L'Oréal's
`
`issue.
`
`issues?
`
`Are we ready now to turn to the plaintiff's
`
`MS. FRANKLIN: Yes, Your Honor.
`THE COURT: All right. Who will address the
`plaintiff's issues? And, by the way, I thought the
`defendant's response with a specific category was very
`helpful. So if we could address plaintiff's issues category
`by category, you're not necessarily bound by the way
`defendants have categorized them, but for what it's worth, I
`thought it was quite helpful.
`MS. FRANKLIN: Certainly, Your Honor. This is
`
`11
`
`13
`
`stipulation or produce documents.
`THE COURT: Very well. Having read the briefs
`and having heard the argument of counsel, here is my
`ruling.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`Within one week of today, the parties shall
`6
`either agree to a stipulation that addresses what
`7
`information, if any, regarding the Teresian Carmelite is in
`8
`or out with reference to plaintiff's representations on the
`9
`record that they do not intend to rely on large profits in
`10
`their damages calculations and that they do not intend to
`11
`pursue claims in the first amended complaint relating to the
`12
`Teresian Carmelites financial condition.
`13
`To the extent there is anything left over that
`14
`the plaintiffs do intend to pursue, they shall incorporate
`15
`that into the stipulation after first meeting and conferring
`16
`with the defendants on that and shall produce it.
`17
`If the parties cannot come to terms on a
`18
`stipulation within one week of today, that's on or before
`19
`April 2nd, then I will direct that defendants shall serve a
`20
`narrowly tailored request for production on the plaintiffs
`21
`that takes into account plaintiff's representations as I've
`22
`just stated on the record and focuses on any information
`23
`that defendants reasonably believe falls outside of those
`24
`representations, but is nonetheless relevant and
`25
`proportional the to needs of the case.
`04/01/2020 11:44:31 AM
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`Page 10 to 13 of 86
`
`Beatrice Franklin again from Susman Godfrey on behalf of the
`plaintiffs.
`
`Your Honor, we're concerned about numerous
`apparent deficiencies in L'Oréal's production, and I can
`take these category by category.
`THE COURT: Well, excuse me. That's what I want
`you to do. We are not going to go through this in a blanket
`all encompassing one. This is two, this is this. We're
`going to go point/counterpoint with respect to the first
`category, make your arguments on behalf of the plaintiffs
`and then I will hear from L'Oréal on that. We'll resolve
`that category. Let's go on to Category 2 after that. Make
`your arguments with respect to Category 2 or however you
`want to describe it. I will hear from L'Oréal and I will
`make a ruling.
`That's the only organized and logical way that I
`can do this given the circumstances of the remote
`connections and the documents that we're all working with.
`That would be helpful.
`MS. FRANKLIN: Sure. Your Honor, I will say
`that at the outset, I think that all of the deficiencies tie
`into our requests for a 30(b)(6) deposition on L'Oréal's
`document collection and preservation, but I can take these
`subcategories.
`THE COURT: Yes. We're going to take that
`4 of 36 sheets
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 124-1 Filed 04/21/20 Page 6 of 35 PageID #: 4248
`14
`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
`25
`
`separately, because there are a lot of concerns that I have
`about these categories, specifically reading the response
`from L'Oréal that plaintiffs just aren't doing the work of
`cross-referencing production of Bates-numbered documents in
`some instances with the requests that they are seeking, and
`I'm not going to permit a 30(b)(6) witness to do that
`cross-referencing for plaintiff.
`So we're not going down that path, so put the
`30(b)(6) on the shelf for the moment, plus given the
`circumstances that, you know, are all beyond all of our
`control with respect to any personal contact and that sort
`of thing, it just makes scheduling depositions like this all
`the more harder, although not impossible.
`So shelf that for the moment and let's start
`with the production categories first, if you don't mind.
`MS. FRANKLIN: Absolutely. So the first
`production category is patentable documents?
`L'Oréal says we believe there's still one
`officialization document that is outstanding. L'Oréal says
`they produced it. The document that they say that they have
`produced does not, in fact, appear to correspond to the
`product. Not only does it have a different product name, if
`we compare the formula to the publicly available ingredient
`list to that product, it appears to be quite different.
`Among other things, the product that we're looking for, the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`order with respect to these products.
`THE COURT: Right.
`MS. FRANKLIN: In many of these cases, L'Oréal
`had said they produced products. In our meet and confer, we
`asked, you know, which documents do you believe have
`satisfied your production obligations, and on our last meet
`and confer, counsel refused to provide the Bates numbers
`that it said satisfied the production because they said that
`was work product privilege, that it would somehow reveal the
`internal mental processes of counsel if they told us which
`products, I'm sorry, which documents satisfy their
`production obligations.
`So we have raised these issues many times with
`counsel and they have refused to work with us to narrow the
`outstanding issues.
`THE COURT: You've given me a lengthy general
`response and I understand the frustration that it's built
`upon and I'm trying to work with both sides to get through
`this today so that we have some resolution, but let's just
`segue back to the specific issue at hand, which is one
`product that is Lancome's Multi-Lift product in which
`L'Oréal is representing that this information was produced
`in February.
`You've recited on the record with respect to
`this particular product that it doesn't have an SPF and
`
`15
`
`17
`
`inventor of (inaudible), is more of a cosmetic product. It
`does not contain SPF whereas the product that they pointed
`to does contain SPF.
`So as we'll see, a theme that recurs, we have
`monitored the production in great detail, and when they say
`they've produced often, more often than not, we're finding
`what they are pointing to does not satisfy the production.
`THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Has this
`information been conveyed to L'Oréal? Have you discussed
`with them what you have just placed on the record with me
`right now in an attempt to resolve it, because without the
`Court going through particular documents and sitting them
`side by side and trying to make decisions on my own as to
`whether the document is responsive, I have to take L'Oréal's
`representations at their word, and I'm not going to do that
`if -- you know, I'm not going to get into that and go down
`that path if there hasn't been a meaningful meet and confer
`on that.
`
`1
`1
`there are certain differences about what L'Oréal produced
`2
`2
`and what's missing from it or what is not responsive in it,
`3
`3
`and all I'm saying is, have you identified to L'Oréal and
`4
`4
`given them a chance to, you know, double back and make a
`5
`5
`decision as to whether that production in February is
`6
`6
`responsive to this particular product or is this something
`7
`7
`that everybody is learning about just today?
`8
`8
`MS. FRANKLIN: Well, we couldn't, Your Honor,
`9
`9
`because they didn't identify the Bates number, I believe,
`10
`10
`until the letter that was submitted to the Court last week
`11
`11
`because they refused to provide us with new Bates numbers
`12
`12
`because they said it was privileged.
`13
`13
`THE COURT: Well, you got their response, and
`14
`14
`just to, if anything, to reduce the number of disputes the
`15
`15
`Court has to handle, you get a response. You check the
`16
`16
`Bates number against what you're looking for, and if this is
`17
`17
`a matter of clarification or a mistake rather than, you
`18
`18
`know, spend as we have about five minutes on this issue,
`19
`19
`couldn't you have done a five-minute phone call with L'Oréal
`MS. FRANKLIN: There has been a meet and confer,
`20
`20
`to take this one little issue about this one single product
`Your Honor. There have been several, in fact. Plaintiffs
`21
`21
`off the Court's list today?
`don't believe that they have been particularly meaningful
`22
`22
`I mean, I don't understand what's going on
`because most of the outstanding products were outstanding at
`23
`23
`behind the scenes here, counsel, and it's really disturbing
`the time of our last hearing.
`24
`24
`to me, I have to say. If you can't pick up a phone and say,
`We've said that these products were -- that
`25
`25
`documents hadn't been produced to satisfy the scheduling
`hey, I think you made a mistake, L'Oréal, these Bates
`5 of 36 sheets
`Page 14 to 17 of 86
`04/01/2020 11:44:31 AM
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 124-1 Filed 04/21/20 Page 7 of 35 PageID #: 4249
`18
`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
`25
`
`numbers that you are referencing to this Lancome Rénergie
`Multi-Lift product, they don't match up. What's the harm in
`doing that and what's so difficult about doing that?
`MS. FRANKLIN: I agree, Your Honor. You know,
`we should have made more of an effort to reach out to
`counsel. The reason that we didn't is because we have had
`these conversations many times before. They have not been
`productive.
`
`As we get to later categories, we have raised
`the same issue over and over again about deficiencies in the
`production and counsel has refused to engage with us. So I
`apologize for not making the effort to try it once again.
`THE COURT: All right. Let me hear from
`L'Oréal. It's going to be a long day if we go with each and
`every category, but I will hear from L'Oréal.
`MS. MURRAY: Thank you, Your Honor. This is
`Kathy Murray again.
`A short response to your question is they did
`not raise this issue that they believe this is the wrong
`officialization document. We have told plaintiff time and
`time again if they have a formula number that they think is
`a right one for this product and they think we have the
`wrong one, please send us that formula number. We will use
`that formula number to look up the product.
`So if for this one, if they think we have the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`today, but in the future they will be automatically denied
`without argument, because it is the obligation of counsel
`when mistakes or something necessitates simple clarification
`arise, that's not a discovery dispute under Rule 26 that
`ought to be brought to the Court. That's a request for
`clarification or misunderstanding or crossing wires that
`needs to be flushed out counsel to counsel. It's not an
`issue for the Court to resolve.
`What is the next category, plaintiff?
`MS. FRANKLIN: Going from L'Oréal's, what's the
`next category is financial documents.
`THE COURT: And there --
`MS. FRANKLIN: They are just the same
`outstanding issues that we've been having since the last
`hearing that financial data is missing for two years for
`five products. L'Oréal has been unable to locate it after
`several months of searching. We would just like to
`understand how the data went missing. Our understanding
`from L'Oréal's document retention policies is that this data
`is retained for ten years and we just want to better
`understand where it may have gone and if there's anything
`that we can do to approximate it.
`THE COURT: All right. L'Oréal, response?
`MS. MURRAY: This is Kathy Murray again, Your
`Honor. I have a quick response to this. I was able to
`
`19
`
`21
`
`1
`wrong one, we don't believe it's the wrong one. I'm hearing
`2
`for the first time they think it is. We are happy to look
`3
`at what they think the right formula number is for the
`4
`product or anything else that gives them pause to believe
`5
`this is the right product and we will get them the right
`6
`document. We have no problem.
`7
`We've spent hours on meet and confers with them
`8
`giving them Bates numbers. It's not true we're not giving
`9
`them Bates numbers and for this one we pointed them to the
`10
`date of the production. We were not in a position to give
`11
`them Bates numbers on March 2nd because the Bates numbers
`12
`had not been culled for product by product at that time, but
`13
`we did give them the date that the documents were produced
`14
`so they could go and look at that date of production. We're
`15
`happy to work with them on this one technical document if
`16
`they believe it's the wrong one.
`17
`THE COURT: All right. On this issue I don't
`18
`need to hear any more argument. L'Oréal, please resolve
`19
`and/or clarify for the plaintiffs based upon the
`20
`representations that you've heard on the record today where
`21
`they think there is a disconnect between the Bates numbered
`22
`information that L'Oréal says was provided in February and
`23
`the information on this particular product that the
`24
`plaintiffs are seeking, and in the future I will advise both
`25
`sides that these types of requests -- I'm permitting it
`04/01/2020 11:44:31 AM
`
`6 of 36 sheets
`
`connect with L'Oréal's IT department today. The data is
`archived. They are working on retrieving it and I'm hoping
`that by next week they will be able to -- we will be able to
`provide those two years of missing information for those
`five products.
`THE COURT: All right. I will order that it be
`provided within one week of today's date. If there are some
`difficulties for any reason, including reasons that are
`beyond our control, a public health emergency and other
`issues that we're dealing with right now, then please talk
`counsel to counsel about any extension, if any, that may be
`necessary.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`Another request that I make is that I not be
`14
`presented with requests for extensions of time that can be
`15
`worked out mutually between counsel. You know, I'm not
`16
`prohibiting them, but I ask that counsel make every effort
`17
`to be cooperative and work them out in advance of bringing
`18
`something like that to the attention of the Court.
`19
`So let's say by a week from today those get
`20
`produced from the archives and counsel will work out any
`21
`issues if some brief extension of time is needed under the
`22
`circumstances.
`23
`What is the next category, Ms. Franklin?
`24
`MS. FRANKLIN: The next category is product
`25
`packaging and marketing materials.
`Page 18 to 21 of 86
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 124-1 Filed 04/21/20 Page 8 of 35 PageID #: 4250
`24
`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
`25
`
`The issues here are product packaging is really
`just a couple of outstanding issues. We identified several
`types of product packaging that were produced that appear to
`be drafts or blank. For example, they don't have the carton
`artwork on them entirely. We had identified those for
`L'Oréal. Updated versions have not been produced in the
`cases for the products that we've identified, so those are
`still outstanding.
`The larger issue is with respect to the
`marketing materials. L'Oréal submitted as Exhibit C a
`portion of one of the Lancome marketing books that I think
`the helpful for showing what the issue is here.
`Two of the products that --
`THE COURT: I'm sorry to interrupt again. I
`apologize. I try not to interrupt on phone conferences, but
`when we were getting into the point where we're referring to
`exhibits, you've got to give me a minute to the same exhibit
`with you so that we can look at it together.
`So this was Exhibit C2, which -- is it DI 10 --
`I'm trying to see. DI 105 or which exhibit -- which docket
`item was it?
`MS. FRANKLIN: I apologize, Your Honor. I don't
`have the docket number on the version that I'm looking at.
`I don't know -- it's 105.
`THE COURT: 105, Exhibit C?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`scheduling order or the Court's February 18th order to
`produce all outstanding technical documents, including
`marketing materials.
`We raised these issues on several meet and
`confers. We raised this issue at the last discovery
`hearing, and for none of these outstanding products has
`L'Oréal produced any additional documentation. That's true
`for these Lancome products that are in the exhibit that
`L'Oréal submitted. These are true for the other products
`for which there might be a, you know, a single page
`advertisement that just shows an image of the product with a
`couple of buzzwords. And we don't believe that these are
`sufficient.
`
`We understand from L'Oréal's document retention
`policy, which it only produced to us in mid-March, that
`L'Oréal created a different kind of marketing materials. It
`has focus groups. It has tracking studies, forecasting,
`market studies, you know, internal newsletters that discuss
`products, and obviously they say nothing of the print online
`video advertising that are created for these kinds of
`products.
`
`We -- and this, again, goes to why we are trying
`to get the 30(b)(6) deposition. We just want to understand
`better what type of material is out there so we can
`understand what is missing, but from the perspective of the
`
`23
`
`25
`
`L'Oréal.
`
`Honor.
`
`So let me back up because I think we discussed a
`lot of issues there. Product packaging. So Ms. Franklin
`mentioned that there's some that they have blanks on that
`they can't see the text. That did happen a few months ago.
`We did send them the corrected ones that showed more text.
`If there's additional ones, we have not heard from them on
`those.
`
`1
`MS. FRANKLIN: Yes, Your Honor. That's the
`2
`exhibit that I'm looking at.
`3
`THE COURT: Okay. Give me a moment to get
`4
`there. I'm on my computer. Sometimes it takes a moment.
`5
`There are a lot of people doing what I'm doing, so it's a
`6
`little bit slow. I'm still waiting. Bear with me.
`7
`Well, it's not cooperating. I don't want to --
`8
`MS. FRANKLIN: It's not essential t