Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 151-1 Filed 05/08/20 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 4950
`Case 1:17-cv-00868—CFC-SRF Document 151-1 Filed 05/08/20 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 4950
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 151-1 Filed 05/08/20 Page 2 of 11 PageID #: 4951
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 151-1 Filed 05/08/20 Page 3 of 11 PageID #: 4952
`70
`72
`
`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
`
`than here.
`
`They are looking for an absence of documents.
`They are not going to be in the Olaplex case. What we're
`going to have is damages expert reports that largely have to
`be redacted because it's really a lot of Olaplex's lost
`profit information, and that is what the Olaplex case is
`based on, their lost profits, not L'Oréal's.
`What we have produced in this case are the
`intracompany transfer agreements between L'Oréal USA and
`L'Oréal SA for the brands that are involved in this
`particular case.
`Now, we don't believe those are comparable
`because they're intracompany agreements, but we have
`produced them. To avoid a dispute, we went ahead and gave
`them those. There's not going to be any intelligence that
`they are going to gain from the Olaplex expert reports
`relating to Olaplex's lost profits theory, and it's not like
`we provided a whole treasure-trove of agreements and
`policies in that case that we have not given here.
`So what they are basically asking us to do is go
`through these multiple expert reports and deposition
`testimony, redact all the information that is confidential
`to Olaplex which under the protective order we cannot
`provide to the other side because they want to get a sneak
`peak of what's going to happen during the expert damage
`
`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
`
`needs to be redacted. We don't think that the materials are
`going to be so voluminous that the burden of redacting them
`outweighs the benefit of development of -- -
`THE COURT: All right. Having -- go ahead.
`MS. MURRAY: I was going to say, Your Honor, if
`they have access to the trial transcripts which would have
`the testimony they need, I don't see why they would need to
`have reports at the deposition. They said they have access
`to unredacted trial transcripts.
`THE COURT: All right. Having read the
`materials and heard oral argument on this and on that last
`point, what I was going to say is the plaintiffs certainly
`have access to anything that's publicly available on the
`Court docket for the Olaplex and L'Oréal case, but this
`request is denied.
`In the Court's view, damages analyses are fact
`and case specific even when you have the same defendant
`involved in recent patent litigation. You can't put a
`one-size-fits-all analysis just because in one case
`defendants took a position. That's not to say that you
`can't access what's publicly available and, you know,
`utilize it if you are going to utilize it in
`cross-examination of certain representatives of a party or
`that party's experts. But in the Court's view, the
`plaintiffs' articulated reason, which is to, quote unquote
`
`71
`
`73
`
`Franklin?
`
`phase of the case. It doesn't seem relevant and it's a lot
`of work for L'Oréal to do for them to see that they are
`going to get exactly the same information. We don't have
`licensing policies or practices or comparable agreements.
`THE COURT: All right. Any rebuttal, Ms.
`
`1
`1
`"gain any insight whatsoever into L'Oréal's licensing
`2
`2
`practices and policies" does not fulfill the standard for
`3
`3
`relevance and proportionality to sustain its request under
`4
`4
`Rule 26, and on that basis, it is denied.
`5
`5
`What is the next issue, Ms. Franklin?
`6
`6
`
`MS. FRANKLIN: Next, and I'm sure Your HonorMS. FRANKLIN: Next, and I'm sure Your Honor
`
`77 will be happy to hear, the last issue is our request for
`7
`will be happy to hear, the last issue is our request for
`MS. FRANKLIN: Yes, Your Honor. So we're not
`
`88
`8
`
`production of any communication with the FTC or any agencyproduction of any communication with the FTC or any agency
`looking for the Olaplex expert materials simply to get a
`
`99
`9
`
`regarding the accused products. And the investigation inregarding the accused products.
`view into L'Oréal's licensing policies. We're trying to get
`10
`10
`particular that we have in mind is one that we know about
`a view into what the reasonable royalty calculation would
`11
`11
`based on public materials, which was an FTC investigation
`look like and what position L'Oréal would take. Obviously,
`12
`12
`into L'Oréal's use code product lines. That's a product
`L'Oréal's expert took a position on what that position would
`13
`13
`line that contains adenosine for some of its products.
`be in the Olaplex case. Again, since I'm reviewing the
`14
`14
`Many of its products are accused products in
`trial transcripts, which I will note were not redacted, the
`15
`15
`this case. As we understand it, the FTC investigated
`expert relied on, as I said, profit metrics, forecasts,
`16
`16
`whether certain claims L'Oréal was making about the
`things like that.
`17
`17
`products, anti-aging efficacy, was investigating whether or
`It's hard for us to see how these can't possibly
`18
`18
`not those claims are substantiated.
`be relevant because as the IP Bridge case makes clear, it's
`19
`19
`There was a consent order entered in the case,
`the same defendant. Even if it's different technology, they
`20
`20
`which we attached as an exhibit to our letter, and among
`would presumably take a consistent position or at least
`21
`21
`other things, we understand from the consent order it seems
`somewhat of a consistent position, consistent enough that
`22
`22
`that the FTC was focused on public statements about the
`the materials would be relevant in licensing negotiations or
`23
`23
`accused products, marketing materials, and then the testing
`the hypothetical negotiations with different parties.
`24
`24
`that underlay those statements.
`As for burden, again, the trial transcripts were
`25
`25
`We believe that any communications L'Oréal had
`not redacted or sealed. We understand that some material
`04/01/2020 11:44:31 AM
`19 of 36 sheets
`Page 70 to 73 of 86
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 151-1 Filed 05/08/20 Page 4 of 11 PageID #: 4953
`76
`74
`
`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
`
`with the FTC or any other agency in a similar investigation
`would be highly relevant to our claims because it involved
`the, both the public claims that L'Oréal makes about the
`accused products and its own internal understanding about
`how those products work.
`L'Oréal says that it's not going to provide that
`information because it would be duplicative of the marketing
`and testing materials we already have.
`We understand that in any government
`investigation, there would be at least some communications
`that are distinct from the public --
`THE COURT: Ms. Franklin, go ahead. Say that
`
`again.
`
`MS. FRANKLIN: Sorry. Our understanding is that
`in any government investigation there would be, you know, at
`the very least communication with the agency about the
`marketing materials and testing materials that we may
`already have.
`We're not asking for the production of any
`marketing materials that L'Oréal has already produced, but
`we would certainly like to see what L'Oréal said about those
`marking materials or about the product testing to the FTC,
`and similarly, we'd like to see what L'Oréal has said about
`its products to any other agency, again, because this is
`relevant to L'Oréal's own understanding about how the
`
`
`11
`packaging litigation involving one of the cosmetic products,
`packaging litigation involving one of the cosmetic products,
`
`22 we now have to dig our files for every single piece of
`we now have to dig our files for every single piece of
`
`33
`
`paper.paper.
`
`44
`
`If they really want to see the public statementsIf they really want to see the public statements
`
`55 made about these products and the testing of the product,
`made about these products and the testing of the product,
`
`66
`
`they need to look at what was produced to them. This is athey need to look at what was produced to them. This is a
`
`77
`
`huge fishing expedition. The amount of burden that would behuge fishing expedition. The amount of burden that would be
`
`88
`
`involved in having to locate litigation files andinvolved in having to locate litigation files and
`
`99
`
`communications with any agency about these products, I mean,communications with any agency about these products, I mean,
`
`1010
`
`it's enormous and it's not proportional to the needs of theit's enormous and it's not proportional to the needs of the
`
`1111
`
`case. They have the documents that they need on this.case. They have the documents that they need on this.
`12
`MS. FRANKLIN: May I respond, Your Honor?
`13
`THE COURT: You may.
`14
`MS. FRANKLIN: So we're not seeking public
`15
`documents. Most of the documents with respect to the use
`16
`code investigation by the FTC are not public. Publications
`17
`to the agency as far as we can tell are not public. The
`18
`consent order is public, which we were able to find, but
`19
`publications directed between L'Oréal and FTC are not.
`20
`If they are public, you know, again, we see no
`21
`reason why -- I'm sorry. What I what's going to say, the
`22
`materials that are public, if L'Oréal has produced them to
`23
`us already, we're not seeking additional product, but we are
`24
`seeking documents that we can't get from the public record,
`25
`documents that, again, have not argued that these documents
`
`75
`
`77
`
`accused products work.
`I will also note the fact that adenosine is
`specifically intended to have an anti-aging benefit. With
`respect to the FTC investigation into use code,
`communications that L'Oréal made about what adenosine does
`or doesn't do would be very relevant to our claim.
`
`THE COURT: All right. I will hear from L'OréalTHE COURT: All right. I will hear from L'Oréal
`
`
`
`on this.on this.
`
`would be irrelevant because they make claims about whether
`or not the accused products have anti-aging effects.
`Our request seeks only documents produced in
`litigation to any government entity or agency. We're not
`looking for, you know, documents that are produced in
`litigation with random individuals who may have some sort of
`product liability claim against L'Oréal.
`And, again, if L'Oréal raised this on some of
`the meet and confers, that L'Oréal was willing to identify
`specific investigations or government litigations that they
`were willing to produce documents for, we could have had a
`that conversation. But again, despite the fact that we
`specifically identified a federal investigation into
`products that are accused in our case, L'Oréal refused to
`even consider producing documents for that investigation or
`any other.
`
`
`
`MS. MURRAY: Yes, Your Honor. It's Kathy MurrayMS. MURRAY: Yes, Your Honor. It's Kathy Murray
`
`
`
`again.again.
`
`1
`1
`2
`2
`3
`3
`4
`4
`5
`5
`6
`6
`7
`7
`8
`
`88
`9
`
`99
`10
`
`1010
`11
`
`1111
`
`So this request seeks all documents produced inSo this request seeks all documents produced in
`12
`
`1212
`
`any litigation or government investigation for any of theany litigation or government investigation for any of the
`13
`
`1313
`
`over 150 accused products in this case.over 150 accused products in this case.
`14
`
`1414
`
`Ms. Franklin just noted that what they areMs. Franklin just noted that what they are
`15
`
`1515
`
`looking for are public statements made about the products orlooking for are public statements made about the products or
`16
`
`1616
`
`the testing of the products. They have received the publicthe testing of the products. They have received the public
`17
`
`1717
`Once again, they simply stonewalled us at every
`
`statements made about the products and the testing of thestatements made about the products and the testing of the
`18
`
`1818
`turn, and so we believe that we are entitled certainly to
`
`products. If we look at the use code, for example, thereproducts. If we look at the use code, for example, there
`19
`
`1919
`the FTC, to the documents, and if there are any similar
`
`are six use code products in this case. We have producedare six use code products in this case. We have produced
`20
`
`2020
`documents, similar investigations that we have not been able
`
`testing for all of them. We have produced marketingtesting for all of them. We have produced marketing
`21
`
`2121 materials for all of them.
`to learn about from the public record, we'd like to learn
`materials for all of them.
`22
`
`2222
`about those and receive documents on those as well.
`
`So now they want to know all of ourSo now they want to know all of our
`
`2323
`
`2323
`
`THE COURT: All right. Having heard argumentsTHE COURT: All right. Having heard arguments
`
`communications with any agency about any of those products.communications with any agency about any of those products.
`
`2424
`
`2424
`
`of counsel and read the briefs on this point, this requestof counsel and read the briefs on this point, this request
`
`So if L'Oréal spoke to the CPFB about a product liabilitySo if L'Oréal spoke to the CPFB about a product liability
`
`2525
`
`2525
`
`claim because someone got burned by a product, or there's aclaim because someone got burned by a product, or there's a
`
`is denied without prejudice for a number of reasons.is denied without prejudice for a number of reasons.
`04/01/2020 11:44:31 AM
`Page 74 to 77 of 86
`20 of 36 sheets
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 151-1 Filed 05/08/20 Page 5 of 11 PageID #: 4954
`78
`80
`
`First of all, it's cumulative. Requests
`First of all, it's cumulative. Requests
`
`cumulative production of documents that have already beencumulative production of documents that have already been
`
`produced by L'Oréal with regard to testing and marketing ofproduced by L'Oréal with regard to testing and marketing of
`
`products.products.
`
`
`11
`
`22
`
`33
`
`44
`
`55
`
`I find the request for all documents from allI find the request for all documents from all
`
`66
`
`government entities or agencies overbroad and not relevantgovernment entities or agencies overbroad and not relevant
`
`77
`
`or proportional to the needs of the case under Rule 26. Itor proportional to the needs of the case under Rule 26. It
`
`88
`
`is a fishing expedition in the Court's view. However,is a fishing expedition in the Court's view. However,
`
`
`99
`
`having said that, to the extent that plaintiffs are aware ofhaving said that, to the extent that plaintiffs are aware of
`
`1010
`
`a federal investigation and have a reasonable belief thata federal investigation and have a reasonable belief that
`
`1111
`
`the document production from L'Oréal does not addressthe document production from L'Oréal does not address
`
`1212
`
`documents that were produced in connection with that federaldocuments that were produced in connection with that federal
`
`1313
`
`investigation in which the plaintiffs can make a showing areinvestigation in which the plaintiffs can make a showing are
`
`1414
`
`relevant and reasonably proportional to the needs of therelevant and reasonably proportional to the needs of the
`
`1515
`
`case, then the plaintiffs can pursue the conversation withcase, then the plaintiffs can pursue the conversation with
`
`1616
`
`L'Oréal for specific documents specific to thatL'Oréal for specific documents specific to that
`
`1717
`
`investigation and L'Oréal can confer with the plaintiffs on,investigation and L'Oréal can confer with the plaintiffs on,
`
`1818
`
`you know, whether there's anything to produce, or whether ityou know, whether there's anything to produce, or whether it
`
`1919
`
`resists production, or whatever the response of L'Oréal is.resists production, or whatever the response of L'Oréal is.
`
`2020 But I'm not going to order a general blanket approval of a
`But I'm not going to order a general blanket approval of a
`
`2121
`
`request for all documents from all interactions with allrequest for all documents from all interactions with all
`
`2222
`
`government entities or agencies. That's simply overbroadgovernment entities or agencies. That's simply overbroad
`
`2323
`
`and not relevant or proportional to the needs of the case.and not relevant or proportional to the needs of the case.
`
`2424
`
`So that is my ruling without prejudice.So that is my ruling without prejudice.
`25
`Are there any further issues that the Court
`
`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
`
`Judge Noreika. I can't recall if I've seen anything come
`out of judge Connolly's chambers, but certainly, you should
`contact his chambers directly with that request.
`MR. ASHKENAZI: Will do, Your Honor. Thank you
`
`very much.
`
`The second thing, and, again, I recognize this
`isn't currently ripe before Your Honor, but I just would
`like to raise something now and maybe seek a little bit of
`guidance.
`
`We all know what's happening, as you just
`mentioned, with the current health crisis, and a number of
`us are subject to stay-in-place orders. We had to begin the
`case with a very aggressive case schedule. I will call it
`ambitious maybe, but right now as counsel for plaintiffs has
`mentioned multiple times, we have fact discovery scheduled
`to close on May 22nd, expert reports go on on June the 5th
`and completed by August and then we have trial scheduled for
`February, so a little over ten months from now. And I do
`think that given everything that has happened, especially
`with the fact that we need to conduct these expert
`depositions -- sorry, these fact depositions, and I will
`tell you, we've been having difficulties communicating with
`our experts, that we're probably not going to be able to
`stick to the current case schedule.
`Now, we have not had a chance to approach the
`
`79
`
`81
`
`needs to address on behalf of the plaintiffs?
`MS. FRANKLIN: Nothing further from plaintiffs,
`Your Honor.
`THE COURT: On behalf --
`MR. ASHKENAZI: Your Honor, yes.
`THE COURT: Go ahead.
`MR. ASHKENAZI: I apologize.
`THE COURT: Go ahead.
`MR. ASHKENAZI: This is Isaac Ashkenazi.
`Two things. I know these aren't part of the
`briefing, but I would like to quickly mention. I know
`Your Honor has already given us close to two hours of her
`time.
`
`1
`1
`other side with this and, most importantly, because we just
`2
`2
`don't know whether it's going to abate. If it abates a week
`3
`3
`from now, then the extension may be much smaller and we're
`4
`4
`not looking for anything other than a minimal extension so
`5
`5
`we can get past these issues.
`6
`6
`So, you know, and I'd also like to just add one
`7
`7
`more thing to put things into perspective is, this case is
`8
`8
`about a patent that was filed in 1998. The accused products
`9
`9
`have been on the market for many years, in some cases over a
`10
`10
`decade, and as the plaintiffs have said, they are not
`11
`11
`seeking lost profit damages, only reasonable royalty. So a
`12
`12
`modest extension wouldn't be -- to the case schedule
`13
`13
`wouldn't be harmful or prejudice at all to plaintiffs.
`14
`14
`With all of that said, recognizing that we have
`The first is we have a Markman hearing kindly
`15
`15
`not had the chance to raise this with the other side, do you
`scheduled for Monday, April 6th. We understand obviously
`16
`16
`think that maybe us scheduling a conference sometime in
`the impact of the health crisis is having on everybody and
`17
`17
`mid-April would be helpful to us just to see where things
`we just wanted to know if you had any guidance on how Judge
`18
`18
`stand with the crisis and see how we could deal with the
`Connolly wants to proceed with Markman or if you thought we
`19
`19
`schedule to make the minimal extension, if any.
`should best reach out to his chambers.
`20
`20
`MR. NELSON: Your Honor, this is --
`THE COURT: I think it's best that you reach out
`21
`21
`THE COURT: Let me hear from whoever else wants
`to his chambers. As you know, we're a small court. All of
`22
`22
`to speak. I will hear from the plaintiffs, but who is
`the district judges are certainly doing their very, very
`23
`23
`speaking? Is that Mr. Cottrell?
`best to make accommodations and some are indicating with
`24
`24
`MR. NELSON: This is Justin Nelson from Susman
`orders on the docket how they intend to conduct proceedings.
`25
`25
`I've seen such orders from Judge Andrews, for instance, and
`Godfrey, Your Honor.
`21 of 36 sheets
`Page 78 to 81 of 86
`
`04/01/2020 11:44:31 AM
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 151-1 Filed 05/08/20 Page 6 of 11 PageID #: 4955
`Case 1:17-cv-00868—CFC-SRF Document 151-1 Filed 05/08/20 Page 6 of 11 PageID #: 4955
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 151-1 Filed 05/08/20 Page 7 of 11 PageID #: 4956
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS and
`CARMEL LABORATORIES, LLC,
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`L’ORÉAL USA, INC.,
`
`)
`)
`)
`) C.A. No. 17-868-CFC-SRF
`)
`) RESTRICTED –
`) ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`DEFENDANT L’ORÉAL USA, INC.’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
`PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS.
`
`Defendant L’Oréal USA, Inc. (“Defendant” or “L’Oréal USA”) hereby answers, objects,
`and otherwise responds to Plaintiffs’ Third Set of Requests for Production of Documents as
`follows:
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`1.
`
`L’Oréal USA has not completed its investigation relating to this action. As
`
`discovery proceeds, facts, information, evidence, documents and things may be discovered that
`
`are not set forth in these responses, but which may have been responsive to the Requests. The
`
`following responses are based on L’Oréal USA’s knowledge, information and belief at this time
`
`and are complete as to L’Oréal USA’s best knowledge at this time. L’Oréal USA assumes no
`
`obligation to voluntarily supplement or amend these responses to reflect information, evidence,
`
`documents or things discovered following service of these responses. Furthermore, these
`
`responses were prepared based on L’Oréal USA’s good faith interpretation and understanding of
`
`the individual Requests and are subject to correction for inadvertent errors or omissions, if any.
`
`L’Oréal USA reserves the right to refer to, to conduct discovery with reference to, or to offer into
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 151-1 Filed 05/08/20 Page 8 of 11 PageID #: 4957
`
`
`
`USA has been able to locate after a reasonably diligent search, if any exist. L’Oréal USA will
`
`not, however, produce documents and things that L’Oréal USA understands are already in
`
`Plaintiffs’ possession, custody, or control. Investigation relating to this Request continues and
`
`L’Oréal USA will supplement its response as appropriate.
`
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 65:
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 65:
`
`
`
`All documents produced, in any litigation or investigation, to any government entity or All documents produced, in any litigation or investigation, to any government entity or
`
`agency that refer or relate to the Accused Products.
`agency that refer or relate to the Accused Products.
`
`OBJECTIONS TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 65:
`OBJECTIONS TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 65:
`
`
`
`L’Oréal USA objects to this Request on the grounds that Plaintiffs’ definition of L’Oréal USA objects to this Request on the grounds that Plaintiffs’ definition of
`
`“Accused Products” on the grounds that its definition renders the term inaccurate, incomplete,
`“Accused Products” on the grounds that its definition renders the term inaccurate, incomplete,
`
`and/or vague. L’Oréal USA further objects to this Request on the grounds that it seeks
`and/or vague. L’Oréal USA further objects to this Request on the grounds that it seeks
`
`information that is not relevant to this litigation. L’Oréal USA further objects to this Request on
`information that is not relevant to this litigation. L’Oréal USA further objects to this Request on
`
`the grounds that it seeks the production of documents not proportional to the needs of this case.
`the grounds that it seeks the production of documents not proportional to the needs of this case.
`
`L’Oréal USA further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is unduly burdensome and
`L’Oréal USA further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is unduly burdensome and
`
`oppressive. L’Oréal USA further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information
`oppressive. L’Oréal USA further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information
`
`protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine. L’Oréal USA
`protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine. L’Oréal USA
`
`further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks private, privileged, and confidential
`further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks private, privileged, and confidential
`
`commercial, financial, and/or proprietary business information. L’Oréal USA further objects to
`commercial, financial, and/or proprietary business information. L’Oréal USA further objects to
`
`this Request to the extent this Request seeks to require L’Oréal USA to provide documents and
`this Request to the extent this Request seeks to require L’Oréal USA to provide documents and
`
`things that are in the public domain or are equally available to Plaintiffs. L’Oréal USA further
`things that are in the public domain or are equally available to Plaintiffs. L’Oréal USA further
`
`objects to this Request to the extent that it is duplicative of other Requests served in this action.
`objects to this Request to the extent that it is duplicative of other Requests served in this action.
`
`
`
`48
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 151-1 Filed 05/08/20 Page 9 of 11 PageID #: 4958
`
`
`
`further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive.
`
`L’Oréal USA further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information protected by
`
`the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine. L’Oréal USA further objects
`
`to this Request to the extent that it seeks private, privileged, and confidential commercial,
`
`financial, and/or proprietary business information. L’Oréal USA further objects to this Request
`
`to the extent this Request seeks to require L’Oréal USA to provide documents and things that are
`
`in the public domain or are equally available to Plaintiffs. L’Oréal USA further objects to this
`
`Request to the extent that it is duplicative of other Requests served in this action.
`
`Subject to and without in any way waiving the foregoing objections, and to the extent it
`
`understands this Request, L’Oréal USA responds as follows: Without in any way acquiescing to
`
`the representations and allegations in this Request, to the extent L’Oréal USA understands this
`
`Request, subject to the Protective Order entered in this case, L’Oréal USA will produce
`
`responsive, relevant, non-privileged documents in its possession, custody or control that L’Oréal
`
`USA has been able to locate after a reasonably diligent search, if any exist. L’Oréal USA will
`
`not, however, produce documents and things that L’Oréal USA understands are already in
`
`Plaintiffs’ possession, custody, or control. Investigation relating to this Request continues and
`
`L’Oréal USA will supplement its response as appropriate.
`
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Eric W. Dittmann
`Isaac S. Ashkenazi
`Nicholas A. Tymoczko
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10166
`(212) 318-6000
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Katharine L. Mowery
`Frederick L. Cottrell, III (#2555)
`Jeffrey L. Moyer (#3309)
`Katharine L. Mowery (#5629)
`RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A.
`One Rodney Square
`920 N. King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`
`54
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 151-1 Filed 05/08/20 Page 10 of 11 PageID #:
`4959
`
`
`
`
`Dennis S. Ellis
`Katherine F. Murray
`Serli Polatoglu
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`515 South Flower Street, 25th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`(213) 683-6000
`Naveen Modi
`Joseph E. Palys
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`875 15th Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`(202) 551-1990
`
`Dated: January 17, 2020
`
`
`(302) 651-7700
`cottrell@rlf.com
`moyer@rlf.com
`mowery@rlf.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`L’Oréal USA, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`55
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 151-1 Filed 05/08/20 Page 11 of 11 PageID #:
`4960
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on January 17, 2020, true and correct copies of the foregoing document
`
`were caused to be served on the following counsel of record as indicated:
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL:
`Brian E. Farnan
`Michael J. Farnan
`919 North Market Street
`12th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 777-0300
`bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
`mfarnan@farnanlaw.com
`
`
`
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL:
`William C. Carmody
`Tamar E. Lusztig
`Beatrice C. Franklin
`Susman Godfrey LLP
`1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
`New York, NY 10019
`bcarmody@susmangodfrey.com
`tlusztig@susmangodfrey.com
`bfranklin@susmangodfrey.com
`
`Justin A. Nelson
`Susman Godfrey LLP
`1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100
`Houston, TX 77002
`(713) 651-9366
`jnelson@susmangodfrey.com
`
`
`
`/s/ Katharine L. Mowery
`Katharine L. Mowery (#5629)
`mowery@rlf.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`56
`
`
`
`
`
`