Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 217-1 Filed 06/25/20 Page 1 of 35 PageID #: 8017
`
`Exhibit (cid:36)
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 217-1 Filed 06/25/20 Page 2 of 35 PageID #: 8018
`
`From:
`To:
`
`Cc:
`
`Subject:
`Date:
`Attachments:
`
`Nick Carullo
`Kasaraneni, Karthik; Davida Brook; "bfarnan@farnanlaw.com"; ""mfarnan@farnanlaw.com" (mfarnan@farnanlaw.com)"; Bill Carmody; Justin A. Nelson;
`Tamar Lusztig; Beatrice Franklin; Rodney Polanco
`Cottrell, Fred; Modi, Naveen; Palys, Joseph E.; PH-UMASS v. L’Oreal USDC; Dittmann, Eric W.; Ashkenazi, Isaac S.; Tymoczko, Nicholas; dellis@bgrfirm.com;
`Katherine F. Murray; Serli Polatoglu; Maggie Icart; Mowery, Katharine Lester
`RE: University of Massachusetts v. L"Oréal USA, Inc., C.A. No. 17-868-CFC-SRF
`Friday, June 12, 2020 9:56:00 AM
`Proposed Adenosine Search Terms.pdf
`image001.png
`
`Counsel,
`
`Thank you for your email. We reserve the right to raise issues with L’Oréal’s responsiveness review for documents hitting on the term
`“75156”, which this process has called into question. As I explained in my email last night, we disagree that the licensing agreements
`Plaintiffs produced—agreements that Defendants never requested—are “highly relevant”, and in any event they are irrelevant to the
`dispute we are currently trying to resolve.
`
`We have proposed a way forward if L’Oreal continues to refuse to produce documents that hit on the term “adenosine”, but you have
`not responded to our proposal. Are you willing to provide a random sampling of documents along the lines we proposed in our May
`29 email, so that the parties can move towards a solution as the Court has instructed? If not, please confirm today on our meet and
`confer that you refuse to do so. We’ll note that although you have cited some vague categories of non-responsive documents that
`the term “adenosine” may hit on, you have provided us with no information to determine whether the categories you mention make
`up a substantial—or even a notable–portion of the hit count.
`
`Although it is still Plaintiffs’ position that L’Oreal should produce all documents that hit on the term “adenosine”, please find attached
`some proposed limiters that should bring the parties towards a compromise. Plaintiffs propose that L’Oreal run these terms with
`“adenosine”, e.g. (“adenosine” AND “wrinkle”). In addition, L’Oreal should run “adenosine” on any documents before 2012.
`
`We are still waiting for a response to our June 2 email that described the insufficiencies in your searches for marketing and strategy
`documents and provided a list of specific questions you should have no difficulty answering.
`
`Also, Ms. Gill testified at her deposition that she and her team did not search for any documents related to Vichy Myokine or Meokine
`as part of Defendants’ document collection in this case, including Vichy Myokine marketing materials. J. Gill Depo. Tr. (Rough) 71:1-5;
`73:23-74:4. Please confirm that Defendants will collect and produce these documents.
`
` Nick Carullo
`
` -
`
`
`From: Kasaraneni, Karthik <karthikkasaraneni@paulhastings.com>
`Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 12:00 AM
`To: Davida Brook <DBrook@susmangodfrey.com>; 'bfarnan@farnanlaw.com' <bfarnan@farnanlaw.com>; ''mfarnan@farnanlaw.com'
`(mfarnan@farnanlaw.com)' <mfarnan@farnanlaw.com>; Bill Carmody <bcarmody@SusmanGodfrey.com>; Justin A. Nelson
`<jnelson@SusmanGodfrey.com>; Tamar Lusztig <TLusztig@susmangodfrey.com>; Beatrice Franklin
`<BFranklin@susmangodfrey.com>; Rodney Polanco <RPolanco@susmangodfrey.com>
`Cc: Cottrell, Fred <Cottrell@RLF.com>; Modi, Naveen <naveenmodi@paulhastings.com>; Palys, Joseph E.
`<josephpalys@paulhastings.com>; PH-UMASS v. L’Oreal USDC <PH-UMass-LOreal-USDC@paulhastings.com>; Dittmann, Eric W.
`<ericdittmann@paulhastings.com>; Ashkenazi, Isaac S. <isaacashkenazi@paulhastings.com>; Tymoczko, Nicholas
`<nicholastymoczko@paulhastings.com>; dellis@bgrfirm.com; Katherine F. Murray <kmurray@bgrfirm.com>; Serli Polatoglu
`<spolatoglu@bgrfirm.com>; Maggie Icart <micart@bgrfirm.com>; Mowery, Katharine Lester <Mowery@rlf.com>; Nick Carullo
`<NCarullo@susmangodfrey.com>
`Subject: RE: University of Massachusetts v. L'Oréal USA, Inc., C.A. No. 17-868-CFC-SRF
`
`Counsel,
`
`We disagree with your accusations regarding the two produced documents, and that they have any relevance to the claims or
`defenses in this case. As you are well aware, we produced those documents based on a new, overbroad requested search using the
`term “75156” in a good-faith effort to avoid continued disputes and move forward with depositions. This is in stark contrast to
`Plaintiffs’ recent production of roughly one thousand pages of highly relevant license agreements a few days before the deposition
`of their 30(b)(6) witness for all licensing topics, among many other discovery abuses set forth in the attached e-mail. While
`unnecessary, again in the spirit of avoiding disputation, L’Oréal USA hereby confirms that an attorney reviewed all of the documents
`returned by the above-mentioned search, all but two of which were either identical to documents already produced or non-
`responsive. Unlike Plaintiffs, L’Oréal USA has more than fulfilled its discovery obligations, and any further document-related requests
`are wasteful and inappropriate.
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 217-1 Filed 06/25/20 Page 3 of 35 PageID #: 8019
`
`
`Plaintiffs’ continued requests with respect to the 50,000+ “adenosine” documents only confirms that they seek to improperly burden
`L’Oréal USA while the parties are in the midst of conducting 25+ fact depositions. As we have repeatedly explained, this case is not
`about adenosine. Instead, the patents-in-suit involve, according to Plaintiffs, applying particular concentrations of adenosine to a
`particular skin location. Plaintiffs’ assertion that certificates of analysis for raw adenosine are somehow “relevant to the Georgia
`Pacific factors” demonstrates that their ever-expanding requests are both misguided and fail to heed the Court’s denial of Plaintiffs’
`motion to compel during the May 18 discovery conference.
`
`L’Oréal USA will not permit Plaintiffs to divert attention from their own failure to produce documents in a timely manner by
`continuing to burden it with unreasonable requests that are completely untethered from any issue in this case, and believes the
`parties should focus their efforts on completing fact depositions to keep this case on schedule.
`
`Regards,
`Karthik
`
`
`From: Davida Brook <DBrook@susmangodfrey.com>
`Sent: Friday, June 5, 2020 7:23 PM
`To: Kasaraneni, Karthik <karthikkasaraneni@paulhastings.com>; 'bfarnan@farnanlaw.com' <bfarnan@farnanlaw.com>;
`''mfarnan@farnanlaw.com' (mfarnan@farnanlaw.com)' <mfarnan@farnanlaw.com>; Bill Carmody
`<bcarmody@SusmanGodfrey.com>; Justin A. Nelson <jnelson@SusmanGodfrey.com>; Tamar Lusztig
`<TLusztig@susmangodfrey.com>; Beatrice Franklin <BFranklin@susmangodfrey.com>; Rodney Polanco
`<RPolanco@susmangodfrey.com>
`Cc: Cottrell, Fred <Cottrell@RLF.com>; Modi, Naveen <naveenmodi@paulhastings.com>; Palys, Joseph E.
`<josephpalys@paulhastings.com>; PH-UMASS v. L’Oreal USDC <PH-UMass-LOreal-USDC@paulhastings.com>; Dittmann, Eric W.
`<ericdittmann@paulhastings.com>; Ashkenazi, Isaac S. <isaacashkenazi@paulhastings.com>; Tymoczko, Nicholas
`<nicholastymoczko@paulhastings.com>; dellis@bgrfirm.com; Katherine F. Murray <kmurray@bgrfirm.com>; Serli Polatoglu
`<spolatoglu@bgrfirm.com>; Maggie Icart <micart@bgrfirm.com>; Mowery, Katharine Lester <Mowery@rlf.com>; Nick Carullo
`<NCarullo@susmangodfrey.com>
`Subject: [EXT] Re: University of Massachusetts v. L'Oréal USA, Inc., C.A. No. 17-868-CFC-SRF
`
`Counsel,
`
`Thank you for your email.
`
`The two documents produced last night are yet the latest example of plainly relevant documents that L’Oreal has inexplicably
`withheld, in this case until four months after the original document production deadline. These documents are (1) one of L’Oreal’s
`first tests showing the effect of adenosine on human skin as compared to a placebo, and (2) a chart that collects testing information
`for adenosine and several other anti-aging actives, discussing their efficacy. Both documents contain the word “adenosine” in
`addition to the code 75156. We do not understand how it is possible that these documents were not previously produced. Either they
`were not previously collected and reviewed, which confirms Plaintiffs’ belief that L’Oreal’s collection to date has been totally
`inadequate. Or they were reviewed and withheld, which confirms Plaintiffs’ belief that L’Oreal is withholding responsive documents
`based on some undisclosed and improper theory of relevance. Whichever is the case, it is apparent that L’Oreal’s collection, review,
`and production methods are severely flawed. Our proposal for a way forward is below. We further note that the production of these
`two French documents at the eleventh hour has necessitated a rush translation job to prepare them for depositions next week, and
`trust L’Oreal will pay for that expense as it is of its own making.
`
`On the 75156 search, we think L’Oreal should simply produce all documents that hit on this term. Again, the documents produced
`last night give us zero comfort that L’Oreal’s definition of responsiveness is appropriate. Assuming L’Oreal will not do this, please
`confirm:
`
`
`An attorney has reviewed all the documents that hit on the 75156 search.
`
`
`When you say documents are duplicative you mean they are copies of identical documents already produced. This may be
`what you are saying, but it is not clear to me from your email whether you mean that, or mean that the documents are
`duplicative of similar – but not identical – documents already produced. If the latter is true, any so-called “duplicative”
`documents should obviously be produced as L’Oreal has itself conceded their responsiveness.
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 217-1 Filed 06/25/20 Page 4 of 35 PageID #: 8020
`
`
`The types of documents that hit on 75156 that L’Oreal contends are not responsive.
`
`
`On the adenosine search, it is a non-starter to say that our request is untimely or the like when it was ordered by the Court, who also
`instructed the parties to work together to find a solution for these documents. Regarding the accusation that we are trying to slam
`L’Oreal, I can assure you that we genuinely wish L’Oreal had produced these responsive materials months ago when they were first
`requested so that Plaintiffs would not be prejudiced in having to go into depositions without these responsive materials. Again we
`think L’Oreal should simply produce all documents that hit on this term. Assuming L’Oreal will not do this, please confirm:
`
`
`L’Oreal is unwilling to provide a sample of these documents, as suggested by Plaintiffs every 50th document totaling 1,000
`documents, so that the parties can work together to narrow the term adenosine as appropriate.
`
`
`L’Oreal is itself unwilling to provide any suggestions for how to narrow the hit counts to exclude allegedly nonresponsive
`material.
`
`
`The types of documents in this data set that hit on the term adenosine that L’Oreal contends are not responsive. We note that
`the only specific example you offer below goes to communications with L’Oreal’s suppliers of adenosine and – to the extent it
`includes pricing information or any description of the importance of the purchased product – has obvious relevance to
`the Georgia Pacific factors.
`
`
`Please respond with L’Oreal’s position no later than June 10th.
`
`Thank you,
`Davida
`
`
`From: "Kasaraneni, Karthik" <karthikkasaraneni@paulhastings.com>
`Date: Thursday, June 4, 2020 at 4:11 PM
`To: Davida Brook <DBrook@susmangodfrey.com>, "'bfarnan@farnanlaw.com'" <bfarnan@farnanlaw.com>,
`"''mfarnan@farnanlaw.com' (mfarnan@farnanlaw.com)'" <mfarnan@farnanlaw.com>, Bill Carmody
`<bcarmody@SusmanGodfrey.com>, Justin Nelson <jnelson@SusmanGodfrey.com>, Tamar Lusztig
`<TLusztig@susmangodfrey.com>, Beatrice Franklin <BFranklin@susmangodfrey.com>, Rodney Polanco
`<RPolanco@susmangodfrey.com>
`Cc: "Cottrell, Fred" <Cottrell@RLF.com>, "Modi, Naveen" <naveenmodi@paulhastings.com>, "Palys, Joseph E."
`<josephpalys@paulhastings.com>, "PH-UMASS v. L’Oreal USDC" <PH-UMass-LOreal-USDC@paulhastings.com>, "Dittmann,
`Eric W." <ericdittmann@paulhastings.com>, "Ashkenazi, Isaac S." <isaacashkenazi@paulhastings.com>, "Tymoczko, Nicholas"
`<nicholastymoczko@paulhastings.com>, "dellis@bgrfirm.com" <dellis@bgrfirm.com>, "Katherine F. Murray"
`<kmurray@bgrfirm.com>, Serli Polatoglu <spolatoglu@bgrfirm.com>, Maggie Icart <micart@bgrfirm.com>, "Mowery,
`Katharine Lester" <Mowery@rlf.com>
`Subject: RE: University of Massachusetts v. L'Oréal USA, Inc., C.A. No. 17-868-CFC-SRF
`
`Counsel,
`
`While unnecessary in light of our extensive document collection and production efforts to date, in the spirit of cooperation, we have
`collected and reviewed the documents from MILOR returned by our search for “75156.” Out of an overabundance of caution, we will
`be producing two documents from that collection tonight. The remaining documents were either non-responsive or duplicative of
`our production to date. We trust that this good-faith gesture will put this matter to rest.
`
`Regarding the term “adenosine,” your request is untimely, unduly burdensome, and a thinly veiled attempt to prejudice L’Oréal USA
`at a critical moment in the case schedule. As an initial matter, your purported “shock” is unwarranted, and your assertion that we
`have not conveyed a basis for the irrelevance of an untargeted “adenosine” search on MILOR is wrong. We advised you during the
`parties’ May 5 meet and confer—a month ago—that MILOR is a general database and, as such, the search would return tens of
`thousands of documents that are wholly unrelated to the claims at issue in this case, which, as you know, relate to particular
`concentrations of adenosine applied to the skin. As examples, we pointed to certificates of analysis for raw adenosine purchased
`from suppliers and other documents unrelated to skin care. We advised you of our position that L’Oréal USA is not required to
`conduct such a broad, irrelevant, and unduly burdensome collection and review. We memorialized that call in an email to Plaintiffs
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 217-1 Filed 06/25/20 Page 5 of 35 PageID #: 8021
`
`on May 8, and we advised you (again) and the Court of that position in our May 14 briefing (D.I. 164 at 3 & n.4) and during the May 18
`conference (where we reiterated that the search would return tens of thousands of documents).
`
`Moreover, L’Oréal USA is focused on completing fact depositions and submitting expert reports. It is far too late in the schedule for
`L’Oréal USA to entertain further requests regarding this unfocused and overbroad search. Nor is the course you now suggest
`rational. Fundamentally, Plaintiffs are still asking that L’Oréal USA produce a large number of documents that merely include the
`word “adenosine”—indeed, without even reviewing them for responsiveness or privilege. L’Oréal USA has already bent over
`backwards to comply with Plaintiffs’ ever-expanding searches, and your request appears to be no more than an attempt to prejudice
`L’Oréal USA by distracting it from fact depositions and expert reports.
`
`Karthik
`
`From: Davida Brook <DBrook@susmangodfrey.com>
`Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 12:47 PM
`To: Kasaraneni, Karthik <karthikkasaraneni@paulhastings.com>; 'bfarnan@farnanlaw.com' <bfarnan@farnanlaw.com>;
`''mfarnan@farnanlaw.com' (mfarnan@farnanlaw.com)' <mfarnan@farnanlaw.com>; Bill Carmody
`<bcarmody@SusmanGodfrey.com>; Justin A. Nelson <jnelson@SusmanGodfrey.com>; Tamar Lusztig
`<TLusztig@susmangodfrey.com>; Beatrice Franklin <BFranklin@susmangodfrey.com>; Rodney Polanco
`<RPolanco@susmangodfrey.com>
`Cc: Cottrell, Fred <Cottrell@RLF.com>; Modi, Naveen <naveenmodi@paulhastings.com>; Palys, Joseph E.
`<josephpalys@paulhastings.com>; PH-UMASS v. L’Oreal USDC <PH-UMass-LOreal-USDC@paulhastings.com>; Dittmann, Eric W.
`<ericdittmann@paulhastings.com>; Ashkenazi, Isaac S. <isaacashkenazi@paulhastings.com>; Tymoczko, Nicholas
`<nicholastymoczko@paulhastings.com>; dellis@bgrfirm.com; Katherine F. Murray <kmurray@bgrfirm.com>; Serli Polatoglu
`<spolatoglu@bgrfirm.com>; Maggie Icart <micart@bgrfirm.com>; Mowery, Katharine Lester <Mowery@rlf.com>
`Subject: [EXT] Re: University of Massachusetts v. L'Oréal USA, Inc., C.A. No. 17-868-CFC-SRF
`
`Karthik,
`
`Thank you for clarifying.
`
`Truth be told, we find it fairly shocking that at this late stage in the case there are more than 50,000 documents – in the MILOR
`database alone – that hit on the term adenosine that L’Oreal has not reviewed for responsiveness. For all the reasons we have
`discussed, these documents are likely to be highly relevant to this case, and Plaintiffs are no doubt prejudiced as they are being forced
`to head into depositions without these materials. Moreover, we disagree that the returned results – which come out to a little over
`300 documents per accused product – are necessarily disproportionate to the needs of this case, and again request that L’Oreal
`promptly produce these documents. We also request that L’Oreal promptly produce the 858 results hitting on
`the ingredient number, as surely there can be no complaint about burden there.
`
`Assuming L’Oreal’s position is that it is unwilling to produce the adenosine hits, then we need to work together to come to a different
`solution. To that end, we suggest L’Oreal produce a random sampling of 1,000 documents from this set: say, every 50th document.
`The parties can then use this random sampling to determine a set of mutually agreeable limitations on the term adenosine that would
`zero in on the most relevant documents. For example, if there are a slew of documents discussing some issue that has no bearing on
`this case – something we find unlikely – we can determine a search to capture those documents, and exclude them from the set to be
`produced. But simply telling us, without any basis, or at least without any basis you have conveyed, that a review of these documents
`is unlikely to unearth highly relevant materials bearing on important issues at stake in this action, is plainly insufficient.
`
`Please let us know by COB on Tuesday, June 2nd whether you are agreeable to this approach. Of course, if you have an alternative
`solution we are happy to consider that as well.
`
`Thank you,
`Davida
`
`
`From: "Kasaraneni, Karthik" <karthikkasaraneni@paulhastings.com>
`Date: Tuesday, May 26, 2020 at 4:50 PM
`To: Davida Brook <DBrook@susmangodfrey.com>, "'bfarnan@farnanlaw.com'" <bfarnan@farnanlaw.com>,
`"''mfarnan@farnanlaw.com' (mfarnan@farnanlaw.com)'" <mfarnan@farnanlaw.com>, Bill Carmody
`<bcarmody@SusmanGodfrey.com>, Justin Nelson <jnelson@SusmanGodfrey.com>, Tamar Lusztig
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 217-1 Filed 06/25/20 Page 6 of 35 PageID #: 8022
`
`<TLusztig@susmangodfrey.com>, Beatrice Franklin <BFranklin@susmangodfrey.com>, Rodney Polanco
`<RPolanco@susmangodfrey.com>
`Cc: "Cottrell, Fred" <Cottrell@RLF.com>, "Modi, Naveen" <naveenmodi@paulhastings.com>, "Palys, Joseph E."
`<josephpalys@paulhastings.com>, "PH-UMASS v. L’Oreal USDC" <PH-UMass-LOreal-USDC@paulhastings.com>, "Dittmann,
`Eric W." <ericdittmann@paulhastings.com>, "Ashkenazi, Isaac S." <isaacashkenazi@paulhastings.com>, "Tymoczko, Nicholas"
`<nicholastymoczko@paulhastings.com>, "dellis@bgrfirm.com" <dellis@bgrfirm.com>, "Katherine F. Murray"
`<kmurray@bgrfirm.com>, Serli Polatoglu <spolatoglu@bgrfirm.com>, Maggie Icart <micart@bgrfirm.com>, "Mowery,
`Katharine Lester" <Mowery@rlf.com>
`Subject: RE: University of Massachusetts v. L'Oréal USA, Inc., C.A. No. 17-868-CFC-SRF
`
`Counsel,
`
`Our email from Thursday was clear and we provided Plaintiffs with the information that the Court ordered. The 50,293 “adenosine”
`hits represent independent documents. Further, “the goal of this exercise” was to confirm that this search would not be proportional
`to the needs of this case, which is readily apparent.
`
`Regards,
`Karthik
`
`
`From: Davida Brook <DBrook@susmangodfrey.com>
`Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 10:09 PM
`To: Kasaraneni, Karthik <karthikkasaraneni@paulhastings.com>; 'bfarnan@farnanlaw.com' <bfarnan@farnanlaw.com>;
`''mfarnan@farnanlaw.com' (mfarnan@farnanlaw.com)' <mfarnan@farnanlaw.com>; Bill Carmody
`<bcarmody@SusmanGodfrey.com>; Justin A. Nelson <jnelson@SusmanGodfrey.com>; Tamar Lusztig
`<TLusztig@susmangodfrey.com>; Beatrice Franklin <BFranklin@susmangodfrey.com>; Rodney Polanco
`<RPolanco@susmangodfrey.com>
`Cc: Cottrell, Fred <Cottrell@RLF.com>; Modi, Naveen <naveenmodi@paulhastings.com>; Palys, Joseph E.
`<josephpalys@paulhastings.com>; PH-UMASS v. L’Oreal USDC <PH-UMass-LOreal-USDC@paulhastings.com>; Dittmann, Eric W.
`<ericdittmann@paulhastings.com>; Ashkenazi, Isaac S. <isaacashkenazi@paulhastings.com>; Tymoczko, Nicholas
`<nicholastymoczko@paulhastings.com>; dellis@bgrfirm.com; Katherine F. Murray <kmurray@bgrfirm.com>; Serli Polatoglu
`<spolatoglu@bgrfirm.com>; Maggie Icart <micart@bgrfirm.com>; Mowery, Katharine Lester <Mowery@rlf.com>
`Subject: [EXT] Re: University of Massachusetts v. L'Oréal USA, Inc., C.A. No. 17-868-CFC-SRF
`
`Counsel,
`
`Thank you for the email. We cannot, however, tell from the below how many documents the terms hit upon. That is, are you saying
`the term adenosine hits on 50,293 independent documents? Or, rather, are you saying the term adenosine appears 50,293 times
`across some more limited number of documents? Please clarify which you mean, and if it is the latter, we trust you will provide the
`actual document hit-count by the Court-ordered deadline of May 22. Since the goal of this exercise is to determine how many
`additional documents running this search would require L’Oreal to review, we trust any document hit count will exclude any
`documents already reviewed/produced by L’Oreal.
`
`Thank you,
`Davida
`
`
`From: "Kasaraneni, Karthik" <karthikkasaraneni@paulhastings.com>
`Date: Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 6:13 AM
`To: "'bfarnan@farnanlaw.com'" <bfarnan@farnanlaw.com>, "''mfarnan@farnanlaw.com' (mfarnan@farnanlaw.com)'"
`<mfarnan@farnanlaw.com>, Bill Carmody <bcarmody@SusmanGodfrey.com>, Justin Nelson
`<jnelson@SusmanGodfrey.com>, Tamar Lusztig <TLusztig@susmangodfrey.com>, Beatrice Franklin
`<BFranklin@susmangodfrey.com>, Rodney Polanco <RPolanco@susmangodfrey.com>, Davida Brook
`<DBrook@susmangodfrey.com>
`Cc: "Cottrell, Fred" <Cottrell@RLF.com>, "Modi, Naveen" <naveenmodi@paulhastings.com>, "Palys, Joseph E."
`<josephpalys@paulhastings.com>, "PH-UMASS v. L’Oreal USDC" <PH-UMass-LOreal-USDC@paulhastings.com>, "Dittmann,
`Eric W." <ericdittmann@paulhastings.com>, "Ashkenazi, Isaac S." <isaacashkenazi@paulhastings.com>, "Tymoczko, Nicholas"
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 217-1 Filed 06/25/20 Page 7 of 35 PageID #: 8023
`
`<nicholastymoczko@paulhastings.com>, "Kasaraneni, Karthik" <karthikkasaraneni@paulhastings.com>, "dellis@bgrfirm.com"
`<dellis@bgrfirm.com>, "Katherine F. Murray" <kmurray@bgrfirm.com>, Serli Polatoglu <spolatoglu@bgrfirm.com>, Maggie
`Icart <micart@bgrfirm.com>, "Mowery, Katharine Lester" <Mowery@rlf.com>
`Subject: University of Massachusetts v. L'Oréal USA, Inc., C.A. No. 17-868-CFC-SRF
`
`Counsel,
`
`Per our discussion with the Court on Monday, the term “adenosine” returns 50,293 results in MILOR, and the term “75156” returns
`858 results in MILOR.
`
`Regards,
`Karthik
`
`
`Karthik R. Kasaraneni | Associate, Litigation Department
`Paul Hastings LLP | 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 | Direct: +1.212.318.6847 | Main:
`+1.212.318.6000 | Fax: +1.212.230.7847 | karthikkasaraneni@paulhastings.com |
`www.paulhastings.com
`
`
`
`
`******************************************************************************************
`This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received
`this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.
`If you reply to this message, Paul Hastings may collect personal information including your name, business name
`and other contact details, and IP address. For more information about Paul Hastings’ information collection, privacy
`and security principles please click HERE. If you have any questions, please contact Privacy@paulhastings.com.
`
`******************************************************************************************
`This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received
`this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.
`If you reply to this message, Paul Hastings may collect personal information including your name, business name
`and other contact details, and IP address. For more information about Paul Hastings’ information collection, privacy
`and security principles please click HERE. If you have any questions, please contact Privacy@paulhastings.com.
`
`******************************************************************************************
`This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received
`this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.
`If you reply to this message, Paul Hastings may collect personal information including your name, business name
`and other contact details, and IP address. For more information about Paul Hastings’ information collection, privacy
`and security principles please click HERE. If you have any questions, please contact Privacy@paulhastings.com.
`
`******************************************************************************************
`This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received
`this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.
`If you reply to this message, Paul Hastings may collect personal information including your name, business name
`and other contact details, and IP address. For more information about Paul Hastings’ information collection, privacy
`and security principles please click HERE. If you have any questions, please contact Privacy@paulhastings.com.
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 217-1 Filed 06/25/20 Page 8 of 35 PageID #: 8024
`
`Exhibit B
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 217-1 Filed 06/25/20 Page 9 of 35 PageID #: 8025
`
`Proposed Limiters
`
`
`Accused Products Including Brand Names
`• Each Accused Product’s Name
`• Biotherm
`• Blue Therapy
`• Decleor
`• Orexcellence
`• Garnier
`• Giorgio Armani
`IT Cosmetics
`•
`• Kiehl’s
`• Age Defender
`• Rosa Artica
`• Youth Dose
`• L’Oreal Paris
`• Age Perfect
`• Revitalift
`• Youth Code
`• Lancome
`• Absolue
`• Genifique
`• LaRoche Posay
`• Redermic
`• Maybelline
`• NYX
`• Shu Uemura
`• SkinCeuticals
`• Nutriganics
`• Vichy
`• Myokine
`• Meokine
`• adenoxine
`Idealia
`•
`• Liftactiv
`• YSL
`• Yves Saint Laurent
`• moisturizer
`• cream
`• serum
`face
`•
`• eye
`• spf
`• uv
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 217-1 Filed 06/25/20 Page 10 of 35 PageID #:
`8026
`
`Marketing Terms
`important
`•
`importance
`•
`revolutionary
`•
`• star
`• key
`• competitor
`• competitive
`• competitors
`• strategy
`• strategies
`• main
`• wrinkle
`• wrinkles
`• wrinkling
`• Anti-wrinkle
`• antiwrinkle
`• anti-age
`• antiage
`• anti-ageing
`• antiageing
`• aging
`• ageing
`• smooth
`lines
`•
`• stress
`
`
`Testing Terms
`• penetration
`• effect
`• effects
`• epidermis
`• benefit
`• benefits
`• beneficial
`test
`•
`tests
`•
`testing
`•
`• survey
`focus
`•
`franz
`•
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 217-1 Filed 06/25/20 Page 11 of 35 PageID #:
`8027
`
`French Equivalents
`• peau
`• Anti-rides
`• anti-ride
`• myolift
`• dermorelaxante
`• dermo-relaxante
`• actif
`• efficacite
`resultat
`•
`• brevet
`• etude
`• viellissement
`• crème
`• crème hydratante
`• visage
`• yeux
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 217-1 Filed 06/25/20 Page 12 of 35 PageID #:
`8028
`
`Exhibit C
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 217-1 Filed 06/25/20 Page 13 of 35 PageID #:
`8029
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS and
`CARMEL LABORATORIES, LLC,
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`L’ORÉAL USA, INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`)
`)
`)
`) 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:
`
`1.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`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 217-1 Filed 06/25/20 Page 14 of 35 PageID #:
`8030
`
`
`
`evidence at any time, including the time of trial if the case progresses to such a point, any and all
`
`facts, evidence, documents and things developed during the course of discovery and hearing and
`
`trial preparation, notwithstanding the reference to facts, evidence, documents and things in these
`
`responses.
`
`2.
`
`L’Oréal USA’s investigation in this matter is continuing, and, subject to the
`
`objections below, L’Oréal USA will provide the information known to them at the present time.
`
`L’Oréal USA reserves the right to supplement their Responses pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
`
`Procedure (“Rule”) 26(e) with different or additional information obtained during the course of
`
`discovery.
`
`3.
`
`To the extent that any Request seeks documents that are also sought by or
`
`identified pursuant to any other Request, L’Oréal USA declines to produce or identify multiple
`
`copies of such documents, and states that each document produced or identified pursuant to any
`
`Request is also produced pursuant to every other Request to which it is or may be responsive.
`
`4.
`
`To the extent that any Request seeks documents that have already been produced,
`
`or which have been identified as exhibits to any depositions in this action, L’Oréal USA declines
`
`to produce or identify such documents.
`
`5.
`
`To the extent that any Request seeks documents that are protected by the attorney-
`
`client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege or
`
`immunity, L’Oréal USA declines to produce such documents, which would include and would
`
`not be limited to:
`
`(a)
`
`All documents that constitute or record correspondence or other
`
`communications between counsel for L’Oréal USA or its agents or employees and L’Oréal USA
`
`or its agents or employees regarding this action;
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 217-1 Filed 06/25/20 Page 15 of 35 PageID #:
`8031
`
`
`
`(b)
`
`All documents prepared for use in this litigation, including notes,
`
`memoranda, draft pleadings and correspondence prepared by, at the direction of, or for review by
`
`counsel for L’Oréal USA; and
`
`(c)
`
`All documents that constitute or record correspondence or other
`
`communications between L’Oréal USA and counsel for L’Oréal USA regarding this action.
`
`6.
`
`L’Oréal USA’s responses to these Requests are made without wavier and with the
`
`preservation of: all issues as to the competency, relevancy, materiality, privilege and
`
`admissibility of the responses and the subject matter thereof for any purpose and in any further
`
`proceeding in this ligation and in any other action or matter; the right to object to the use of any
`
`such responses or the subject matte