Case 1:22-cv-00305-RGA-JLH Document 77 Filed 05/26/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 987
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`ROBOCAST, INC.
`
`
`
`v.
`
`NETFLIX, INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:22-CV-00305-RGA-JLH
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF ROBOCAST, INC.’S LETTER TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE HALL
`REGARDING VALIDITY DOCUMENTS
`
`
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`
`BAYARD, P.A.
`
`Stephen B. Brauerman (#4952)
`Ronald P. Golden III (#6254)
`600 North King Street, Suite 400
`Wilmington, Delaware 19801
`(302) 655-5000
`sbrauerman@bayardlaw.com
`rgolden@bayardlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`ROBOCAST, INC.
`
`Steven Rizzi
`Ramy E. Hanna (DE Bar Id #: 5494)
`One Manhattan West
`395 9th Avenue, 50th Floor
`New York, New York 10001-8603
`(212) 402-9400
`srizzi@mckoolsmith.com
`rhanna@mckoolsmith.com
`
`CANTOR COLBURN LLP
`
`Marc N. Henschke
`20 Church Street, 22nd Floor
`Hartford, Connecticut 06103-3027
`(860) 286-2929
`mhenschke@cantorcolburn.com
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00305-RGA-JLH Document 77 Filed 05/26/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 988
`
`Dear Judge Hall:
`
`Pursuant to this Court’s Oral Order Settling Teleconference (D.I. 72), Robocast submits
`
`this response to Netflix’s May 22, 2023 letter regarding the production of validity documents
`served and received in two prior matters: Robocast, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 1:11-cv-00253-RGA
`(D. Del) and Robocast, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 1:10-cv-01055-RGA (D. Del.).
`
`First, as a preliminary matter, Robocast does not and has not opposed production of these
`
`documents. Indeed, Robocast produced all responsive documents in its custody and control that
`do not contain material designated as confidential by third-parties on April 28, 2023, which include
`thousands of pages of invalidity contentions. Robocast also confirmed on the party’s May 1, 2023
`meet and confer that Robocast will comply with the procedures for producing the remaining
`material – four expert reports comprising material designated as confidential by third-parties –
`when the Protective Order is entered in this case. See D.I. 73 at 11. On the same meet and confer,
`Netflix was satisfied by this response, and Robocast understood the parties to be in agreement as
`to the appropriate procedures for producing the remaining documents. Netflix notably did not
`again mention production of the remaining documents until it filed its letter to this Court. D.I. 73.
`
`Second, Local Rule 26.2 relates to “documents [] deemed confidential by the
`
`producing party,” and is thus inapplicable as the documents Netflix seeks do not contain just
`Robocast’s confidential material. In fact, Robocast already produced documents containing only
`Robocast confidential material. Robocast cannot accede to Netflix’s demand that Robocast violate
`the protective orders entered in the Apple and Microsoft litigations. Robocast, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 1:11-cv-00235-RGA (D. Del.) and Robocast, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 1:10-cv-01055-
`RGA (D. Del.). Although Robocast does not dispute that this Court can order production of those
`documents in this case, Robocast maintains that this Court should do so via the entry of a Protective
`Order governing third-party confidential material generally, rather than a one-off order regarding
`these particular documents. Netflix has offered no reason why this will not suffice.
`
`Third, Netflix’s request – raised for the first time in its May 22, 2023 letter – that Robocast
`
`review and redact over a thousand pages of material, and then provide a log accounting for those
`redactions, is unreasonable and unduly burdensome. As Robocast reiterated many times to Netflix,
`absent any objection from Apple or Microsoft, Robocast will produce unredacted versions of these
`documents after complying with the applicable procedures in the Protective Order.
`
`Fourth, Netflix fails to articulate why the additional material are somehow necessary for
`
`its invalidity contentions. In addition to the materials it already has from the Microsoft and Apple
`litigations, Netflix has filed two IPRs on its own, and six other IPRs have been filed by others. It
`thus has extensive materials at its disposal for preparing its contentions.
`
`
`
`
`
`Accordingly, Robocast requests this Court deny Netflix’s request.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00305-RGA-JLH Document 77 Filed 05/26/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 989
`
`Dated: May 26, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cc: Counsel of Record (via E-Filing)
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Stephen B. Brauerman
`
`Stephen B. Brauerman (#4952)
`
`