Case 6:16-cv-00680-RBD-GJK Document 12 Filed 05/27/16 Page 1 of 5 PageID 200
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`ORLANDO DIVISION
`
`
`
`LIGHTING SCIENCE GROUP
`CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`GLOBALUX LIGHTING LLC
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case Nos. 6:16-cv-681-Orl-37-KRS
`6:16-cv-680-Orl-37-KRS
`6:16-cv-679-Orl-37-KRS
`6:16-cv-678-Orl-37-KRS
`6:16-cv-677-Orl-37-KRS
`6:16-cv-413-Orl-37-KRS
`6:16-cv-343-Orl-37-KRS
`6:16-cv-338-Orl-37-KRS
`
`
`
`/
`
`COUNSEL’S RESPONSE TO ORDER
`TO SHOW CAUSE DATED MAY 19, 2016
`
`COMES NOW, Counsel, Mark F. Warzecha (“Counsel”) and files his response to Order
`
`
`
`
`
`to Show Cause dated May 19, 2016, and states:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`In the Show Cause Order dated May 19, 2016 (“Order”), this Court questioned Counsel’s
`
`decision and rationale for not indicating various cases were related. (See 6:16-cv-681-Orl-37-
`
`KRS, 6:16-cv-680-Orl-37-KRS, 6:16-cv-679-Orl-37-KRS, 6:16-cv-678-Orl-37-KRS, 6:16-cv-
`
`677-Orl-37-KRS, 6:16-cv-413-Orl-37-KRS, 6:16-cv-343-Orl-37-KRS, 6:16-cv-338-Orl-37-
`
`KRS). This Court directed Counsel to file an Amended Notice of Pendency of Related Cases in
`
`each open Lighting Science Group Corporation (“LSGC”) case. Counsel has complied with this
`
`portion of the Order. (See DKT. 28 (case 338), 17 (case 413), 27 (case 343), 15 (case 681), 11
`
`(case 680), 19 (case 678), 11 (case 679) and 19 (case 677)). Furthermore, this Court questioned
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 5
`
`

`
`Case 6:16-cv-00680-RBD-GJK Document 12 Filed 05/27/16 Page 2 of 5 PageID 201
`
`the rationale behind why Counsel did not indicate the LSGC cases were related. For the reasons
`
`stated below, Counsel had a good faith basis and relied on prior case law when Counsel chose
`
`not to indicate the cases as related, and would respectfully request Your Honor to refrain from
`
`imposing sanctions based upon the following.
`
`RESPONSE TO SHOW CAUSE ORDER
`
`
`
`Counsel was first admitted to practice law in November of 1994. Counsel has engaged
`
`in the practice of law continuously and uninterrupted since 1994. Counsel’s practice has almost
`
`exclusively focused on the subject matter of intellectual property, and therefore, has spent the
`
`majority of Counsel’s 22 years of practice before Federal Judges, in Federal Courts, in multiple
`
`states, including New York, Indiana, Massachusetts, Florida and Utah. Counsel has the utmost
`
`respect and reverence for the federal judiciary and is extremely embarrassed by this Court’s
`
`belief that Counsel’s prior actions were “false” and in some way calculated to cause this Court to
`
`expend its time on administrative matters.
`
`
`
`Counsel takes pride in the fact that in over 22 years or practicing law, Counsel has never
`
`received an order similar to this Court’s Order or has had Counsel’s truth or veracity of its filings
`
`questioned. Furthermore, Counsel takes great pride in the fact that Counsel has never been
`
`subject to a disciplinary complaint or subject to even the filing of a Rule 11 motion in response
`
`to a filing made by Counsel on behalf of its client. Counsel takes great pride in the fact that
`
`Counsel has practiced for over 22 years and this is the first time Counsel has had to explain
`
`and/or justify its genuineness and/or veracity of Counsel’s filing.
`
`
`
`Counsel is very much aware of, mindful and respectful of the limited resources of the
`
`federal judiciary. In fact, Counsel often discusses with local judges how the federal judiciary
`
`implements case management plans, and the like, to streamline litigation in an attempt to
`
`expedite cases to a resolution without the delay that is normally associated with state court
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 5
`
`

`
`Case 6:16-cv-00680-RBD-GJK Document 12 Filed 05/27/16 Page 3 of 5 PageID 202
`
`proceedings. Counsel takes great pride in practicing before the federal judiciary, and is mindful
`
`and reverent of the Court’s extremely crowded docket and the problems associated with
`
`resolving pending matters. Furthermore, Counsel is well aware that it takes a lifetime to
`
`establish one’s good reputation and only one action can tarnish all of that hard work.
`
`
`
`Counsel indicated the LSGC cases were not related based upon its misinterpretation of
`
`Local Rule 1.04, and its misinterpretation of cases relating to the joinder/consolidation of
`
`multiple defendants. In short, Counsel analogized “consolidation of defendants” with Local
`
`Rule 1.04. Obviously, this was a misinterpretation of the Local Rule and in no way shape or
`
`form, an attempt to gain any type of advantage and/or waste the resources of this Court.
`
`
`
`Counsel relied upon In Re EMC Corp., 677 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. May 4, 2012) wherein
`
`the court stated, “improperly joining defendants will deprive those defendants of ‘a meaningful
`
`opportunity to present individualized defenses on issues such as infringement, willfulness and
`
`damages because each defendant will have limited opportunities to present its own defense to the
`
`jury.’” Counsel was guided by In Re EMC Corp. which held that defendants should not be
`
`“thrown into a mass pit to suit plaintiff’s convenience.” EMC Corp. at 1355 citing WiAV
`
`Networks, LLC v. 3Com Corp., No. C 10-03448, 2010 WL 3895047, at *2 (N.D. Cal. October 1,
`
`2010).
`
`
`
`It is clear, however, after reading this Court’s Order, and further research of Local Rule
`
`1.04, that Counsel misapplied the standard for joinder/consolidation with the purpose and intent
`
`of Local Rule 1.04. Counsel respectfully apologizes to this Court for causing it to expend its
`
`resources in researching the related cases as well as issuing the Order. However, Counsel in no
`
`way, shape or form attempted to cause this Court to do so. Counsel, albeit incorrectly, had a
`
`good faith basis based upon case law from the Federal Circuit for its decision to not indicate the
`
`cases were related. Conversely, Counsel believed, in good faith, that if it did indicate the cases
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 5
`
`

`
`Case 6:16-cv-00680-RBD-GJK Document 12 Filed 05/27/16 Page 4 of 5 PageID 203
`
`were related, it would prejudice the Defendants as opposed to advancing Plaintiff’s position.
`
`
`
`Lastly, Counsel is fully confident that after review of the above basis and rationale for its
`
`filings, this Court can impartially and with an unbiased eye, review and decide future filings in
`
`these cases. Counsel is greatly concerned that a misapplication of Federal Circuit law regarding
`
`joinder/consolidation would influence this Court’s confidence in Counsel’s future filings.
`
`Counsel wishes to assure this Court that it would never think of filing anything without a good
`
`faith basis and solely for purpose of frustration or delay.
`
`
`
`For the reasons stated above, Counsel respectfully requests this Court to refrain from the
`
`imposition of sanctions on Counsel for what Counsel believes was a good faith basis for its
`
`filings. Counsel would also reassure this Court of its upmost respect for the federal judiciary
`
`and the strains on its resources. Lastly, Counsel would hope that this Court would accept its
`
`sincere apology in requiring the Court to expend unnecessary resources, and urge the Court to
`
`reconsider its first impression that the basis for the filing was for any reason other than just and
`
`proper.
`
`
`Dated: May 27, 2016.
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Mark F. Warzecha
`Mark F. Warzecha, Esq.
`Florida Bar No. 0095779
`WIDERMAN MALEK, PL
`1990 W. New Haven Avenue, Suite 201
`Melbourne, Florida 32904
`Telephone: 321-255-2332
`Facsimile: 321-255-2351
`MFW@USLegalTeam.com
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 6:16-cv-00680-RBD-GJK Document 12 Filed 05/27/16 Page 5 of 5 PageID 204
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I HEREBY CERTIFY that on May 27, 2016, I electronically filed the foregoing
`
`document with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF filing system. I further certify that the
`
`foregoing document is being served this date on all counsel of record or pro se parties, either via
`
`transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by the CM/ECF system or in some other
`
`authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not authorized to receive electronically
`
`Notices of Electronic Filing.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Mark F. Warzecha
`Mark F. Warzecha
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 5