Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 139-2 Filed 08/16/16 Page 1 of 5
`
`Exhibit A
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 139-2 Filed 08/16/16 Page 2 of 5
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Civil Action No. 6:15-cv-907
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`SIPCO, LLC, and IP CO, LLC
`(d/b/a INTUS IQ),
`
`
`
` v.
`
`EMERSON ELECTRIC CO., EMERSON
`PROCESS MANAGEMENT LLLP, FISHER-
`ROSEMOUNT SYSTEMS, INC.,
`ROSEMOUNT INC., BP, p.l.c., BP
`AMERICA, INC., and BP AMERICA
`PRODUCTION COMPANY,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BP DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES
`TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants BP p.l.c., BP
`
`America, Inc., and BP America Production Company (collectively, “BP Defendants” or
`
`“BP”), object to and respond to Plaintiffs SIPCO, LLC and IP CO, LLC (d/b/a INTUS IQ)
`
`(collectively, “Plaintiffs” or “SIPCO”) Second Set of Interrogatories.
`
`INTERROGATORIES TO BP DEFENDANTS
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
`
`Identify each and every “BP-Owned Installation” where any Accused Product has
`
`been and/or currently is being demonstrated, developed, installed, implemented, tested and/or
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`The BP Defendants object to this interrogatory as vague to the extent that it seeks
`
`used.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 139-2 Filed 08/16/16 Page 3 of 5
`
`information as to where the accused products have been “demonstrated, developed, installed,
`
`implemented, tested and/or used.” The BP Defendants further object to this interrogatory as
`
`overly broad and unduly burdensome, lacking proportion to the issues in dispute in this action.
`
`The named BP Defendants object to the purported scope of these interrogatories as requesting
`
`information from individuals and corporate entities other than the BP entities named as
`
`defendants in this action. The term “BP Defendant” is improperly defined as any BP-owned or
`
`controlled company, “or affiliated entity, subsidiaries thereof, together with any and all
`
`controlling or affiliated companies, and all officers, directors, employees, agents, representatives
`
`and all other persons acting, purporting to act, who have acted, or who purported to have acted
`
`on behalf of any of the foregoing.” The BP Defendants further object to this interrogatory as
`
`overly broad and unduly burdensome and lacking proportionate value to issues in dispute in this
`
`action to the extent that this interrogatory purports to seek the disclosure of information relating
`
`any product other than the Emerson Smart Wireless products accused of infringement in this
`
`action. The BP Defendants also object to this interrogatory are overly burdensome to the extent
`
`that it purports to seek the disclosure of the use made of numerous products at many potential
`
`locations. The BP Defendants further object to this interrogatory as vague and confusing to the
`
`extent that it seeks information relating to product that is “demonstrated.” As BP Defendants
`
`understand that term, they do not “demonstrate” products. Because BP Defendants’
`
`investigation into the use of the accused products at specific facilities is on-going, BP
`
`Defendants reserve the right to supplement this response. Subject to these objections and
`
`reservation, BP America Production Company further responds by advising that contractors
`
`installed certain of the accused products at the following five East Texas locations: 1) Carthage
`
`West Haynesville Facility; 2) BP Fee 254, ; 3) Ticonderoga Central Delivery Point; (4) BP Fee
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 139-2 Filed 08/16/16 Page 4 of 5
`
`344; and 5) Wombat 1-H Well. The device at the Wombat location has since been removed.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
`
`For each and every “BP-Owned Installation” identified in response to Interrogatory No.5,
`
`identify, for each BP-Owned Installation, the Accused Product(s) that has been and/or currently
`
`is being used, tested, developed, and/or installed therein.
`
`
`
`
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`The BP Defendants object to this interrogatory as overly broad and unduly burdensome,
`
`lacking proportion to the issues in dispute in this action. The named BP Defendants object to the
`
`purported scope of these interrogatories as requesting information from individuals and corporate
`
`entities other than the BP entities named as defendants in this action. The term “BP Defendant”
`
`is improperly defined as any BP-owned or controlled company, “or affiliated entity, subsidiaries
`
`thereof, together with any and all controlling or affiliated companies, and all officers, directors,
`
`employees, agents, representatives and all other persons acting, purporting to act, who have
`
`acted, or who purported to have acted on behalf of any of the foregoing.” The BP Defendants
`
`further object to this interrogatory as overly broad and unduly burdensome and lacking
`
`proportionate value to issues in dispute in this action to the extent that this interrogatory purports
`
`to seek the disclosure of information relating any product other than the Emerson Smart Wireless
`
`products accused of infringement in this action. The BP Defendants also object to this
`
`interrogatory as overly burdensome to the extent that it purports to seek the disclosure of the use
`
`made of numerous products at a variety of locations. Because Defendants’ investigation into the
`
`use of the accused products at specific facilities is on-going, Defendants reserve the right to
`
`supplement this response. Subject to these objections and reservation, BP America Production
`
`Company (BPAPC) responds that it is not aware of any testing or development of the accused
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 139-2 Filed 08/16/16 Page 5 of 5
`
`products at its facilities. BPAPC further responds by advising that contractors installed the
`
`accused products at the facilities identified in response to interrogatory 5, above.
`
`Dated: July 25, 2016
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`
`
`/s/ James D. Berquist
`Melissa R. Smith
`GILLAM & SMITH LLP
`303 South Washington Ave.
`Marshall, Texas 75670
`Telephone: (903) 934-8450
`Facsimile: (903) 934-9257
`Email: melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com
`
`Donald L. Jackson djackson@dbjg.com
`James D. Berquist jberquist@dbjg.com
`J. Scott Davidson sdavidson@dbjg.com
`DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON
`& GOWDEY, LLP
`8300 Greensboro Dr., Suite 500
`McLean, Virginia 22102
`Telephone: (571) 765-7700
`Facsimile:
`(571) 765-7200
`
`
`for Defendants BP p.l.c., BP
`Attorneys
`America, Inc., and BP America Production
`Company
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I, James Berquist, hereby certify that on July 25, 2016 the foregoing document was
`served upon counsel of record for Defendants via first-class mail and electronic mail.
`
`/s/ James D. Berquist
`James Berquist
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`