Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 138-2, PageID.10096 Filed 05/04/23 Page 1 of 28
`
`Exhibit 1
`
`Redacted Version of
`Document to be Sealed
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 138-2, PageID.10097 Filed 05/04/23 Page 2 of 28
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`Case No. 2:22-MD-03034-TGB
`
`Hon. Terrence G. Berg
`
`
`IN RE: NEO WIRELESS, LLC
`
`PATENT LITIGATION
`
`LETTER OF REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE PURSUANT
`TO THE HAGUE CONVENTION OF 18 MARCH 1970 ON THE TAKING OF
`EVIDENCE ABROAD IN CIVIL OR COMMERCIAL MATTERS
`Subdirección General de Cooperación Jurídica Internacional
`Ministry of Justice
`Calle San Bernardo Nº 62
`28071 Madrid, Spain
`The United States District Court
`FROM:
`For the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division
`
`
`231 W. Lafayette Blvd.
`
`
`Detroit, MI 48226
`
`
`United States of America
`
`
`PERSON TO WHOM THIS REQUEST FOR EVIDENCE IS DIRECTED:
`Mr. Javier Pujol Artigas, or a corporate representative who may provide the
`requested information.
`Ficosa International, S.A.
`Gran Via Carlos III, 98
`08028 Barcelona, Spain
`Please return the evidence directly to the attention of the requesting court – unless the information
`provided is not written in English. In that case, please return the evidence and all correspondence
`to:
`
`TO:
`
`Civil Action Group, Ltd., d/b/a APS International, Ltd.
`Attn: International Evidence Department
`APS International Plaza
`7800 Glenroy Road
`Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439-3122
`U.S.A.
`Fax: (952) 831-8150
`Email: Evidence@CivilActionGroup.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and notify the requesting court of such transmittal.
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 138-2, PageID.10098 Filed 05/04/23 Page 3 of 28
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY
`
`Names and Address of the Parties and their Representatives
`
`Jason D. Cassady
`John Austin Curry
`Christopher S. Stewart
`Caldwell Cassady Curry P.C.
`2121 N. Pearl Street, Ste. 1200
`Dallas, TX 75201, USA
`
`Jaye Quadrozzi
`Young, Garcia & Quadrozzi, P.C.
`2775 Stansbury Boulevard, Ste. 125
`Farmington Hills, MI 48334, USA
`
`Frank C. Cimino, Jr.
`Megan S. Woodworth
`Johnathon L. Falkler
`Robert C. Tapparo
`Venable LLP
`600 Massachusetts Avenue NW
`Washington D.C., 20001, USA
`
`Patrick G. Seyferth
`Susan M. McKeever
`Bush Seyferth PLLC
`100 W. Big Beaver Road, Ste. 400
`Troy, MI 48084, USA
`Matthew J. Moore
`Michael A. David
`Benjamin L. Smith
`Latham & Watkins LLP
`555 Eleventh Street NW, Suite 1000
`Washington D.C., 20004, USA
`
`Clement J. Naples
`Latham & Watkins LLP
`1271 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10020, USA
`
`Gabrielle A. LaHatte
`Latham & Watkins LLP
`505 Montgomery Street, Ste. 2000
`San Francisco, CA 94111, USA
`Joseph A. Herriges
`
`I.
`Plaintiff:
`Neo Wireless, LLC
`123 West Wayne Avenue, Fl. 1
`Wayne, PA 19087, USA
`
`Defendants:
`FCA US, LLC
`1000 Chrysler Drive
`Auburn Hills, MI 48326, USA
`
`Ford Motor Company
`1 American Road
`Dearborn, MI 48126, USA
`
`General Motors Company
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 138-2, PageID.10099 Filed 05/04/23 Page 4 of 28
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY
`
`300 Renaissance Center
`Detroit, MI 48243, USA
`
`General Motors LLC
`300 Renaissance Center
`Detroit, MI 48243, USA
`
`American Honda Motor Company, Inc.
`1919 Torrance Boulevard
`Torrance, CA 90501, USA
`
`Honda Development & Manufacturing of
`America, LLC
`24000 Honda Parkway
`Marysville, OH 43040, USA
`
`Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC
`1 Mercedes Benz Drive
`Sandy Springs, GA 30328, USA
`
`Nissan North America, Inc.
`1 Nissan Way
`Franklin, TN 37067, USA
`
`Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation, a/k/a
`Nissan Motor Acceptance Company LLC
`1 Nissan Way
`Franklin, TN 37067, USA
`
`Conrad A. Gosen
`James Hugenin-Love
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street, 3200 RBC Plaza
`Minneapolis, MN 55402, USA
`
`Michael J. McKeon
`Christian Chu
`Jared Hartzman
`Joshua P. Carrigan
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`1000 Maine Avenue SW, Suite 1000
`Washington D.C. 20024, USA
`
`J. Michael Huget
`Sarah E. Waidelich
`Honigman LLP
`315 E. Eisenhower Parkway, Ste. 100
`Ann Arbor, MI 48108, USA
`John T. Johnson
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`7 Times Square, 20th Floor
`New York, NY 10036, USA
`
`Ruffin B. Cordell
`Benjamin J. Christoff
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`1000 Maine Avenue SW, Suite 1000
`Washington D.C. 20024, USA
`
`Thomas P. Branigan
`Bowman and Brooke LLP
`41000 Woodward Avenue, Ste. 200 East
`Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304, USA
`Celine J. Crowson
`Hogan Lovells US LLP
`555 Thirteenth Street NW
`Washington D.C. 20004, USA
`Reginald J. Hill
`Peter J. Brennan
`Jenner & Block LLP
`353 N. Clark Street
`Chicago, IL 60654, USA
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 138-2, PageID.10100 Filed 05/04/23 Page 5 of 28
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY
`
`Tesla Inc.
`13101 Tesla Road
`Austin, TX 78725, USA
`
`Toyota Motor Corporation
`1 Toyota-Cho, Toyota City
`Aichi Prefecture, 471-8571, Japan
`
`Toyota Motor North America, Inc.
`6565 Headquarters Drive
`Plano, TX 75024, USA
`
`Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc.
`6565 Headquarters Drive
`Plano, TX 75024, USA
`
`Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing
`North America, Inc.
`6565 Headquarters Drive
`Plano, TX 75024, USA
`
`Toyota Motor Credit Corporation
`6565 Headquarters Drive
`Plano, TX 75024, USA
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
`2200 Ferdinand Porsche Drive
`Herndon, VA 20171, USA
`
`Volkswagen Group of America Chattanooga
`Operations, LLC
`
`Thomas H. Reger II
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`1717 Main Street, Ste. 5000
`Dallas, TX 75201, USA
`
`Lawrence Jarvis
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`1180 Peachtree Street NE, 21st Floor
`Atlanta, GA 30309, USA
`
`Elizabeth Ranks
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`1 Marina Park Drive
`Boston, MA 02210, USA
`
`J. Michael Huget
`Sarah E. Waidelich
`Honigman LLP
`315 E. Eisenhower Parkway, Ste. 100
`Ann Arbor, MI 48108, USA
`Paul R. Steadman
`Matthew Satchwell
`Shuzo Maruyama
`DLA Piper LLP
`444 West Lake Street, Ste. 900
`Chicago, IL 60606, USA
`
`Brian Erickson
`DLA Piper LLP
`303 Colorado Street, Ste. 3000
`Austin, TX 78701, USA
`
`Susan M. McKeever
`Justin B. Weiner
`Bush Seyferth PLLC
`100 W. Big Beaver Road, Ste. 400
`Troy, MI 48084, USA
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 138-2, PageID.10101 Filed 05/04/23 Page 6 of 28
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY
`
`2200 Ferdinand Porsche Drive
`Herndon, VA 20171, USA
`
`Daniel E. Yonan
`Deirdre M. Wells
`Ryan C. Richardson
`William H. Milliken
`Anna G. Phillips
`Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC
`1100 New York Avenue NW, Ste. 600
`Washington D.C., 20005, USA
`
`II.
`
`Summary of the Case
`Plaintiff Neo Wireless LLC (“Plaintiff”) has asserted U.S. Patent No. 8,467,366, U.S.
`
`Patent No. 10,075,941, U.S. Patent No. 10,447,450, and U.S. Patent No. 10,771,302, U.S. Patent
`No. 10,833,908, and U.S. Patent No. 10,965,512 (collectively, the “Patents-in-Suit”) against
`Defendants for patent infringement. The accused products are Defendants’ vehicles which are
`compatible with the 4G/LTE or 5G/NR wireless communication standards. Plaintiff seeks an
`award of damages from Defendants to compensate for the alleged patent infringement. The
`Patents-in-Suit relate to systems, apparatuses, and methods for improving cellular wireless
`communications, and cover certain aspects of the LTE and 5G standards.
`
`Through discovery, Plaintiff has determined that Ficosa International S.A. (“Ficosa”)
`makes certain accused devices and/or components that are used in the allegedly infringing vehicles
`made and sold by Defendants. Defendants have represented that they do not have custody, control,
`or possession of documents or information about these accused devices/components and that
`instead, Ficosa is the proper entity from which to obtain the requested information. On information
`and belief, Ficosa possesses information relevant to Plaintiff’s claims of infringement in this patent
`litigation.
`III. Requested Information
`Plaintiff seeks the production of documents and deposition testimony from Ficosa. The
`
`specific documentary evidence sought is outlined in Exhibit A, and the evidentiary questions for
`which witness testimony is sought are outlined in Exhibit B, both attached hereto. Any responses
`and/or evidence returned to this court will be submitted as evidence at trial. The requested
`evidence is necessary for the continuance of these proceedings. As allowed by the internal laws
`of Spain, please have all returned evidence verified and/or certified as to completeness and
`authenticity.
`
`The Court understands that the questions to which answers are requested are clearly
`enumerated and of direct and close connection with the subject matter of the litigation. If any
`portion of this Request is deemed to be unacceptable under the laws of Spain, please disregard that
`portion and continue to comply with as much of the Request as is legally permissible.
`IV. Confidentiality Order
`In this matter, a Protective Order has been entered that governs the production of
`
`documents. A copy of this order is attached hereto as Exhibit C. Because this action involves
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 138-2, PageID.10102 Filed 05/04/23 Page 7 of 28
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY
`
`confidential and proprietary business information, the Protective Order serves to protect such
`information from public disclosure. Accordingly, the United States District Court for the Eastern
`District of Michigan requests that any documents or testimony obtained in response to this Letter
`of Request be treated in accordance with the provisions of the Protective Order to protect
`confidential and proprietary information.
`
`For the protection of the privacy of information in this case in Spain, this Court requests
`that the Spanish court issue a corresponding order to provide similar confidentiality protection in
`Spain to the testimony and any other documents, transcripts, etc. produced and/or recorded in
`relation to this request.
`V.
`Reimbursement for Costs
`This Court understands that any fees and costs incurred in the execution of this Request
`
`are reimbursable under the second paragraph of Article 14 or under Article 26 of the Hague
`Evidence Convention. These fees and costs will be reimbursed by the above-named counsel for
`the Plaintiff up to US$5,000. Please inform counsel for Plaintiff Neo Wireless, LLC before the
`costs exceed this amount.
`DATED this ____ day of ________, 2023
`
`Respectfully Requested,
`
`
`
`____________________________________
`
`The Honorable Terrence G. Berg
`United States District Judge
`for the Eastern District of Michigan
`Theodore Levin U.S. Courthouse
`231 W. Lafayette Blvd., Room 253
`Detroit, MI 48226
`United States of America
`Telephone: (313) 234-2640
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 138-2, PageID.10103 Filed 05/04/23 Page 8 of 28
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY
`
`EXHIBIT A
`DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS
`1.
`The terms “Plaintiff,” or “Neo Wireless” means Neo Wireless, LLC.
`2.
`“Ficosa,” “You,” “Your,” or “Yours” mean Ficosa International S.A., its
`predecessors and successors, past and present parents, divisions, subsidiaries, affiliates, and related
`companies, and all past and present directors, officers, employees, agents, consultants, attorneys,
`and others purporting to act on its behalf.
`3.
`The term “Document” includes, without limitation, all originals and copies,
`duplicates, drafts, and recordings of any written, printed, graphic, or otherwise recorded matter,
`however produced or reproduced, and all writings of any nature, whether on paper, magnetic tape,
`electronically recorded, or any other information storage means, including film and computer
`memory devices. Where any such items contain any marking not appearing on the original or are
`altered from the original, please consider such items to be separate original documents.
`4.
`The term “relate,” “relates,” “related to,” or “relating to” means concerning,
`referring to, summarizing, reflecting, constituting, containing, embodying, pertaining to, involved
`with, mentioning, discussing, consisting of, comprising, showing, commenting on, evidencing,
`describing, or otherwise relating to the subject matter.
`5.
`“Defendants” means FCA US LLC, Ford Motor Company, General Motors
`Company, General Motors LLC, American Honda Motor Company, Inc., Honda Development &
`Manufacturing of America, LLC, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Nissan North America, Inc., Nissan
`Motor Acceptance Corp., Tesla Inc., Toyota Motor Corp., Toyota Motor N. America, Inc., Toyota
`Motor Sales USA, Inc., Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc., Toyota
`Motor Credit Corp., Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., and Volkswagen Group of America
`Chattanooga Operations, LLC, their predecessors and successors, past and present parents,
`divisions, subsidiaries, affiliates, and related companies.
`6.
`Please answer each Request separately by listing the responsive Documents and by
`describing them as defined below. Please organize and designate any Documents produced so as
`to correspond to the categories in these Requests, or please produce the Documents as they are
`maintained in the normal course of business. In either case, please ensure that: (a) all associated
`file labels, file headings, and file folders are produced together with the responsive Documents
`and identify each Document as to its owner or custodian; (b) please produce Documents that cannot
`be legibly copied in their original form; otherwise, You may produce photocopies (but Defendant
`reserve the right to inspect the originals); and (c) please give each page a discrete production
`number and produce the same in Bates-numbered form.
`7.
`Please produce electronically stored Documents in the electronic form(s) in which
`they are ordinarily maintained.
`8.
`These Requests call for Documents that are known or available to Ficosa, or in the
`possession, custody, or control of Ficosa, including all Documents known or available to attorneys,
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 138-2, PageID.10104 Filed 05/04/23 Page 9 of 28
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY
`
`agents, representatives, or any other person acting on behalf of Ficosa or under the direction or
`control of Ficosa, its attorneys, agents, or representatives.
`9.
`Possession, custody, and control does not require that Ficosa have actual physical
`possession; if Ficosa has physical control or a superior right to compel production from another,
`this is sufficient.
`10.
`In the event that multiple copies of a Document exist, please produce every copy
`on which any notations or markings of any sort exist that do not appear on any other copies. If no
`Documents or things are responsive to a particular request, please state that no responsive materials
`exist.
`
`11.
`Please produce each requested Documents in its entirety and with all attachments,
`without deletions or excisions, regardless of whether Ficosa considers the entire Document or any
`attachment thereto to be relevant to this case or responsive to these Requests. If any Document or
`thing cannot be produced in full, please produce such Document(s) to the fullest extent possible,
`and please specify the reasons for the inability to produce the remainder, as well as whatever
`information, knowledge, or belief Ficosa has concerning the unproduced portion.
`12.
`If Ficosa objects to any Request or part thereof, please ensure that (1) Ficosa states
`the objection, and that (2) Ficosa produces all relevant Documents to which Ficosa’s objection
`does not apply.
`13.
`If any Documents are withheld from production under a claim of privilege or work
`product, please produce all relevant Documents to which Ficosa’s privilege objection does not
`apply, and please state the nature of the privilege claimed and provide sufficient information to
`permit a full determination of whether the claim is valid. For allegedly privileged Documents,
`please include: (i) any privilege or immunity from discovery asserted; (ii) the nature of the
`Document (letter, memorandum, notes, etc.); (iii) the author; (iv) the addressee, including
`recipients of copies; (v) the date; (vi) each and every Person who has seen such Document or a
`portion of such Document; (vii) the subject matter and general nature of the information; and (viii)
`all other facts which are alleged to support the assertion of privilege or immunity.
`14.
`Unless otherwise stated, please produce requested Documents or things that were
`prepared, created, written, sent, dated or received at any time.
`REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:
`Documents sufficient to identify the Qualcomm, Intel, or other modem chipset (e.g.,
`Qualcomm MDM9215, Qualcomm MDM9615, etc.) used in the
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 138-2, PageID.10105 Filed 05/04/23 Page 10 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 138-2, PageID.10106 Filed 05/04/23 Page 11 of 28
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY
`
`EXHIBIT B
`Plaintiff Neo Wireless, LLC requests the following information from Ficosa International
`
`S.A. to be used as evidence in the proceedings of In re Neo Wireless Patent Litigation, No. 2:22-
`md-03034-TJB, and all member cases of the same:
`DEFINITIONS & INSTRUCTIONS
`1.
`The terms “Plaintiff,” “Neo,” or “Neo Wireless” mean Neo Wireless, LLC.
`2.
`“Ficosa,” “You,” “Your,” or “Yours” mean Ficosa International S.A., its
`predecessors and successors, past and present parents, divisions, subsidiaries, affiliates, and related
`companies, and all past and present directors, officers, employees, agents, consultants, attorneys,
`and others purporting to act on its behalf.
`3.
`The term “relate,” “relates,” “related to,” or “relating to” means concerning,
`referring to, summarizing, reflecting, constituting, containing, embodying, pertaining to, involved
`with, mentioning, discussing, consisting of, comprising, showing, commenting on, evidencing,
`describing, or otherwise relating to the subject matter.
`4.
` “Defendants” means FCA US LLC, Ford Motor Company, General Motors
`Company, General Motors LLC, American Honda Motor Company, Inc., Honda Development &
`Manufacturing of America, LLC, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Nissan North America, Inc., Nissan
`Motor Acceptance Corp., Tesla Inc., Toyota Motor Corp., Toyota Motor N. America, Inc., Toyota
`Motor Sales USA, Inc., Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc., Toyota
`Motor Credit Corp., Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., and Volkswagen Group of America
`Chattanooga Operations, LLC, their predecessors and successors, past and present parents,
`divisions, subsidiaries, affiliates, and related companies.
`5.
`Please construe “any” and “all” as “any and all.”
`6.
`Please construe “each” and “every” as “each and every.”
`7.
`Please construe “including” to mean “without limitations,” and assume that any
`terms following the word “including” are used by way of example only.
`8.
`Please construe the use of the singular form of any word as including the plural,
`and vice versa, as necessary to bring within the scope of the question all responses that might
`otherwise be construed to be outside its scope.
`9.
`One or more representatives may be produced to respond to one or more questions.
`10.
`If in responding to these questions You claim any ambiguity in either a topic or a
`definition or instruction applicable thereto, please identify in advance of the deposition the
`language you consider ambiguous and state the interpretation You are using in preparing your
`witness(es) to testify.
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 138-2, PageID.10107 Filed 05/04/23 Page 12 of 28
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY
`
`1.
`
`QUESTIONS FOR EXAMINATION
`What is the model of modem chip (e.g., Qualcomm MDM9215, etc.) used in the
`
`
`
`2.
`Do you supply any other model of TCU to any of the Defendants in this action
`(including their affiliates, subsidiaries, or other related companies) for intended use in North
`America?
`3.
`If you answered Question No. 2 in the affirmative, what are the model names of
`each such TCU, and to which Defendant(s) do you supply said TCUs? In answering, please match
`each such TCU to the Defendant(s) to whom the TCU is supplied.
`4.
`If you answered Question No. 2 in the affirmative, what models of modem chip
`(e.g., Qualcomm MDM9215, etc.) are used in each such model TCU? In answering, please match
`each such modem chip to the TCU(s) in which said modem chip is incorporated.
`5.
`What is the complete software build identifier (possibly known as a “Chipset
`vendor Stack Version”) for the modem chip software build installed on the modem chip used in
`the
` In
`answering, please provide a full, valid modem chip software build identifier.2 If multiple software
`builds have been used over time, please provide the full, valid modem chip software build identifier
`for each such software build version used and please state the time periods for which each such
`software build was used.
`6.
`If you identified any additional TCU models in response to Question No. 3, what
`are the complete software build identifiers (possibly known as the “chipset vendor stack version”)
`for the modem chip software build(s) installed on the modem chip used in each such TCU? In
`answering, please provide a full, valid modem chip software build identifier for each such TCU,
`and please match each such build to the TCU(s) in which it was used. If an individual model of
`TCU has used multiple software builds, please provide the full, valid modem chip software build
`identifier for each such software build version used and please state the time periods for which
`each such software build was used.
`7.
`What are the manufacturer, model number, and manufacturer contact information
`for the network access device (NAD) contained within the
`
`
`8.
`If you identified any additional TCU models in response to Question No. 3, what
`are the manufacturer, model number, and manufacturer contact information for the NAD module
`contained within each such TCU? In answering, please match the information for each NAD
`module to the TCU in which it is incorporated.
`
`
`2 Two examples of known valid Qualcomm software build identifiers are “MDM9607.LE.1.1-00100-STD.PROD-1”
`and “M9615ACETWMLZD551354004.1.”
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 138-2, PageID.10108 Filed 05/04/23 Page 13 of 28
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY
`
`9.
` In
`What are the cellular functionalities and capabilities of the
` is
`answering, please identify the cellular networks in North America on which the
`and
`approved for use, the technical specifications implemented or practiced by the
`whether there exist any testing reports, conformance testing reports, or implementation
`conformance reports for the
`
`10.
`If you identified any additional TCU models in response to Question No. 3, what
`are the cellular functionalities and capabilities of each such TCU? In answering, please identify
`the cellular networks in North America on which each such TCU is approved for use, the technical
`specifications implemented or practiced by each such TCU, and whether there exist any testing
`reports, conformance testing reports, or implementation conformance reports for each such TCU.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 138-2, PageID.10109 Filed 05/04/23 Page 14 of 28
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY
`
`EXHIBIT C
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`IN RE NEO WIRELESS, LLC
`PATENT LITIG.
`
`
`
`
`2:22-MD-03034-TGB
`
`HON. TERRENCE G. BERG
`
`
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), the Court hereby enters
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the following protective order:
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Designated Material – Any document or thing that a producing party
`
`reasonably and in good faith believes to contain confidential information that is not
`
`publicly available (such as research and development, commercial, or other
`
`sensitive information) may be produced by that party with the clear and obvious
`
`designation “CONFIDENTIAL,” “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’
`
`EYES ONLY,” or “CONFIDENTIAL – RECEIVING PARTY ONLY”
`
`(“Designated Material”). The legend or stamp shall be placed on each page of the
`
`Protected Material (except deposition and hearing transcripts) for which such
`
`protection is sought. For deposition and hearing transcripts, the legend or stamp
`
`shall be placed on the cover page of the transcript (if not already present on the
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 138-2, PageID.10110 Filed 05/04/23 Page 15 of 28
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY
`
`cover page of the transcript when received from the court reporter) by each
`
`attorney receiving a copy of the transcript after that attorney receives notice of the
`
`designation of some or all of that transcript as Designated Material.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Non-Disclosure of Confidential Information – Any document or
`
`thing designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” may only be used to prosecute or defend
`
`this action and shall not be disclosed to (or the content discussed with) anyone
`
`other than the following persons:
`
`a.
`
`Outside counsel of record in this Action and their support staff
`
`(e.g., copying and document management personnel).
`
`b.
`
`Personnel of the receiving party to the extent reasonably
`
`necessary for the litigation of this Action.
`
`c.
`
`Independent experts or consultants engaged by a party’s
`
`attorneys to assist in the preparation and trial of this case who
`
`agree to abide by the terms of this Protective Order by signing
`
`Exhibit A and who are approved by the producing party
`
`pursuant to paragraph 7 below.
`
`d.
`
`Deposition witnesses of the producing party whose testimony is
`
`being taken with respect to the document or thing, or about the
`
`subject matter of the document or thing, who (i) agree to abide
`
`by the terms of this Protective Order, (ii) are the author or
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 138-2, PageID.10111 Filed 05/04/23 Page 16 of 28
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY
`
`recipient of a document containing the information or a
`
`custodian or other person who otherwise possessed or knew the
`
`information, or (iii) are listed as a corporate designee for which
`
`the document is relevant.
`
`e.
`
`Independent litigation support services, including persons
`
`working for or as court reporters, graphics or design services,
`
`jury or trial consulting services, and photocopy, document
`
`imaging, and database services retained by counsel and
`
`reasonably necessary to assist counsel with the litigation of this
`
`Action.
`
`f. Anyone else to whom the designating party consents, as long as
`
`such consent is provided in writing by the designating party or
`
`its outside counsel of record.
`
`g.
`
`This Court and its staff members.
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Non-Disclosure of Confidential – Receiving Party Only
`
`Information – Any Designated Material which the designating party believes
`
`should be limited solely to the receiving party (for example, settlement
`
`communications with a particular defendant not shared with other co-defendants)
`
`may be produced with the clear and obvious designation “CONFIDENTIAL –
`
`RECEIVING PARTY ONLY.” Documents produced with this designation shall be
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 138-2, PageID.10112 Filed 05/04/23 Page 17 of 28
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY
`
`treated the same as those designated “CONFIDENTIAL,” except that, with respect
`
`to paragraphs 2.a., 2.c., 2.d., and 2.e., the documents may only be shared with
`
`outside counsel, experts, deposition witnesses, or support services of the receiving
`
`party itself, rather than those of any party.
`
`
`
`4.
`
`Non-Disclosure of Highly Confidential– Attorneys’ Eyes Only
`
`Information– Any document or thing that a party reasonably and in good faith
`
`believes to contain highly confidential information that is not publicly available
`
`(such as a trade secret, or highly confidential research and development,
`
`commercial, or other sensitive information) may be produced by that party with the
`
`clear and obvious designation “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’
`
`EYES ONLY.” Any document or thing produced with this designation may only
`
`be used to prosecute or defend this action and shall not be disclosed to (nor the
`
`content discussed with) anyone other than the persons set forth above in
`
`Paragraphs 2.a and 2.c-2.g.
`
`
`
`5.
`
`Disclosure to Experts and Consultants – Before any Designated
`
`Material is disclosed to an independent expert or consultant, the receiving party
`
`shall give the producing party five business (5) days written notice of the proposed
`
`expert by providing the following information:
`
`a. the expert or consultant’s name and the city and state of his or her
`
`primary residence;
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 138-2, PageID.10113 Filed 05/04/23 Page 18 of 28
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY
`
`b. the expert or consultant’s current CV;
`
`c. the expert or consultant’s current employer(s);
`
`d. a list of litigation matters in which the expert has provided a report or
`
`testified (at trial or deposition) including the name and number of the
`
`case, filing date, and location of court; and
`
`e. a list of companies that the individual has been employed by or
`
`provided consulting services pertaining to the field of the invention of
`
`the patent(s)-in-suit or the products accused of infringement within
`
`the last four (4) years and a brief description of the subject matter of
`
`the consultancy or employment.
`
`If the producing party objects to the consultant or expert, it must notify the
`
`receiving party in writing that it objects to the disclosure of the Protected Material
`
`to the consultant or expert within five business (5) days of disclosure. The parties
`
`shall first attempt to resolve their disagreement without Court intervention. If the
`
`producing party objects to the expert, no designated material or information of the
`
`producing party shall be disclosed to the expert or consultant until the issue is
`
`resolved by agreement of the affected parties or by the Court. A Party that receives
`
`a timely written objection must meet and confer with the designating party
`
`(through direct voice to voice dialogue) to try to resolve the matter by agreement
`
`within five (5) business days of the written objection. The objecting party bears the
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 138-2, PageID.10114 Filed 05/04/23 Page 19 of 28
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY
`
`burden of moving for a protective order to prevent disclosure to the consultant or
`
`expert within 14 days from when the objecting party notifies the receiving party of
`
`its objection.
`
`
`
`6.
`
`Deposition Testimony – Any portions of requested testimony, a
`
`transcript and/or a brief may be designated as “CONFIDENTIAL,”
`
`“CONFIDENTIAL – RECEIVING PARTY ONLY,” or “HIGHLY
`
`CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” pursuant to this Order.
`
`Parties may, at the deposition or hearing or within thirty (30) days after receipt of a
`
`deposition or hearing transcript, designate the deposition or hearing transcript or a
`
`portion thereof accordingly. Until expiration of the 30-day period, the entire
`
`deposition or hearing transcript shall be treated as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL –
`
`ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.”
`
`
`
`7. Motion Practice – This Order does not authorize the filing of any
`
`documents under seal. Local Rule 5.3 shall apply to the sealing of documents
`
`submitted as part of a motion or other court filing. Documents may be sealed only
`
`as authorized by statute, rule, or specific order of the Court. The Court notes that
`
`the standards under Rule 26 for entering a protective order to govern discovery
`
`differ from the more demanding standards for sealing off judicial records from
`
`public view. Shane Group, Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, 825 F.3d
`
`299 (6th Cir. 2016). There is a “strong presumption in favor of openness’ regarding
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 138-2, PageID.10115 Filed 05/04/23 Page 20 of 28
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY
`
`court records.” Id. at 305 (quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C.,
`
`710 F.3d 1165, 1180 (6th Cir. 1983).
`
`8.
`
`Discovery from Third Parties – To the extent that any discovery is
`
`taken of persons who are not Parties to this Action (“Third Parties”) and in the
`
`event that such Third Parties contend the discovery sought involves trade secrets,
`
`confidential business information, or other propriet