Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 188-5, PageID.11340 Filed 10/11/23 Page 1 of 6
`
`Exhibit A
`
`Redacted Version of
`Document to be Sealed
`
`
`
`Exhibit A
`
`Redacted Version of
`Document to be Sealed
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 188-5, PageID.11341 Filed 10/11/23 Page 2 of 6
`
`From:
`To:
`Cc:
`
`Subject:
`Date:
`Attachments:
`
`John S. LeRoy
`Chris Stewart; Liz Ranks; Conrad Gosen; neowireless@caldwellcc.com
`DL Nissan-Neo@jenner.com; dla-toyota-neowireless@us.dlapiper.com; FCA-Neo@Venable.com;
`MercedesNeoWireless@hoganlovells.com; [SERVICE] GM/Neo; Service-Honda/Neo; [SERVICE] Tesla/Neo;
`quadrozzi@youngpc.com; VW-Neo@sternekessler.com; FMCL0315L@brookskushman.com; pmodi@jenner.com
`RE: In re Neo Wireless - MDL-wide Discovery Issues
`Friday, October 6, 2023 7:57:10 AM
`image001.png
`image002.png
`image005.png
`image006.png
`image007.png
`image008.png
`image009.png
`image003.png
`
`Chris,
`
`With respect to
`
` Defendants might consider a stipulation broadly stating that Neo
`is not withholding any communications (including any and all charts, assessments, valuations,
`summaries, PowerPoints, emails, spreadsheets, etc.)
`
` We will address that possibility on our end,
`but until you receive something on behalf of all Defendants, you should respond fully to Defendants’
`motion assuming there is no resolution.
`
`With respect to
`
` for reasons already stated in Defendants’ motion. The
`facts of those cases are highly distinguishable for obvious reasons. Those cases support Defendants,
`not Neo.
`
`Thanks,
`
`John
`
`John LeRoy
`Co-Chair of IP Litigation
`D: 248.226.2754 | M: 586.295.9690
`jleroy@brookskushman.com
`LinkedIn | Bio
`
`Brooks Kushman P.C.
`1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor
`Southfield, MI 48075
`brookskushman.com
`
`
`FUELED BY RELATIONSHIPS
`This email may contain and/or attach privileged attorney-client communications and/or attorney
`work product.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 188-5, PageID.11342 Filed 10/11/23 Page 3 of 6
`
`
`
`From: Chris Stewart <cstewart@caldwellcc.com>
`Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2023 6:53 PM
`To: John S. LeRoy <jleroy@brookskushman.com>; Liz Ranks <ranks@fr.com>; Conrad Gosen
`<gosen@fr.com>; neowireless@caldwellcc.com
`Cc: DL_Nissan-Neo@jenner.com; dla-toyota-neowireless@us.dlapiper.com; FCA-Neo@Venable.com;
`MercedesNeoWireless@hoganlovells.com; [SERVICE] GM/Neo <SERVICEGMNeo@fr.com>; Service-
`Honda/Neo <Service-Honda/Neo@fr.com>; [SERVICE] Tesla/Neo <SERVICETeslaNeo@fr.com>;
`quadrozzi@youngpc.com; VW-Neo@sternekessler.com; FMCL0315L@brookskushman.com;
`pmodi@jenner.com
`Subject: RE: In re Neo Wireless - MDL-wide Discovery Issues
`
`John,
`
` I
`
` didn’t
`
` The
` as I made clear below. Which is why I
`was confused by the language in your motion suggesting this was just one of several things we were
`withholding. So by explaining that we’re going to produce them, I was mooting all that remained of
`the dispute, with the sole exception of the separate and distinct discussion of a
`
`, you’re learning more about it for the first time because you didn’t ask any
`On the
`further questions about it or ask to confer further in the two weeks between the hearing and filing
`your motion. But
`. So now you know that
`
` With that in mind, and setting aside
`
`, can you clarify—do you
`
`agree that
`
`are at least work product? In other words, is the only dispute
`
`
`. There is no
`To be clear, we disagree with your motion on
` as your motion
`requirement that
`suggests. You cited a case where those happened to be the facts, but it’s not the rule.
`
`
` does not require application of the common interest
`And in any case,
`doctrine. Your motion cited an NDCA case
` but that is definitely not the standard in EDMI.
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 188-5, PageID.11343 Filed 10/11/23 Page 4 of 6
`
`
`We’ll explain all this to the Court if it’s still in dispute, but please let me know what is in dispute
`now that you have more information, and if you’d like to discuss further by phone.
`
`Thanks,
`Chris
`
`Chris Stewart | Caldwell Cassady Curry PC
`214.888.4846
`
`From: John S. LeRoy <jleroy@brookskushman.com>
`Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2023 1:04 PM
`To: Chris Stewart <cstewart@caldwellcc.com>; Liz Ranks <ranks@fr.com>; Conrad Gosen
`<gosen@fr.com>; neowireless@caldwellcc.com
`Cc: DL_Nissan-Neo@jenner.com; dla-toyota-neowireless@us.dlapiper.com; FCA-Neo@Venable.com;
`MercedesNeoWireless@hoganlovells.com; [SERVICE] GM/Neo <SERVICEGMNeo@fr.com>; Service-
`Honda/Neo <Service-Honda/Neo@fr.com>; [SERVICE] Tesla/Neo <SERVICETeslaNeo@fr.com>;
`quadrozzi@youngpc.com; VW-Neo@sternekessler.com; FMCL0315L@brookskushman.com;
`pmodi@jenner.com
`Subject: RE: In re Neo Wireless - MDL-wide Discovery Issues
`
`Chris,
`
`Defendants’ motion requests more than
`
`
`This is the first I have heard of
` To the extent there is any doubt, Defendants expect
` You assert
` “are clearly
`
`privileged and work product.” But
`
`
`
`
`Thanks,
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 188-5, PageID.11344 Filed 10/11/23 Page 5 of 6
`
`John
`
`John LeRoy
`Co-Chair of IP Litigation
`D: 248.226.2754 | M: 586.295.9690
`jleroy@brookskushman.com
`LinkedIn | Bio
`
`Brooks Kushman P.C.
`1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor
`Southfield, MI 48075
`brookskushman.com
`
`FUELED BY RELATIONSHIPS
`
`This email may contain and/or attach privileged attorney-client communications and/or attorney
`work product.
`
`From: Chris Stewart <cstewart@caldwellcc.com>
`Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2023 4:27 PM
`To: John S. LeRoy <jleroy@brookskushman.com>; Liz Ranks <ranks@fr.com>; Conrad Gosen
`<gosen@fr.com>; neowireless@caldwellcc.com
`Cc: DL Nissan-Neo@jenner.com; dla-toyota-neowireless@us.dlapiper.com; FCA-Neo@Venable.com;
`MercedesNeoWireless@hoganlovells.com; [SERVICE] GM/Neo <SERVICEGMNeo@fr.com>; Service-
`Honda/Neo <Service-Honda/Neo@fr.com>; [SERVICE] Tesla/Neo <SERVICETeslaNeo@fr.com>;
`quadrozzi@youngpc.com; VW-Neo@sternekessler.com; FMCL0315L@brookskushman.com;
`pmodi@jenner.com
`Subject: RE: In re Neo Wireless - MDL-wide Discovery Issues
`
`John,
`
`We’ve reviewed defendants’ motion to compel. It asks for a number of things we already agreed to
`provide (back on 9/12 in my email below), and mischaracterizes or misunderstands
`
`On the
`
`, all we said we
`
`rate, having looked into it more, we’ll just produce them
`We don’t agree that they are relevant or will ultimately be admissible, and the Court didn’t seem
`inclined to think so either. But we’ll produce them to moot this dispute.
`
`. But at any
`
` I wish you would
`Regarding
`have asked us to clarify in the two weeks between the hearing and your motion (and I’m pretty sure
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 188-5, PageID.11345 Filed 10/11/23 Page 6 of 6
`
`at least some defendants’ in-house counsel were approached about this, so I’m not sure where the
`confusion is). But to clarify,
`
` We’re not withholding anything on 408 grounds,
`
`since
`We’re talking about
`
` in your
`Given that clarification, and that you only devoted a paragraph to
`motion, please let us know by tomorrow if you will withdraw your motion or still intend to press it
`just on
`.
`
`Thanks,
`Chris
`
`Chris Stewart | Caldwell Cassady Curry PC
`214.888.4846
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
