throbber
1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`) Docket No. 10 C 715
`
`))
`
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES
`INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`
` v.
`
`10:26 a.m.
`)
`)
` )
` ) May 12, 2016
` ) Chicago, Illinois
`BGC PARTNERS, INC.,
`)
`
`)
` Defendant.
`)
`
`
`
`TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE VIRGINIA M. KENDALL
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`For the Plaintiff:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`McDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF by
`MR. LEIF R. SIGMOND, JR.
`MR. MICHAEL DAVID GANNON
`300 South Wacker Drive
`Suite 3100
`Chicago, Illinois 60606
`
`MR. STEVEN F. BORSAND
`Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`222 Riverside Drive
`Suite 1100
`Chicago, Illinois 60606
`
`Court Reporter:
`
`
`
`GAYLE A. McGUIGAN, CSR, RMR, CRR
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`219 South Dearborn, Room 2318-A
`Chicago, Illinois 60604
`(312) 435-6047
`Gayle_McGuigan@ilnd.uscourts.gov
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 1 of 31
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2142
`TRADESTATION v TRADING TECH
`CBM2015-00179
`
`

`

` 2
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S : (Continued)
`
`
`
`For the Defendants
`Interactive Brokers
`Group
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MANDELL MENKES LLC by
`MR. STEVEN P. MANDELL
`One North Franklin
`Suite 3000
`Chicago, Illinois 60606
`
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI by
`MS. NATALIE J. MORGAN (VIA TELEPHONE)
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, California 94304
`
`For the Defendant
`TradeStation Group
`and TradeStation
`Securities:
`
`FISH & RICHARDSON PC by
`MR. DAVID J. HEALEY
`One Houston Center
`1221 McKinney, Suite 2800
`Houston, Texas 77010
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 2 of 31
`
`

`

` 3
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`(In open court:)
`
`THE CLERK: 10 C 715, Trading Technologies
`
`International versus BGC Partners.
`
`MR. BORSAND: Good morning, your Honor. Steve Borsand
`
`for Trading Technologies.
`
`THE COURT: Good morning.
`
`MR. GANNON: Good morning, your Honor. Mike Gannon
`
`for TT.
`
`THE COURT: Good morning.
`
`MR. SIGMOND: Your Honor, Leif Sigmond for Trading
`
`Technologies.
`
`THE COURT: Good morning.
`
`MR. HEALEY: Good morning, your Honor. David Healey
`
`for Trade Station, defendants.
`
`THE COURT: Good morning.
`
`MR. MANDELL: Good morning, your Honor. Steve Mandell
`
`on behalf of Interactive Brokers.
`
`THE COURT: Good morning.
`
`I think there's someone on the phone, right?
`
`THE CLERK: I do.
`
`(Clerk places telephone call.)
`
`THE CLERK: I'm calling for Natalie Morgan.
`
`Okay. I'm going to transfer you into Judge Kendall's
`
`courtroom. Hold on just a moment.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. State your name for the record.
`
`Page 3 of 31
`
`

`

` 4
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`You're on open -- you're in open court and on the record.
`
`MS. MORGAN: Hi. This is Natalie Morgan. I'm with
`
`Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, and I'm representing the IBG
`
`defendants.
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`Before I forget, Lynn, put Bibbs first on the 25th so
`
`we don't have that happen again. Yeah, out of order.
`
`All right. It's the motion to reconsider. The floor
`
`is yours.
`
`MR. HEALEY: Your Honor, this is David Healey for
`
`Trade Station.
`
`The point of our motion is that the stay should go
`
`into effect as ordered without any exception.
`
`The PTAB proceedings are hot and heavy. The one
`
`deposition that has been completed to date in any of this was
`
`in one of the PTAB proceedings. They've had a mandamus in the
`
`PTAB proceedings. They've asked for various and sundry
`
`discovery in the PTAB proceedings. The PTAB is handling the
`
`cases that have been instituted, and it will handle the future
`
`cases that will be instituted.
`
`Your order staying the case was completely correct.
`
`It was in accord with the statute, congressional intent, and
`
`federal circuit case law.
`
`The case -- if any of these patent claims survive --
`
`and that's a big "if" -- but if they do, then the case will be
`
`Page 4 of 31
`
`

`

` 5
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`smaller, it will be more compact, and the scope of the
`
`questioning at the deposition of Mr. Bartleman, who is the
`
`president of Trade Station Group and every Trade Station
`
`subsidiary since March, will be minimized. And even if he were
`
`to be deposed now, certainly in two years, or however long the
`
`CBM process takes, if any claims survive, they are going to
`
`want to depose him again on Trade Station's additional
`
`products, additional finances, additional damages, while at the
`
`same time whole segments of this suit could be eliminated, and
`
`the entire benefit or huge portion of the benefit of
`
`Mr. Bartleman's deposition will be eliminated if many of the
`
`claims and patents are held invalid, as the PTAB has held they
`
`are more likely than not invalid.
`
`And under 101, the abstract idea provision, which
`
`applies to every initiation, this Tokyo Stock Exchange thing
`
`is -- is of no moment. But the consultants, which was an issue
`
`last time, finished their work some time ago. These files, we
`
`had opposed producing them as inaccessible data. We now are
`
`getting the last few out. We're still having problems
`
`converting the last few to TIF. And what I mean the last few,
`
`the last batch. But by last Friday, we had produced the great
`
`majority of them. Because we weren't going to have to spend
`
`the money to have lawyers go to Miami and to prep Mr. Bartleman
`
`and present his deposition and we were getting that cost
`
`savings, we said we would give TT their $20,000 back, even
`
`Page 5 of 31
`
`

`

` 6
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`though this whole process with getting at this inaccessible
`
`data was opposed and it was more expensive than that.
`
`Mr. Bartleman is what we would call an apex
`
`deposition. He's been in his new role for about 90 days, give
`
`or take. And his time is very valuable, very scarce, very
`
`important to the company. His deposition is not just a burden
`
`on us in terms of expense, it's a burden on the company in
`
`terms of the company's operations.
`
`And, your Honor, as I think you can see from just the
`
`exhibits that have been filed with the defendants' -- I mean,
`
`with the plaintiff's response to our motion for
`
`reconsideration, you give them an inch, they take a mile.
`
`There's -- one thing begats another thing. There's -- it just
`
`seems to me I get a constant flood of e-mails complaining about
`
`things on almost a daily basis. And I have no doubt that
`
`Mr. Bartleman's deposition is going to raise a lot of issues
`
`that are going to then need to be resolved or will sit there
`
`for years before they're resolved.
`
`And the point is there's very little upside to doing
`
`it now because if it ever has to be done at all -- and it may
`
`not ever have to be done at all -- but if so, it will be on a
`
`much narrower set of topics, it will be a much more focused
`
`deposition, and the issues that are in dispute -- which just
`
`from my experience in this case I would be shocked if there
`
`aren't disputes coming out of this deposition -- can be
`
`Page 6 of 31
`
`

`

` 7
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`resolved promptly in the regular flow of litigation.
`
`In the meantime, they're asking for discovery in the
`
`PTAB. They've had a deposition in the PTAB. The PTAB is
`
`actively managing and running these cases.
`
`They did have a conference call with the PTAB, and
`
`they made some representations about what was going on in this
`
`case. And I think as shown by the exhibit to their response to
`
`our motion, where they go back and forth about whether they had
`
`an agreement with IBG and what kind of discovery they're
`
`entitled to by May 10th, there's even a dispute as to what the
`
`May 9th -- I guess May 9th order means in terms of what
`
`discovery gets done by June 10th.
`
`But the point is your stay was correct. That was a
`
`clean break in the discovery. And we ought to stop these
`
`depositions, which are apex depositions, highly burdensome,
`
`very expensive, and are going to have to simply be retaken when
`
`new products and changes in finances come out, if any of the
`
`claims survive. And the problems that are going to come out of
`
`these depositions in terms of disputes are going to have to be
`
`resolved or tabled. But it makes no sense to go forward with
`
`them now.
`
`MR. MANDELL: Your Honor --
`
`MS. MORGAN: Your Honor, this is Natalie Morgan for
`
`IBG. If I can just jump in to just add a couple of comments in
`
`addition to what Mr. Healey just said.
`
`Page 7 of 31
`
`

`

` 8
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`So for IBG, TT's emergency motion -- first of all, I
`
`agree with everything that Mr. Healey just said.
`
`In addition, there are some specific issues that are
`
`unique to IBG.
`
`TT's emergency motion never mentioned any documents
`
`for IBG at any time. In the hearing yesterday, TT never
`
`mentioned any IBG documents at all during the hearing.
`
`I sent an e-mail to opposing counsel saying that we
`
`read the -- both the order and the motion and the transcript as
`
`calling for the deposition of IBG, but nothing more. TT never
`
`responded to that, and then in their response today says that,
`
`oh, no, there was an agreement that we had to produce all these
`
`e-mails.
`
`First, there was never an agreement that e-mails would
`
`be produced before the deposition.
`
`The parties had extensive discussions about search
`
`terms and whether terms should be used, but we have never
`
`agreed to produce e-mails before the deposition.
`
`Second of all, we're in a little bit different
`
`position with respect to the deposition. The deposition was
`
`scheduled for this coming Monday. The vast majority of our
`
`preparation and work for that deposition was planned to take
`
`place this week. In fact, really no preparation had started
`
`because we still had a full week's worth of time. Then the
`
`Court's stay order came out. We, of course, reasonably
`
`Page 8 of 31
`
`

`

` 9
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`cancelled all of our plans, all of our travel.
`
`There's just -- the deposition, in other words, was
`
`not ready to go. There was very much more that still had to be
`
`done.
`
`In addition, if you were to proceed with the
`
`deposition, it would be a great burden on IBG's president and
`
`director and other IBG employees to prepare the president and
`
`director for a deposition, which were supposed to be a very
`
`limited scope to give TT the information it contended it needed
`
`for its final non-infringement -- for its final infringement
`
`contentions.
`
`Therefore, we objected in March to the deposition
`
`notice for all parts of it that went beyond the features and
`
`functions of the accused products.
`
`On Monday, before receiving the Court's stay order, TT
`
`e-mailed us saying that they needed to meet and confer about
`
`the scope of the topic.
`
`Clearly, this deposition was -- the parties were not
`
`in the same place as to what this deposition was going to cover
`
`and entail.
`
`And so allowing TT to continue with this discovery now
`
`is just inviting further discovery disputes, further
`
`complications that the whole purpose of the stay was designed
`
`to avoid.
`
`THE COURT: Did she say what you wanted to say,
`
`Page 9 of 31
`
`

`

` 10
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Mr. Mandell?
`
`MR. MANDELL: Yes, your Honor.
`
`I think the only thing I would add is if you look at
`
`the emergency motion --
`
`THE COURT: Which one? Yours or theirs?
`
`MR. MANDELL: Their emergency motion. They said two
`
`things. With respect to documents, it was only the Trade
`
`Station documents. With respect to depositions, they said
`
`we're going to take a 30(b)(6) on inter alia product
`
`functionality.
`
`So I think really there's -- my impression is your
`
`impression, your Honor, is that these were just discreet facts
`
`or discreet tasks that could be accomplished easily. And
`
`that's --
`
`THE COURT: Nothing is accomplished easily with all of
`
`you, ever. Ever. Nothing is ever easy with all of you.
`
`MR. MANDELL: Well, I think what -- that sort of
`
`underscores the point that this should be taking place in one
`
`forum, not simultaneously in two forums.
`
`And your Honor we believe obviously made the correct
`
`decision that the forum for right now should be in front of the
`
`PTAB.
`
`And having it take place on multiple tracks is not
`
`going to serve anybody's interest.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. Response.
`
`Page 10 of 31
`
`

`

` 11
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`MR. BORSAND: He said a lot there.
`
`We're not rearguing. We lost yesterday on rearguing
`
`the stay.
`
`We're talking now about the modification you made to
`
`the stay on the select discovery.
`
`This shouldn't be that complicated. These depositions
`
`were set a long time ago --
`
`THE COURT: What are the three depositions?
`
`MR. BORSAND: The 30(b)(6), and I guess Mr. Bartleman
`
`was going to be the 30(b)(6) witness --
`
`MR. HEALEY: We've always -- we've always told you
`
`guys that Mr. Bartleman had to be the 30(b)(6) witness.
`
`MR. BORSAND: Should just say "yes" to my -- okay, so
`
`Mr. -- it's one person from Trade Station, a 30(b)(6) witness
`
`and individual Mr. Bartleman, who -- he may be president now.
`
`He's been --
`
`THE COURT: Is Mr. Bartleman the 30(b)(6) --
`
`MR. BORSAND: He's both, the personal and 30(b)(6).
`
`THE COURT: All right.
`
`MR. BORSAND: So that's why it was two days of dep.
`
`And Mr. Bartleman happens to be the most knowledgeable
`
`person at Trade Station about the whole history of these
`
`products because he's been involved forever with them.
`
`And the dep was about -- it's not that complicated.
`
`Product functionality, why the features were put in the
`
`Page 11 of 31
`
`

`

` 12
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`product, and its development history.
`
`Same notices for IB, but the dep was scheduled for
`
`next Monday.
`
`We didn't hear boo about any problem with these
`
`depositions until, you know, all these reasons that are coming
`
`up now after your stay order on Monday.
`
`And I want to --
`
`THE COURT: I still have one deposition that you've
`
`told me about, Bartleman.
`
`MR. BORSAND: I'm sorry.
`
`THE COURT: Who is the other two?
`
`MR. BORSAND: That was Trade Station.
`
`And for IBG, there was one deposition, a 30(b)(6)
`
`only, I believe, on similar -- same topics. And I don't know
`
`the name of the person. I think they just told us the name
`
`recently. But it's the 30(b)(6) corporate representative. I'm
`
`not sure of the person's name.
`
`THE COURT: And you're honestly going to tell me,
`
`Ms. Morgan, that you, as a partner in that firm, have not
`
`prepared a 30(b)(6) deposition six days before it was to take
`
`place? Is that what you're saying? We were going to do it,
`
`what, this weekend?
`
`MS. MORGAN: The deposition preparation was scheduled
`
`to take place this week. We had the entire week to take care
`
`of it. We had plans to travel out -- travel out to where the
`
`Page 12 of 31
`
`

`

` 13
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`company is located, to spend a two full days with the president
`
`and director preparing, a dedicated full two preparation days,
`
`as well as a third day to sit for the deposition.
`
`It also involved pulling in other IBG employees,
`
`because, as you know, for a 30(b)(6), he can't just rest on his
`
`own personal knowledge, so we were going to inform him with the
`
`knowledge of other employees.
`
`And while it's cast as a simple deposition of the
`
`features and functions, these products have been out there for
`
`more than ten years, and they are asking about very specific
`
`features and functions that have changed numerous times over
`
`the years.
`
`The -- you know, software changes as you go along.
`
`You release new versions, you tweak things --
`
`THE COURT: I wouldn't know that.
`
`MS. MORGAN: Okay. Sorry for assuming that.
`
`And so -- and so it's not a very simple deposition.
`
`There's a lot of work that needed to be done.
`
`But an additional complicating factor now is that TT
`
`is saying that they also want all these e-mails produced before
`
`the deposition, when there was no such agreement to do so. And
`
`none of those e-mails, while processing has been done by a
`
`vendor, there's been no attorney review of those e-mails at
`
`all, which takes hundreds and hundreds of hours to get them out
`
`the door, despite the fact that our e-mails were never
`
`Page 13 of 31
`
`

`

` 14
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`mentioned in TT's original emergency motion.
`
`MR. BORSAND: Can I make two more points? I'm sorry,
`
`because I was going to try to address that with what Ms. Morgan
`
`said now for the second time.
`
`First of all, the deposition of 30(b)(6) for IBG was
`
`delayed at their request, moved back -- this May 9th is the
`
`second time it was scheduled. So because they hadn't gotten
`
`the documents together previously, we reached an agreement with
`
`them on search terms, and of course we were going to be getting
`
`the documents before the deposition. Otherwise, it would be a
`
`big waste of time and make no sense. That was the agreement.
`
`The other point I want to make is there's been a new
`
`development, just while we were sitting in court this morning,
`
`and all this talk about --
`
`THE COURT: Listening to my jail cases?
`
`MR. BORSAND: Yes. You know, which puts this in
`
`perspective, obviously.
`
`But yesterday -- they keep talking about let the --
`
`let the PTAB do their own thing.
`
`Yesterday there was a call with the PTAB for over an
`
`hour talking about discovery issues, and one of the issues that
`
`was raised -- and there was a million lawyers on the phone from
`
`all over the country -- was, you know, we were seeking
`
`overlapping discovery from them relating to the development
`
`history of their products. And it came up that, you know, we
`
`Page 14 of 31
`
`

`

` 15
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`have to constantly keep them apprised of what's going on in
`
`district court, that the stay was entered on Monday, but there
`
`was this discovery occurring between now and June 10th, and
`
`that it was overlapping, and they issued an order this
`
`morning --
`
`THE COURT: Overlapping with what? PTAB?
`
`MR. BORSAND: It's overlapping with some of the stuff
`
`that's needed in the PTAB proceedings. And they issued an
`
`order this morning -- they actually extended -- our due dates
`
`in the PTAB for our responses were end of May. They extended
`
`the due dates until June 17th. They specifically note that
`
`there is overlapping discovery going on in the district court
`
`that may be relevant, and that that's actually one of the
`
`reasons why they do extend the deadlines, and it's one of the
`
`reasons why they deny us discovery there, because they say
`
`you're going to get it anyway there, so that all works out just
`
`nice.
`
`So their whole statement that, oh, leave it to the
`
`PTAB, the PTAB is relying -- is basing on this as well, just
`
`today.
`
`So -- and then the final -- I think -- well, I said I
`
`only had two. There's a -- you know, there -- most of what
`
`they've been arguing is going back to issues of the stay, which
`
`you are entering, and they're acting like this is a
`
`black-and-white thing, there's either a stay or there's no
`
`Page 15 of 31
`
`

`

` 16
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`stay. Obviously, we wanted no stay, they wanted a stay. But
`
`there's a whole gray area in between within your Honor's
`
`discretion about how to close the case down in appropriate
`
`manner, and it doesn't have to be a cold stop. Like they say,
`
`there's nothing in the rules that say that, especially when the
`
`PTAB is referencing what's going on here in an order they just
`
`entered this morning.
`
`THE COURT: What are the 20 -- was the $20,000 paid
`
`for? For what communication?
`
`MR. BORSAND: That was for a consultant they needed to
`
`bring back --
`
`THE COURT: Who? Who is "they"?
`
`MR. BORSAND: Trade Station. I apologize. To bring
`
`back archived documents from pre-2009 and before.
`
`MR. HEALEY: The lawsuit --
`
`THE COURT: Prior to my order, is it true or not true
`
`that there was an agreement to do that?
`
`MR. HEALEY: Yes. And we produced those documents
`
`and --
`
`them.
`
`THE COURT: So you have them?
`
`MR. BORSAND: No. They're in the process of producing
`
`MR. HEALEY: They have the bulk of them. There's a
`
`final batch that will go out shortly, that there's -- these
`
`documents, we had opposed producing them because they were
`
`Page 16 of 31
`
`

`

` 17
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`inaccessible data, and we've had to go through the outside
`
`consultants who have done their work and Fish's internal IT
`
`people to get them out, and the IT people are having some
`
`last-minute difficulties in getting the last batch out, but we
`
`are going to give them all those documents. They've already
`
`got most of them and had most of them last week.
`
`And the one thing about the PTAB order is there's
`
`obviously a difference of agreement, as illustrated by the
`
`e-mails attached to IBG's -- rather, to Trading Technologies'
`
`response to our motion for reconsideration about what this
`
`Court's order meant, and the information that the PTAB was
`
`acting on was Trading Technologies' interpretation of that
`
`order, not the interpretation that the defendants had of that
`
`order.
`
`And I also bring up again, your Honor, as you say,
`
`nothing is easy in this case. And there's going to be
`
`problems. I hope not.
`
`I have gone through entire patent cases against large
`
`national firms without a single motion to compel. Believe me,
`
`this is an anomaly for me.
`
`But I can't imagine that we're going to get through
`
`these depositions without disputes and problems coming up. And
`
`there's just no point in doing that in light of the fact that
`
`this case is going to be shut down and the PTAB is going
`
`forward and they've even had a deposition in the PTAB.
`
`Page 17 of 31
`
`

`

` 18
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`THE COURT: There were three depositions scheduled
`
`prior to my stay order. And my understanding is that those
`
`three depositions were the 30(b)(6) deposition of Trade
`
`Station's rep and a personal deposition of that individual, who
`
`I think now is Bartholomi [sic.], and the IBG 30(b)(6) dep.
`
`Does everyone agree that those were scheduled prior to
`
`the entry of my stay order?
`
`MR. HEALEY: Yes, your Honor.
`
`MR. BORSAND: Yes, your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`MS. MORGAN: Yes.
`
`THE COURT: So what is confusing about my order that
`
`says discovery shall be completed to include -- and we'll go
`
`one by one -- the three depositions already scheduled that the
`
`parties agreed to provide to this date? Is there some dispute
`
`about that?
`
`(No response.)
`
`THE COURT: Is there?
`
`Why are you, Ms. Morgan, writing in an e-mail that
`
`there's only one deposition? Because it's one that has to do
`
`with you. Is that it?
`
`MS. MORGAN: It was the one that had to do with us,
`
`correct, your Honor. And the -- I guess the problem was the
`
`dispute with that going forward is that it's now become
`
`apparent, from the e-mails on Monday and this whole emergency
`
`Page 18 of 31
`
`

`

` 19
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`brief going both ways, that TT has a different view of the
`
`scope of that than we do.
`
`THE COURT: Did the scope of the deposition change
`
`between my order when I entered the stay and what was agreed --
`
`what was agreed upon prior to that order?
`
`MR. BORSAND: No. The scope has not changed. It's
`
`the same as the scope of the 30(b)(6) of Trade Station --
`
`THE COURT: Miss Morgan, what do you believe is the
`
`change?
`
`MS. MORGAN: We had an understanding of the scope.
`
`It's now apparent --
`
`THE COURT: No. Be specific.
`
`MS. MORGAN: -- had a different --
`
`THE COURT: No. Be specific.
`
`MS. MORGAN: We --
`
`THE COURT: What do you believe the scope was and he
`
`says the scope is?
`
`MS. MORGAN: Sorry, your Honor.
`
`We understood that the scope was limited to the
`
`features and functions of the accused product, and that the
`
`deposition is going to go forward based on the numerous
`
`documents already produced, including user guides, tutorials,
`
`internal databases, and our source code.
`
`TT now contends -- well, first of all, they wanted to
`
`meet and confer on the scope of the topics. We're not quite
`
`Page 19 of 31
`
`

`

` 20
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`sure what that was because that never took place because of the
`
`stay. And, number two, they now contend that they want the
`
`deposition to cover e-mails that have never been reviewed or
`
`processed or produced because we weren't at that point in time
`
`yet.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. What responsive documents were
`
`agreed to prior to my entry of stay?
`
`MR. BORSAND: They --
`
`MS. MORGAN: We agreed --
`
`MR. BORSAND: Are you asking me? I'm sorry.
`
`THE COURT: Go ahead.
`
`MS. MORGAN: We agreed, after very lengthy
`
`negotiations, we finally settled -- settled on search terms
`
`that we would run against a single custodian's e-mail as a test
`
`batch for TT to use and decide how to search additional
`
`custodians. We agreed to go forward with those. We were in
`
`the process of running those search terms when the stay order
`
`came out. All that had been done was vendor processing. We
`
`have had no attorney review for responsiveness, for privilege,
`
`for anything.
`
`THE COURT: And when --
`
`MS. MORGAN: There was never any agreement --
`
`THE COURT: When were you planning on doing that? I
`
`mean, my stay order was entered on Monday. When were you
`
`planning on doing that?
`
`Page 20 of 31
`
`

`

` 21
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`You have a deposition one week later?
`
`MS. MORGAN: Yes, but the deposition was not about --
`
`COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, I can't hear.
`
`MS. MORGAN: The deposition is not a personal
`
`deposition --
`
`THE COURT: You're breaking up, Miss -- Miss Morgan,
`
`you're breaking up. You're -- and you're -- when you raise
`
`your voice, it is breaking the phone connection.
`
`MS. MORGAN: I'm sorry. I'll try and keep my tone
`
`very low.
`
`There was never any agreement to produce the e-mails
`
`before the deposition, although we said that we would try,
`
`because the deposition was not about the e-mails.
`
`The deposition was supposed to be about things like
`
`the source code and how the features and functions function
`
`according to the source code, about what we say in our
`
`tutorials, about what we say the product -- how the features
`
`and functions work according to our user guide.
`
`The deposition was not a personal deposition and never
`
`supposed to be about a single custodian's e-mails. That's --
`
`that's all the e-mails are. They are test search terms run on
`
`a single custodian's e-mails. No more.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. Did everyone agree that there was
`
`$20,000 retainer for certain Trading Technologies' e-mails that
`
`everyone agreed were going to be turned over?
`
`Page 21 of 31
`
`

`

` 22
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Did you agree with that?
`
`MR. HEALEY: Yes, we did.
`
`MS. MORGAN: We --
`
`MR. HEALEY: And we have it in our firm trust account.
`
`That was to pay the consultant to try to retrieve the data that
`
`was inaccessible.
`
`We had told TT because we were saving money on the
`
`Bartleman deposition, since it was stayed, that we would go
`
`ahead and give them back the $20,000.
`
`MR. MANDELL: Your Honor, just so you're clear, the
`
`$20,000 issue is a Trade Station issue only. It has nothing to
`
`do with any IBG e-mails.
`
`That was the point I was trying to make earlier was
`
`when they made their motion, they mentioned e-mails, but only
`
`the Trade Station e-mails.
`
`So this has never been about IBG's obligation to
`
`produce any documents.
`
`THE COURT: Go ahead.
`
`MR. BORSAND: Your Honor, Trade Station, yes, that's
`
`where the $20,000 relates to.
`
`Focusing in on IBG, the deposition was moved back so
`
`they could do the searches and produce the documents. Yes,
`
`it's not a deposition just about documents. It's a 30(b)(6)
`
`deposition about basic things like product functionality and
`
`why it was introduced into the product in the first place,
`
`Page 22 of 31
`
`

`

` 23
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`which relates to issues of validity.
`
`And they -- they wanted -- they're the ones who asked
`
`for the dep to be moved back. We agreed on the search terms.
`
`We agreed to that. Common sense.
`
`I don't know where this is all coming from right now
`
`from them.
`
`Why would we be going to get -- take the deposition of
`
`this person when they were still without some of the basic
`
`documents? I mean, it just makes no sense.
`
`And, I'm sorry, what Ms. Morgan is saying is just not
`
`accurate.
`
`So we had an agreement to have one witness from IBG.
`
`We're supposed -- I mean, I'm not saying we're going to get
`
`every document in the world from them, but they were supposed
`
`to give us some documents so we could have a meaningful
`
`deposition, just like we were planning on -- we were going to
`
`literally be there today doing Trade Station.
`
`THE COURT: What were the search terms?
`
`MR. BORSAND: I don't know them off the top of my
`
`head. I apologize, your Honor.
`
`MS. MORGAN: Your Honor, if I can jump in, because I
`
`was involved in those negotiations.
`
`There was a lot of dispute over the search terms.
`
`It took us months to negotiate the terms that were
`
`search -- that we said that we would search on one custodian
`
`Page 23 of 31
`
`

`

` 24
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`because terms are things like Book Trader and (inaudible)
`
`Trader, which are the product names, which the ESI rules say is
`
`actually inappropriate to use as e-mail search terms.
`
`TT was unwilling to narrow it further to provide any
`
`other limitations that focus on the accused features and
`
`functions, so we agreed as a test to run these very broad terms
`
`against one custodian.
`
`And just for the record, the suggestion that they
`
`don't have the documents relevant to the deposition is simply
`
`not true.
`
`We produced all of our user guides that describe the
`
`products.
`
`We produced all of our tutorials where IBG is teaching
`
`people how to use the products.
`
`We produced all of our communiques about changes to
`
`the product.
`
`We produced all of our internal databases about
`
`changes to the product and produced source codes.
`
`These e-mails are one small piece that they say they
`
`also want, but the deposition was never about that, and the
`
`deposition was not moved expressly so that they could get those
`
`e-mails. It was moved for, one, to give them time to review
`
`the source code that was produced after the parties reached
`
`agreement; two, to give us more time to negotiate search terms;
`
`and some other discovery issues that I won't get into right now
`
`Page 24 of 31
`
`

`

` 25
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`that ended up being resolved between the parties.
`
`THE COURT: Why would you need more time to negotiate
`
`search terms if you weren't going to use the material in the
`
`deposition?
`
`MS. MORGAN: We were negotiating --
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`MS. MORGAN: We were negotiating search terms to come
`
`to an agreement for the overall case as to what terms would be
`
`used across the custodians that TT wanted to have searched in
`
`the case.
`
`This -- this deposition was described initially as an
`
`initial deposition so that TT could gather some facts about the
`
`accused features and functions. It was meant to be an
`
`exploratory beginning deposition, and we produced the documents
`
`that related to the features and functions and changes thereto.
`
`THE COURT: Are the two 30(b)(6) dep

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket