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.
`
`9:35 a.m.
`)
`)
` )
` ) July 7, 2016
` ) Chicago, Illinois
`BGC PARTNERS, INC.,
`)
`
`)
` Defendant.
`)
`
`
`
`TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE VIRGINIA M. KENDALL
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`For the Plaintiff:
`
`
`
`For the Defendants
`Interactive Brokers
`Group:
`
`
`
`For the Defendant
`TradeStation Group
`and TradeStation
`Securities:
`
`
`
`
`Court Reporter:
`
`McDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF by
`MR. LEIF R. SIGMOND, JR.
`MS. ANN PALMA,
`300 South Wacker Drive, 32nd Floor
`Chicago, Illinois 60606
`
`MANDELL MENKES LLC by
`MR. STEVEN P. MANDELL
`One North Franklin, Suite 3000
`Chicago, Illinois 60606
`
`FISH & RICHARDSON PC by
`MR. ADAM KESSEL (VIA TELEPHONE)
`One Marina Park Drive
`Boston, Massachusetts 02210
`
`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 15
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2402
`IBG ET AL. v. TRADING TECH
`CBM2015-00181
`
`

`

` 2
`
` 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 versus BGC
`
`Partners.
`
`I have to make a call on this one.
`
`(Clerk places telephone call.)
`
`THE COURT: Good morning.
`
`MR. MANDELL: Good morning, your Honor. Steve Mandell
`
`on behalf of IBG.
`
`THE COURT: Good morning.
`
`THE CLERK: I am going to transfer you into the
`
`courtroom.
`
`MR. SIGMOND: Good morning, your Honor. Leif Sigmond
`
`on behalf of Trading Technologies.
`
`MS. PALMA: Good morning, your Honor. Ann Palma on
`
`behalf of Trading Technologies.
`
`THE COURT: Good morning.
`
`Good morning. Who is on the phone?
`
`MR. KESSEL: Good morning, your Honor. This is Adam
`
`Kessel for the Trade Station defendants.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. You are in open court and on the
`
`record.
`
`All right. Good morning, everyone.
`
`I just thought it was interesting that the last three
`
`times I've been with the federal circuit, which was like their
`
`bench and bar conference, their circuit conference, and the
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 15
`
`

`

` 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
`
`D.C. thing, this is the issue. Everybody is asking what to do
`
`when it goes to PTAB and they want discovery and you've got a
`
`protective order.
`
`It's like percolating everywhere, but you know that
`
`because that's your life.
`
`So I got this morning this stipulation, right? Is it
`
`this morning that came in?
`
`MR. SIGMOND: I think -- so --
`
`THE COURT: Or proposed --
`
`MR. SIGMOND: Your Honor, we filed our motion, you
`
`know, late last week to try to get here by today because we
`
`have something we want to file tomorrow at the PTAB.
`
`THE COURT: I know.
`
`MR. SIGMOND: And so then last night they filed
`
`something --
`
`THE COURT: It's like a proposed stipulation.
`
`MR. SIGMOND: Yes.
`
`THE COURT: Right.
`
`MR. KESSEL: Your Honor, we sent them a stipulation
`
`several days ago, and then we had another compromise we offered
`
`yesterday. Those were filed both yesterday afternoon.
`
`THE COURT: But I was just notified of them.
`
`MR. SIGMOND: Yeah, so I think, your Honor, they filed
`
`them last night or yesterday afternoon and so -- yeah, so I
`
`assume that's what you got this morning.
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 15
`
`

`

` 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
`
`The problem is this: The problem is that we have a
`
`situation where, I mean, if you look at what both parties
`
`attached, the order from the PTAB denying our request for
`
`additional discovery, if you look at page 10, they say as for
`
`the document, this discovery request would not be necessary if
`
`the District Court authorized patent owner to use the documents
`
`in this proceeding.
`
`So they gave us a couple stipulations, which basically
`
`require us to go to the PTAB.
`
`THE COURT: Who has already given you an answer.
`
`MR. SIGMOND: Yeah, and the problem is every time we
`
`go to the PTAB, they say -- I mean, we kind of -- we're in
`
`this, like, catch-22 where --
`
`THE COURT: I know.
`
`MR. SIGMOND: And, your Honor, just so I can be very
`
`clear, this is a situation where the same parties, in front of
`
`two different tribunals, we got a bunch of discovery in this
`
`case, and if you remember when we were in front of you getting
`
`those depositions after the stay, you said I believe that -- I
`
`know sometimes it's dangerous to quote yourself to you, but you
`
`indicated on page 29 of the transcript that you thought this
`
`stuff would be useful here, later, and in the PTAB. So now
`
`we're trying to use it. And there is a protective order in the
`
`PTAB. There's one here. All we're asking, big picture, is
`
`that stuff that we have here, and I use "stuff" in the
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 15
`
`

`

` 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
`
`scientific discovery way, stuff that we have here we can use in
`
`the PTAB, and we'll, you know, file it under seal under their
`
`protective order.
`
`The one thing you haven't heard from defendants is why
`
`is it a problem? In other words, the PTAB is free to say, Hey
`
`TT, we're not going to listen to that, we don't want to look at
`
`that evidence, but we can't even get it there for that
`
`determination. And every time they give us a stipulation, it
`
`kind of requires us to go to the PTAB first.
`
`So we have two requests on our -- in our motion.
`
`Request one is urgent. And, you know, I went back and
`
`forth about whether to make this another emergency motion
`
`because, again, we have a filing tomorrow, but we rushed to get
`
`our paper to you on Friday so we could be here today. But if
`
`you look at page 3 of our motion, Request 1 is, hey, we've
`
`listed some transcripts and stuff -- I'm using the word "stuff"
`
`again -- some documents, we give you a list that we want to use
`
`in our filing tomorrow.
`
`But then, more broadly, we'd like to stop doing this.
`
`We'd like to just say, hey, if there's stuff under the
`
`protective order here, let us use it in the PTAB, and we'll
`
`follow their protective order there.
`
`And, again, it's the same parties. You know, I
`
`just -- I like it here, but --
`
`THE COURT: I'd like a response, please.
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 15
`
`

`

` 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
`
`MR. MANDELL: Okay, your Honor, if I may, I'll start
`
`and then Mr. Kessel can fill in.
`
`I don't know if your Honor has had a chance to look at
`
`the two PTAB orders that were --
`
`THE COURT: Of course.
`
`MR. MANDELL: -- submitted in this case, but the PTAB
`
`has a very strict and detailed procedure in terms of what it
`
`allows for discovery. And the scope of the issues before the
`
`PTAB, of course, is much more limited than the scope of issues
`
`in this case.
`
`As you know, the PTAB proceeding is the operative
`
`proceeding here because the Court stayed this matter. And in
`
`light of that, we made what we believe is a very reasonable
`
`proposal, this was our second proposal, and that is that if the
`
`PTAB says that discovery -- certain discovery is appropriate or
`
`that certain documents should be considered by them, then we
`
`would not argue that the plaintiff has to come back here every
`
`time to seek to modify the protective order to be able to use
`
`those documents.
`
`Now, the plaintiff didn't respond to that proposal,
`
`and the reason is is because the PTAB recently denied their
`
`motion for additional discovery. And notwithstanding what
`
`plaintiff says, it really was broader than that. They denied
`
`it on procedural grounds.
`
`They also found at page 10 of the order that the
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 15
`
`

`

` 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
`
`patent order -- patent owner had not provided sufficient
`
`explanation or reasoning as to why the requested discovery
`
`could not be reasonably generated without a discovery request.
`
`So what we think is going on here really is that this
`
`is an effort to back-door or circumvent the PTAB's ruling with
`
`respect to discovery.
`
`And what they're doing is they're coming into court
`
`and asking for a blanket order that notwithstanding what the
`
`protective order in this case says, right? And your Honor
`
`probably remembers what we went through on that protective
`
`order, all the briefs filed. They insisted on a -- on this
`
`protective order, which says the material shall not be used for
`
`any purpose other than this proceeding, including any
`
`proceedings in any other court, tribunal, or patent office.
`
`Okay?
`
`And there's a -- there's a standing protective order
`
`in the PTAB proceeding, but that by no means addresses the
`
`issues that were heavily negotiated that went into the
`
`protective order in this case.
`
`And that explains why TT, plaintiff, never made any
`
`effort to meet and confer with us regarding this motion.
`
`On two prior occasions, you'll recall, they came in to
`
`seek to modify the protective order. We met and conferred. We
`
`reached an agreement. In fact, they withdrew an emergency
`
`motion because we reached an agreement. Right?
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 15
`
`

`

` 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
`
`They didn't do that here because there's no middle
`
`ground. They want to completely undo the protective order and
`
`the protections that were heavily negotiated that went into
`
`that protective order.
`
`So we don't think that this Court needs to or ought to
`
`get involved in what goes before the PTAB. The PTAB should
`
`decide that, as they've been doing all along. If they want to
`
`file a motion in front of the PTAB that says we want to offer
`
`these documents and the PTAB says yes, end of story. We're not
`
`going to argue, oh, there's a protective order in the District
`
`Court. Right? They can do that. But to say --
`
`THE COURT: How can they do that with the protective
`
`order in place? They can't file the motion with the documents
`
`saying I want to supplement discovery with the documents if the
`
`protective order is in place. They need to get my permission
`
`first, right?
`
`MR. SIGMOND: That's the exact problem.
`
`MR. MANDELL: First of all --
`
`THE COURT: Don't interrupt.
`
`MR. SIGMOND: Sorry, your Honor. I apologize.
`
`MR. MANDELL: They can't have it both ways, right?
`
`They came to you on this motion. We went to them and said,
`
`fine, with respect to these documents, you can use that.
`
`Right? You can go to the PTAB without a problem with the
`
`protective order.
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 15
`
`

`

` 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
`
`They don't want that. Okay?
`
`So that's really an illusory concern, right?
`
`If they really wanted to do this on a document by
`
`document basis, we were willing to meet and confer and agree,
`
`we offered to agree, so long as the PTAB says it's appropriate,
`
`then we're okay with it.
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`MR. MANDELL: They can describe -- they can describe
`
`these documents without violating the protective order.
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`MR. KESSEL: Your Honor, may I just -- I'm sorry to
`
`interrupt. May I just make one additional point?
`
`In the motion for discovery that TT filed with the
`
`PTAB, they put -- it was something in the range of 10 to 20
`
`documents before the PTAB. We said, okay, you can file those
`
`with your motion for purposes of asking for additional
`
`discovery. So they had them. They had what they needed to
`
`show the PTAB what they wanted. And the PTAB said, no, you
`
`can't have those because you haven't shown how it really
`
`connects to the issues in this proceeding. They had a bunch of
`
`reasons. There were maybe eight or nine different reasons why
`
`the PTAB said that TT couldn't use those documents. But the
`
`point was we enabled them to make the request. There was no
`
`catch-22. They put them there. The PTAB denied the discovery
`
`because it was -- they violated the page limits, they were late
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 15
`
`

`

` 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
`
`filing. But then they got to the substance, and the real
`
`substance was the PTAB doesn't want parties taking discovery or
`
`introducing evidence of the sort which is really like
`
`infringement evidence in a District Court litigation, which is
`
`the sort of material they want to use here.
`
`We're not going to stand in the way of them making the
`
`request to the PTAB on the basis of this other proceeding, this
`
`other protective order; but we do not believe it's proper for
`
`them to use litigation discovery to circumvent the strict rules
`
`of the PTAB, which are there for a very good reason, which is
`
`to keep costs down, to keep the proceeding moving rapidly,
`
`there's very strict page limits. If -- if they had free rein
`
`to use everything from the litigation, what ends up happening
`
`in the PTAB is we have a mini trial on infringement there, and
`
`that's not what the PTAB wants, it's not what the procedure is
`
`about.
`
`We're just asking to have discovery managed in the
`
`active proceeding, which is the CBM, and not the stayed
`
`proceeding, which is the litigation.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. Reply.
`
`MR. SIGMOND: Well, your Honor, first of all, the PTAB
`
`can decide if the evidence we give them if they want to listen
`
`to it or not, but I can't even get it to them. I -- you know,
`
`every time they say they're going to stipulate, we're involved
`
`in this, well, you can use this, you can't use that. I mean,
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 15
`
`

`

` 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
`
`all we -- they asked to stay so that there was an alternative
`
`to litigation. And, you know, you gave us these depositions.
`
`And, I mean, we have this evidence we want to use, and now
`
`tomorrow we want to file, you know, for an offer of proof.
`
`So, I mean, I'm constantly caught in this problem
`
`where I -- I just can't use this stuff.
`
`And here's what's kind of telling to me. I don't see
`
`the risk. Your protective order is about protecting
`
`confidential information. They've never said, nor can they,
`
`that if we use this stuff under the protective order at the
`
`PTAB that there's any risk of any loss of confidential
`
`information. So I don't understand it.
`
`They're trying to conflate the whole, hey, you know,
`
`the PTAB doesn't want to see this evidence, and that issue I
`
`guess I still think remains to be seen, and, you know,
`
`confidentiality. We're here about confidentiality. There's
`
`confidential documents under a protective order we want to use
`
`somewhere else. We think that the protections in the somewhere
`
`else, the PTAB, are adequate.
`
`And, again, with our motion, we kind of need to get
`
`Number 1 for tomorrow, but the broader concept of, you know,
`
`not having to come back here every time, you know, we'd ask
`
`that you grant that, too.
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`MR. KESSEL: May I respond just briefly, your Honor?
`
`
`
`Page 11 of 15
`
`

`

` 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
`
`THE COURT: Yes, briefly.
`
`MR. KESSEL: One, we never said you can do this, you
`
`can't do that. Every time they've asked, we've accommodated.
`
`Two, the protective order in the PTAB is not as
`
`protective as the District Court. The Board can sua sponte
`
`determine the documents don't qualify and make them public.
`
`The procedure at the termination of the proceeding doesn't
`
`automatically keep the documents confidential. The protective
`
`order there allows employees to see documents. It's not the
`
`same level of protection. And we've accommodated -- the issue
`
`for tomorrow, our stipulation would have avoided needing to go
`
`to court at all. We said, okay, you can file these for the
`
`purpose of trying to make an offer of proof. If the PTAB will
`
`let you do that, you can file them. There's no -- there's no
`
`part of being wrapped around here. We have not stood in the
`
`way, other than insisting on the rules of the PTAB.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. So the rules of the PTAB and the
`
`rules of the Court are in conflict, and both are looking at
`
`each other constantly as to what is the proper way to move this
`
`along. And I've been frustratingly dealing with these stays so
`
`that everybody can go before the PTAB.
`
`The PTAB doesn't know what is relevant by simply a
`
`statement that I believe this is relevant. The PTAB can't say
`
`that. And in this case, the PTAB is saying I'm not going to
`
`allow it in because the District Court has got a protective
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 15
`
`

`

` 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
`
`order.
`
`So I do not think that you're accurate in saying that
`
`the protections of confidentiality are not the same in the PTAB
`
`in that if a party seeking to submit information, who submits
`
`it saying that it is protected at the District Court level and
`
`it is either trade secret material or proprietary material, it
`
`can under their procedures be deemed protected. It is expected
`
`to be protected.
`
`So you're looking at a different subsection of the
`
`protective orders at the PTAB proceeding.
`
`So because the PTAB doesn't know what you have, which
`
`can be relevant to them, I'm granting the motion to provide.
`
`Number 1, not Number 2. You're going to have to just keep
`
`running back in here, if you want to do it. And it has to be
`
`provided to the PTAB as confidential protected material.
`
`I am only opening the protective order for the
`
`purposes of this because the PTAB has to have all material,
`
`relevant information, to make its determination. And to have
`
`all of this relevant information that I've deemed to be
`
`appropriate in this litigation and not have it in front of them
`
`doesn't move the proceeding -- doesn't slow the proceeding
`
`down, doesn't keep costs -- doesn't have costs rising.
`
`Instead, it gives them what they need to make their decision in
`
`the period of time that they're making it. And so Number 1 is
`
`granted. Those materials are allowed to be turned over.
`
`
`
`Page 13 of 15
`
`

`

` 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
`
`You must say to them that it is solely for the
`
`purposes of the PTAB proceeding and that it is confidential and
`
`protected and that if there is any basis whatsoever for the
`
`PTAB to consider releasing it publicly, that they must give the
`
`parties notice so that you can articulate your reasons why it
`
`shouldn't be.
`
`I don't think that is even a real risk that the PTAB
`
`is going to release something that is deemed materially
`
`confidential and trade secret material or proprietary material
`
`in my court. I cannot believe that they're going to look at
`
`that and say, "You know, we disagree with what Judge Kendall
`
`has put under proprietary confidentiality order."
`
`So, yes, you may have it. And, no, you cannot have a
`
`blanket order that every time you want to come back you don't
`
`have to come see me.
`
`That's my order. All right?
`
`MR. MANDELL: Thank you, your Honor.
`
`MR. SIGMOND: Thank you, your Honor.
`
`MR. KESSEL: Thank you, your Honor.
`
`MR. SIGMOND: Clarification. It's what's on page 1 of
`
`page 3 of our motion.
`
`THE COURT: It's the first -- well, I have to look at
`
`the motion.
`
`MR. SIGMOND: I don't think there's going to be
`
`controversy over that.
`
`
`
`Page 14 of 15
`
`

`

` 15
`
`MR. KESSEL: Yes, your Honor. I think this is what we
`
`offered to stipulate to.
`
`MR. SIGMOND: Well, that's not true.
`
`We'll go with what your Honor just ordered.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. I've got a jury waiting for me, so
`
`you need to move on. Thank you.
`
`MR. SIGMOND: Thank you, your Honor.
`
`MR. MANDELL: Thank you.
`
`MR. KESSEL: Thank you.
`
`(Proceedings concluded at 9:52 a.m.)
`
`C E R T I F I C A T E
`
`I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript of the
`
`record of proceedings in the above-entitled matter.
`
`
`
`
`/s/ GAYLE A. McGUIGAN_____________ July 8, 2016
`Gayle A. McGuigan, CSR, RMR, CRR Date
`Official Court Reporter
`
` 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 15 of 15
`
`

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