Bittman, Scott
`
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`
`Subject:
`
`Lindsay, Jonathan
`Tuesday, October 01, 2013 5:55 PM
`Rick Lyon
`Scheer, Michael J.; Dunham, Thomas M.; lionel.lavenue@finnegan.com;
`erika.arner@finnegan.com; rwalters@mwe.com; chawkins@mwe.com; Wieland III, Charles;
`Sean Luner; Holst Katsma; AV1-PRPS
`RE: IPR2013-00071 - Network-1's Discovery Obligations
`
`Rick:
`
`You mischaracterize Avaya’s position, and misinterpret Network-1’s obligations. We have simply asked for relevant
`information in Network-1’s possession, custody, or control that is inconsistent with positions it has advanced in this
`IPR. We asked you to confirm that all such information had been produced. In response, you now lay out a self-
`serving response in an attempt to defend why you have selectively relied on certain prior litigation material while at
`the same time been unwilling to fully identify all relevant inconsistent information. The situation is as follows:
`
`
`1. In moving for the pro hac vice admission of Greg Dovel, Network-1 touted Mr. Dovel’s “well established
`familiarity” with the asserted patent and prior litigations involving such patent. See Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`Admission of Greg Dovel, page 3. When it has suited Network-1’s purposes, you have used that “well
`established familiarity” in Network-1’s briefing in this IPR.
`
`2. Network-1 may be in the possession, custody, or control of relevant inconsistent information (including
`documents from the prior litigations), but Network-1 takes the position that they are under no duty to
`search, review, or otherwise identify all such information.
`
`3. Network-1 interprets the Board’s phrase “known to the responding party to be inconsistent” as only
`including information that is in the present recollection of those individuals involved in the prior
`litigation. Based on that interpretation, Network-1 alleges it has no such relevant information inconsistent
`with positions it has taken in this IPR.
`
`4. Absent having a present recollection of relevant inconsistent information (which Network-1 claims it
`does not have), Network-1 will only produce (i) certain documents identified by Avaya (not including the
`deposition(s) of Katzenberg and the other inventors) and (ii) documents where such information “would
`most likely be located” in Network-1’s own subjective view.
`
`
`As we have made clear, we disagree with Network-1’s position, and do not agree that your approach here satisfies
`Network-1’s discovery obligations if relevant inconsistent information is in your possession custody or
`control. Network-1’s approach of apparently blindly serving discovery is not a “reasonable” one. It does nothing
`more than shift the burden to the Petitioner to discover any relevant inconsistent information which was in
`Network-1’s possession, custody and control. There is a reason why the USPTO regulations require the Patent
`Owner to produce such information--so that the procedure, in your own words, can be “efficient, streamlined and
`cost-effective.”
`
`
`Network-1’s position is that it “identified the additional universe of documents in which inconsistent information, if
`it exists, would most likely be located” and produced such information. While we disagree with that approach, since
`it is the one Network-1 is taking here, Petitioner believes the inventor deposition transcripts are also in the
`“universe” of documents where such information would likely exist. Therefore, we again request the production of
`the inventor deposition transcripts, particularly since portions of those transcripts are referenced in the information
`that was produced.
`
`
`1
`
`AVAYA INC. AV-1051 IPR2013-00071
`Avaya Inc. v. Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc.
`
`

`

`Best regards,
`
`Jonathan
`
`
`
`From: Rick Lyon [mailto:rick@dovellaw.com]
`Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 6:16 PM
`To: Wieland III, Charles; Lindsay, Jonathan; Sean Luner
`Cc: Scheer, Michael J.; Dunham, Thomas M.; AV1-PRPS
`Subject: RE: IPR2013-00071 - Network-1's Discovery Obligations
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Dear Jonathan,
`
`We write to elaborate further on Chad’s email below concerning Network-1’s production of documents
`in this IPR proceeding. In particular, we write to explain: (1) what is required to satisfy a party’s obligation to
`provide “information that is inconsistent with a position advanced by the party” pursuant to 37 CFR §
`42.51(b)(1)(iii), (2) how Avaya misconstrues this obligation, and (3) how Network-1 has complied with (and, in
`fact, exceeded) its obligation. At the end of this email we summarize Network-1’s production of documents in
`this IPR proceeding.
`
`1. A party’s obligation to provide documents that include relevant inconsistent information.
`
`The Regulations require that “a party must serve relevant information that is inconsistent with a position
`advanced by the party during the proceeding.” 37 CFR § 42.51(b)(1)(iii). The Regulations, which are just
`beginning to be interpreted by the Board, are silent regarding the following question: What measures must a
`party undertake to identify relevant inconsistent information?
`
`When statutes or regulations are silent or ambiguous on a particular question, we must turn to the policy
`underlying the statutes or regulations to answer the question. See Unexcelled Chemical Corp. v. United States,
`345 U.S. 59, 64 (1953) (“Arguments of policy are relevant when … there are ambiguities in the legislative
`language that must be resolved.”). The correct answer is the approach that is in line with the underlying policy,
`while the incorrect answer is the approach that “frustrate[s] the congressional policy underlying the statute [or
`regulation].” SEC v. Sloan, 436 U.S. 103, 161 (1978).
`
`As this Board noted, the congressional policy underlying the statutes and regulations of the AIA (i.e., the
`very reason why IPR proceedings were created) is to provide an “efficient, streamlined, and cost effective
`alternative to district court litigation.” See Sony Paper 13 [IPR 2013-000495] (“The America Invents Act
`(AIA) created new administrative trial proceedings, including inter partes review, as an efficient, streamlined,
`and cost-effective alternative to district court litigation.”) (emphasis added); see also Federal Register Volume
`77, Number 28 (February 10, 2012) (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-02-10/html/2012-2534.htm)
`(“The purpose of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act and these proposed regulations is to establish a more
`efficient and streamlined patent system that will improve patent quality and limit unnecessary and
`counterproductive litigation costs.”) (emphasis added).
`
`Accordingly, when determining what measures a party must undertake to identify and serve relevant
`inconsistent information under 37 CFR § 42.51(b)(1)(iii), the correct approach must be in line with, and not
`contrary to, the policy underling the AIA of promoting an “efficient, streamlined, cost effective” proceeding.
`
`2. Avaya’s position regarding a party’s obligation to identify inconsistent information
`undermines the reason why the AIA created IPR proceedings.
`
`Avaya’s position concerning the measures Network-1 should undertake to identify relevant inconsistent
`information is directly contrary to an “efficient, streamlined, and cost effective” proceeding which is the policy
`underlying IPR proceedings.
`
`Avaya asserts that Network-1 is obligated to: (1) review all documents from prior litigations (i.e., the
`hundreds of thousands of documents gathered and produced, the hundreds of court filings, dozens of deposition
`transcripts, etc.); (2) evaluate whether each document includes any relevant information that is inconsistent with
`any position advanced by Network-1 in this IPR; and, (3) serve those documents that Network-1 determines
`includes relevant inconsistent information.
`
`Such a task would not be “efficient, streamlined, or cost effective,” but instead would be inefficient,
`cumbersome, and very costly – exactly what IPR proceedings were designed to avoid. Unlike other types of
`
`3
`
`

`

`searches that take place in District Court litigation (e.g., an electronic search for a particular individual, a key
`word, or a key phrase), a search for “inconsistent information” could not be performed electronically using
`search terms. Instead, such a search would require (a) an attorney, (b) who is intimately familiar with each
`statement advanced in this proceeding, (c) to review each of the hundreds of thousands of pages of documents,
`and (d) apply a yet-to-be clearly defined standard to such documents to determine whether relevant information
`inconsistent with position advanced in this IPR proceeding is found in such documents.
`
`Because this approach is the opposite of “efficient, streamlined, and cost effective,” it is contrary to the
`purpose of IPR proceedings and, therefore, cannot be the correct approach.
`
`Moreover, the Board has confirmed that the correct approach does not impose an obligation on a party to
`review all of its documents for inconsistent information. Indeed, the obligation does not even extend to
`categories of documents. Instead, the correct approach is limited to materials “known to the responding party to
`be inconsistent:”
`
`Routine discovery under 37 C.F.R. § 41.51(b)(1)(iii) [sic] is narrowly directed to specific
`information known to the responding party to be inconsistent with a position advanced by that
`party in the proceeding, and not broadly directed to any subject area in general within which the
`requesting party hopes to discover such inconsistent information.
`
`Case IPR2012-00001, Paper No. 26 at 4 (emphasis added). As set forth below, Network-1 has complied with
`(and exceeded) this obligation.
`
`3. Network-1 has taken appropriate measures (and more) to identify relevant inconsistent
`documents.
`
`Network-1 has adopted a reasonable approach to identify relevant inconsistent information. This
`“efficient, streamlined, or cost effective” includes the following:
`
`First, because Network-1’s obligation is “directed to specific information known [by Network-1] to be
`inconsistent with a position advanced by [Network-1] in the proceeding,” Case IPR2012-00001, Paper No. 26 at
`4, individuals who could potentially have knowledge of any inconsistent information (i.e.,, individuals with
`knowledge of both (i) the positions advanced during this IPR proceeding, and (ii) statements made and
`documents created during the litigations concerning the patent-in-suit) identified documents with potential
`relevant inconsistent information which were provided to Avaya.
`
`Second, Network-1 undertook additional measures that went beyond its obligation to produce relevant
`materials known to be inconsistent:
`
`(1) Network-1 produced certain specific documents identified by Avaya as potentially including
`relevant inconsistent information; and
`
`
`
`(2) Network-1 identified the additional universe of documents in which inconsistent information, if it
`exists, would most likely be located – e.g., claim construction papers, invalidity contentions, expert
`reports concerning validity, and depositions concerning validity. Rather than (a) reviewing these
`documents and applying its own judgment of whether they include any statements meeting the yet-
`to-be defined standard of relevant inconsistent information, and then (b) producing only those
`documents it deems to include such statements, Network-1 produced all of these documents, even
`if they would not be required to be produced under the broadest interpretation of the requirement.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Accordingly, Network-1’s “efficient, streamlined, or cost effective” approach has resulted in the
`production of not only any inconsistent information of which it is aware, but also the universe of documents
`that, if inconsistent information unknown to Network-1 exists, are most reasonably likely to include such
`information.
`
`4. The following summarizes Network-1’s production.
`
`(1) On June 28, 2013, at the request of Avaya, Network-1 produced (a) a communication between
`Corey Horowitz and Merlot Communication, and (b) claim construction documents from the Cisco and D-Link
`litigations. Network-1 voluntarily produced these documents at Avaya’s request even though Network-1 did
`not believe these documents included any inconsistent information.
`
`(2) During a July 1, 2013 phone call, Network-1 informed Avaya that, based on its familiarity with the
`prior litigation, it was not aware of any relevant inconsistent information but that, based on a request from the
`Board to try to work through any issues relating to document production, it would be willing to review any
`particular documents or groups of documents identified by Avaya for inconsistent information. Avaya stated
`during the call that it would identify such documents and follow up with Network-1. It did not. In fact, we did
`not hear back from Avaya again concerning this issue until September 12, 2013.
`
`(3) On September 12, 2013, Avaya sent the email below (see below), seeking certain documents from
`the Cisco litigation. In response, Network-1 promptly produced (a) the following documents identified in
`Avaya’s e-mail, and (b) any other documents that it believed might have a reasonable possibility of including
`inconsistent information:
`• on September 18, 2013: (a) Defendants’ invalidity report in the Cisco litigation; (b) Dr. Knox’s
`validity report in the Cisco litigation; and (c) a sample Dr. Knox infringement report in the Cisco
`litigation. (Network-1 produced the infringement report from the Cisco litigation relating to
`defendant Cisco. The reports for the other defendants are essentially the same as the Cisco
`report except that each separate report includes confidential information for each individual
`defendant regarding each defendant’s infringing products. Network-1 redacted the confidential
`information from the documents that it produced.);
`
`
`• on September 19, 2013: (a) Defendants’ invalidity contentions in the Cisco Litigation; (b)
`Defendants’ invalidity contentions in the D-Link litigation; (c) Defendants’ invalidity reports
`from the D-Link litigation; and (d) Dr. Knox’s validity report from the D-Link litigation; and
`
`
`• on September 21, 2013: (a) validity summary judgment briefing from the Cisco litigation, and
`(b) the deposition transcripts of Dr. Knox and Defendants’ expert concerning validity.
`
`As always, thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
`
`Best regards,
`Rick
`
`
`
`
`
`From: Wieland III, Charles [mailto:charles.wieland@bipc.com]
`Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2013 5:09 PM
`
`5
`
`

`

`To: 'Lindsay, Jonathan'; Sean Luner
`Cc: Rick Lyon; Scheer, Michael J.; Dunham, Thomas M.; AV1-PRPS
`Subject: RE: IPR2013-00071 - Network-1's Discovery Obligations
`
`Jonathan,
`
`I am following up on your e-mail to the Board.
`In your e-mail, you requested that the Board extend dates for Dr. Knox’s deposition and Petitioners’ Response because
`Network-1 allegedly untimely served documents that are “relevant to validity issues.” Network-1, however, was (and
`is) not under any obligation to produce documents “relevant to validity issues.” Rather, Network-1 voluntarily produced
`these documents as “Additional discovery” under 37 CFR 42.51(b)(2) in response to your request for such documents to
`avoid any motion practice and to avoid any allegation that Network-1 withheld information. Accordingly, these
`documents were not untimely produced and do not form a basis for extending any dates.
`Because the IPR procedures are new, it is not clear how the Board will interpret the requirement that a party to produce
`“relevant information that is inconsistent with a position advanced by the party during the proceeding.” 37 C.F.R. §
`41.51(b)(1)(iii). It appears, however, that the Board will narrowly interpret what a party is required to produced. See
`Garmin v. Cuozzzo, Case IPR2012-00001, Paper No. 26.
`Based on this standard, we are not aware of relevant information in the produced documents inconsistent with the
`positions advanced by Network-1. For example, you identify Dr. Knox’s expert validity report in the Cisco Litigation as
`being one of the untimely served documents and one of the documents that you must review. We are, however,
`unaware of any relevant information in Dr. Knox’s report that is inconsistent with the positions advanced by Network-1.
`To accommodate your concerns, however, if relevant information inconsistent with the positions advanced by Network-
`1 is found in the recently produced documents, we would agree to re-produce Dr. Knox for his deposition for the limited
`purpose of addressing any such relevant inconsistent information. Please let me know if this approach is an acceptable
`compromise that we can present to the Board.
`
`
`Chad
`
`
`Charles Wieland
`Shareholder
`
`
`1737 King Street
`Suite 500
`Alexandria, VA 22314-2727
`703 838 6604 (o)
`charles.wieland@bipc.com
`
`
`vCard | Bio | BIPC.com | Twitter | LinkedIn
`
`
`
`Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC
`
`KNOW GREATER PARTNERSHIP
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`From: Lindsay, Jonathan [mailto:JLindsay@crowell.com]
`Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 5:24 PM
`To: Sean Luner; Wieland III, Charles
`Cc: Rick Lyon; Scheer, Michael J.; Dunham, Thomas M.; AV1-PRPS
`Subject: RE: IPR2013-00071 - Network-1's Discovery Obligations
`
`
`Sean, Chad
`
`
`As we previously stated, we reject Network-1’s attempt to impose the burden upon Avaya to identify potentially
`inconsistent documents, especially when Avaya cannot access documents in Network-1’s (and its expert’s)
`possession, custody, or control. Consistent with Network-1’s duty of candor to the PTO, and its discovery
`obligations to the Board, it is Network-1’s responsibility to produce any documents that contain inconsistent
`information, whether or not Avaya can or does identify them.
`
`
`With respect to your characterization of our July conversation, you had represented to us that Network-1 had
`fulfilled its “routine discovery” obligations at that time. Since making that representation, however, Network-1 has
`now taken many more positions including in its Response, Motion to Amend, and Expert declaration. Accordingly,
`documents that may not have contained “inconsistent information” before, may do so now. This is why we begin
`our email below with the introduction of “In view of Network-1’s Response and Motion to Amend . . . .”
`
`
`That said, if your position is that that Network-1, its attorneys, Dr. Knox, Mr. Horowitz, and the inventors, have
`produced all documents in their possession, custody, or control that include any information “that is inconsistent
`with a position advanced by [Network-1]” in this Proceeding, even in view of Network-1’s Response and Motion to
`Amend, then you should confirm that position in writing.
`
`
`Concerning your suggestion to obtain a protective order in this IPR to protect any confidential documents,
`Network-1 has been free to approach the Board for a protective order at any point before the filing of Network-1’s
`Response and Motion to Amend, or even during the last six weeks following their filing. In any event, such
`documents would have been due “concurrent[ly] with the filing of the documents or things that contains the
`inconsistency,” which in this Proceeding includes at least the Preliminary Response, Response, and Motion to
`Amend. 37 CFR § 42.51(b)(1)(iii). Consistent with the position that we have taken throughout this proceeding,
`Avaya would not oppose Network-1 approaching the Board for a protective order, even at this late date, in order to
`comply with its discovery obligations. We are generally available tomorrow or next week (other than during Dr.
`Knox’s deposition) for such a call with the Board.
`
`
`With respect to your offer to produce non-confidential documents, we expect that Network-1 will promptly
`produce any non-confidential documents produced, generated, filed, submitted, or otherwise disseminated by any
`party (including Network-1, the defendants, and third parties) that contain any information “that is inconsistent
`with a position advanced by [Network-1]” in this Proceeding. Again, however, if Network-1’s position is that there
`are no such documents, even in view of Network-1’s Response and Motion to Amend, then you should confirm
`that position in writing.
`
`
`Regards,
`
`Jonathan
`
`
`
`From: Sean Luner [mailto:sean@dovellaw.com]
`Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 8:50 AM
`To: Lindsay, Jonathan
`Cc: Wieland III, Charles (charles.wieland@bipc.com); Rick Lyon
`Subject: FW: IPR2013-00071 - Network-1's Discovery Obligations
`7
`
`

`

`
`Jonathan,
`
`I am following up on my voicemail from yesterday and your e-mail to Chad (below).
`
`
`After your June 26, 2013 e-mail (referenced below), on July 1, 2013, we discussed your concerns relating to Network-1’s
`production. Based on our discussion, Avaya was going to identify specific documents that you wanted Network-1 to
`produce in this IPR proceeding and we were going to develop an approach to get you access to such documents
`(including confidential documents). We have been waiting for you to identify these documents. As a result, we were
`surprised by your recent e-mail.
`
`
`We are willing to work with you to develop a strategy that will allow us to provide you with any non-privileged
`documents, including confidential documents, that you would like, whether or not they are required discovery. While
`the approach that you outlined below (i.e., simply moving to modify the Protective Orders issued in all of the prior
`litigations) will not work for various reasons, we can evaluate other alternatives including requesting the Board to issue a
`Protective Order in this IPR proceeding and jointly requesting third-parties to allow you to access such
`documents. Because IPR proceedings are a new procedure and there has not been any guidance on the issue of
`producing confidential documents from prior litigations, we may need to be creative in developing the right approach.
`
`
`Please coordinate with Rick Lyon from our office (copied). Together you should be able to develop an approach that will
`provide you with any documents that you would like without violating Protective Orders and the rights of third-
`parties. In the meantime, if you are interested in receiving all non-confidential documents produced by Network-1 in
`the prior litigations, let us know and we can provide them to you.
`
`
`As always, thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
`
`
`Sean
`
`
`
`
`From: Lindsay, Jonathan [mailto:JLindsay@crowell.com]
`Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 4:45 PM
`To: Wieland III, Charles; Mukai, Robert
`Cc: AV1-PRPS
`Subject: IPR2013-00071 - Network-1's Discovery Obligations
`
`
`Chad,
`
`In view of Network-1’s Response and Motion to Amend, we are writing to follow up on our June 26, 2013 email
`regarding Network-1’s discovery obligations in this Proceeding. As you know, Network-1 is required to produce all
`“relevant information that is inconsistent with a position advanced by the party during the proceeding concurrent with
`the filing of the documents or things that contains the inconsistency.” 37 CFR § 42.51(b)(1)(iii).
`
`
`I.
`
`Network-1 Undoubtedly Has Relevant Information that is Inconsistent with Positions it has Advanced, and it
`Has Refused to Produce Such Information
`
`The only documents that Network-1 has produced to date consist of (i) public pleadings from prior litigations and (ii) one
`email that was an exhibit in the Cisco litigation (which we specifically requested after identifying it as being relevant
`from the trial transcript). Yet, Network-1, its attorneys, Mr. Horowitz, and Dr. Knox, have all been involved in a series of
`litigations involving the ’930 patent, and it is inconceivable that there are no other documents that are “inconsistent
`with a position” advanced by Network-1 in this Proceeding. Indeed, based on the public record, it appears that Dr. Knox
`served as both a non-infringement and invalidity expert in the Cisco litigation. As you know, we do not have access to
`any of Dr. Knox’s expert reports from the Cisco litigation, and you have not produced any. Nor have you produced any
`expert reports of the other defendants, which presumably would rebut and/or be inconsistent with Dr. Knox’s
`
`8
`
`

`

`opinions. We note that the IPR Rules do not limit the production of inconsistent positions to those taken by or authored
`by Network-1.
`
`
`Similarly, Network-1 asserts that Secondary Considerations support the non-obviousness of the challenged claims. (See
`Response, at 53-58). Yet, Network-1 has only identified pieces of evidence that it alleges supports its position. Avaya
`believes that, especially since invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 103 was an issue in the prior litigations, there should be
`documents and information that are inconsistent with Network-1’s position. For example, in addition to the expert
`reports noted above, the prior litigations likely have involved evidence cited in those reports, discovery, and briefing on
`the issue.
`
`
`II.
`
`It Would Not be Unduly Burdensome for Network-1 to Identify and Produce Documents that Avaya Seeks
`
`We also disagree with Network-1’s previously-stated position that it has no obligation to search documents from the
`prior cases because of the large volume of documents that exist and that it is incumbent upon Avaya to specifically
`identify potentially inconsistent documents. That burden shifting is inconsistent with the Rules and, frankly, an
`impossibility given that Avaya has no way of knowing what documents that Network-1 has in its possession, custody, or
`control. Moreover, these documents were all generated during the course of litigation and the Dovel & Luner firm – the
`same firm that is counsel of record in this Proceeding – was counsel of record in the prior litigations. Thus, we find that
`Network-1’s position lacks credibility.
`
`
`III.
`
`Network-1 Cannot Refuse to Produce Based on Confidentiality Grounds
`
`Furthermore, Mr. Luner has previously taken the position that a protective order from the prior case would likely
`prohibit the production of relevant documents in this Proceeding. Again, however, consistent with Network-1’s “duty of
`disclosure” to the PTO, and the rules of this Proceedings, it is Network-1’s responsibility to obtain relief from any such
`prior protective order. Paragraph 21 of the Protective Order from the Cisco litigation specifically authorizes Network-1
`to seek such relief:
`
`
`21. This Protective Order shall not prevent the parties from applying to the Court for
`relief therefrom or modification thereto, or from applying to the Court for further or
`additional relief by way of protective orders or otherwise, or from agreeing between
`themselves to modifications of this Protective Order.
`
`
`(Doc. 107, p. 18). Simply put, it is improper for Network-1 to refuse to produce based on confidentiality
`grounds. Network-1 withholding material information during this Proceeding could constitute inequitable conduct that
`renders the ’930 patent unenforceable in the underlying district court litigation. If Network-1 has confidentiality
`concerns in this Proceeding, the IPR rules allow Network-1 to seek an appropriate Protective Order to protect any such
`information.
`
`
`Please provide a written response to this email by no later than September 17, 2013 that: (1) indicates when Network-1
`will produce additional documents, along with an explanation as to why the documents have not previously been
`produced, (2) confirms that Network-1, its attorneys, Dr. Knox, Mr. Horowitz, and the inventors, have produced all
`documents in their possession, custody, or control that include any information “that is inconsistent with a position
`advanced by [Network-1]” in this Proceeding, (3) confirms that Network-1 is searching documents produced, generated,
`and advocated by other parties (including the defendants in the prior litigations) and (4) explains the steps taken to
`locate inconsistent documents.
`
`
`Regards,
`
`Jonathan
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Jonathan Lindsay
`Crowell & Moring LLP
`3 Park Plaza, 20th Floor
`Irvine, CA 92614
`p 949.263.8400 | f 949.263.8414 | JLindsay@Crowell.com
`
`The information contained in this e-mail and any attachment may be privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure and is
`intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s). It is not intended for transmission to, or receipt by, any unauthorized person. The
`use, distribution, transmittal or re-transmittal by an unintended recipient of this communication is strictly prohibited without our express
`written approval. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, please delete it from your system without copying it and notify the
`above sender. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient is not a waiver of any attorney-client, work-product, or other privilege.
`
`
`
`TAX ADVICE DISCLAIMER: Any federal tax advice contained in this communication (including attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and
`it cannot be used, by you for the purpose of (1) avoiding any penalty that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service or (2) promoting, marketing
`or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. If you would like such advice, please contact us.
`
`
`
`
`
`Above email is for intended recipient only and may be confidential and protected by attorney/client privilege.
`
`If you are not the intended recipient, please advise the sender immediately.
`
`Unauthorized use or distribution is prohibited and may be unlawful.
`
`
`
`
`
`TAX ADVICE DISCLAIMER: Any federal tax advice contained in this communication (including attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and
`it cannot be used, by you for the purpose of (1) avoiding any penalty that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service or (2) promoting, marketing
`or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. If you would like such advice, please contact us.
`
`
`
`
`
`Above email is for intended recipient only and may be confidential and protected by attorney/client privilege.
`
`If you are not the intended recipient, please advise the sender immediately.
`
`Unauthorized use or distribution is prohibited and may be unlawful.
`
`
`
`10
`
`