`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2117
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`Before The Honorable Laurel Beeler, Magistrate Judge
`
`CALLWAVE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, )
`)
`Plaintiff,
`)
`)
`) No. 14MC80112-JSW (LB)
`vs.
`)
`WAVEMARKET, INC.,
`
`)
`Defendant.
`_____________________________ )
`
`))
`
`San Francisco, California
`Thursday, August 28, 2014
`
`TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE OFFICIAL ELECTRONIC SOUND
`RECORDING 11:40 - 12:11 = 31 MINUTES
`
`APPEARANCES:
`For Plaintiff Callwave
` Communications:
`
`Pepper Hamilton, LLP
`333 Twin Dolphin Drive
`Suite 400
`Redwood City, California 94065
` BY: GREGORY S. BISHOP, ESQ.
`
`For Location Labs:
`
`SNR Denton US, LLP
`1301 K Street, NW
`Suite 600
`Washington, DC 20005
` BY: SHAILENDRA K. MAHESHWARI, ESQ.
`
`(APPEARANCES CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
`
`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
`
` Echo Reporting, Inc.
`
`
`
`2
`
`APPEARANCES: (Cont'd.)
`For Location Labs:
`
`Dentons US LLP
`525 Market Street
`26th Floor
`San Francisco, California
` 94105
` BY: SARAH S. ESKANDARI, ESQ.
`
`Echo Reporting, Inc.
`Transcribed by:
` Contracted Court Reporter/
` Transcriber
`
`echoreporting@yahoo.com
`
`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
`
` Echo Reporting, Inc.
`
`
`
`16
`
`you didn't because that's sort of a preliminary cutoff of
`the 15th.
`And so it's a pretty modest thing to do and then I'm --
`MR. MAHESHWARI: Absolutely.
`THE COURT: -- I'm addressing the issues --
`MR. MAHESHWARI: Absolutely.
`THE COURT: -- by giving you guys the cost, at
`least 50 percent of them.
`MR. BISHOP: Your Honor, on the issue of the
`shifting of costs, if I may.
`You know, we're not talking about just any third party
`
`here.
`
`THE COURT: No, I know that.
`MR. BISHOP: This is a party that -- the
`defendants didn't come to the settlement conference. It was
`Mr. Maheshwari that was there on behalf of Location Labs.
`THE COURT: That's a problem. Just out of
`curiosity --
`MR. MAHESHWARI: No, that's actually inaccurate,
`your Honor. The defendants actually were represented at the
`settlement conference.
`MR. BISHOP: By phone.
`MR. MAHESHWARI: In fact, T-Mobile, AT&T, and
`Sprint were there.
`MR. BISHOP: By phone.
`
`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
`
` Echo Reporting, Inc.
`
`
`
`17
`
`MR. MAHESHWARI: Local counsel for each of the
`defendants was there. And Mr. Abbati from Location Labs was
`there because of the indemnification.
`Ultimately, we have to pay the fees for any settlement.
`THE COURT: Let's just -- let me just think about
`this for a second, not that you need me to do it.
`Who was your mediation in front of?
`MR. MAHESHWARI: It was Judge --
`MR. BISHOP: Stein.
`MR. MAHESHWARI: -- Stein, a magistrate judge --
`Chief Magistrate Judge Stein.
`THE COURT: So it was a court-sponsored settlement
`conference.
`MR. MAHESHWARI: Yes. And she required everybody
`to be there. We were there.
`THE COURT: Well, but the clients were not -- what
`you're telling me is the lawyers were there, but not the --
`MR. MAHESHWARI: No, no. AT&T in-house counsel
`and T-Mobile in-house counsel and Sprint's in-house counsel
`were on the phone.
`MR. BISHOP: Your Honor, if I may.
`THE COURT: Okay.
`MR. BISHOP: The judge set up a settlement
`conference between Location Labs and Callwave. And Location
`Labs was required to be there in person. The others were
`
`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
`
` Echo Reporting, Inc.
`
`
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
