Case 8:12-cv-00329-AG-JPR Document 398-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 1 of 2041 Page ID
` #:18401
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`HONORABLE ANDREW J. GUILFORD, JUDGE PRESIDING
`UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`
`REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
`JURY INSTRUCTION HEARING
`SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA
`TUESDAY, MAY 6, 2014
`
`MIRIAM V. BAIRD, CSR 11893, CCRA
`OFFICIAL U.S. DISTRICT COURT REPORTER
`411 WEST FOURTH STREET, SUITE 1-053
`SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701
`(714) 894-5384
`MVB11893@AOL.COM
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`(cid:56)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:87)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:26)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:3)
`(cid:56)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:53)(cid:72)(cid:80)(cid:82)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:38)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:89)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:56)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:87)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:86)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:85)(cid:76)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:49)(cid:82)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:28)
`
`No. SACV12-00329-AG
`
`)))))))))))))))))))
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Vs.
`
`UNIVERSAL REMOTE CONTROL, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`________________________________
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 8:12-cv-00329-AG-JPR Document 398-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 2 of 2041 Page ID
` #:18402
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S
`
`IN BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF,
`UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.,:
`
`CHRISTOPHER J. LEE
`FREDERICK C. LANEY
`LAURA KENNEALLY
`NIRO HALLER AND NIRO LTD
`181 WEST MADISON STREET
`SUITE 4600
`CHICAGO, IL 60602
`312-236-0733
`
`IN BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT,
`UNIVERSAL REMOTE CONTROL,
`INC.:
`
`THEODORE W. CHANDLER
`TEAGUE DONAHEY
`CYNTHIA CHI
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`555 WEST 5TH STREET SUITE
`4000
`LOS ANGELES, CA 90013-3000
`213-896-5830
`
`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
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`(cid:56)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:87)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:26)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:3)
`(cid:56)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:53)(cid:72)(cid:80)(cid:82)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:38)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:89)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:56)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:87)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:86)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:85)(cid:76)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:49)(cid:82)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:28)
`
`

`

`Case 8:12-cv-00329-AG-JPR Document 398-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 3 of 2041 Page ID
` #:18403
`3
`
`INDEX
`
`*****
`
`*****
`
`PAGE:
`
`53
`
`Marked Colloquy
`
`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
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`(cid:56)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:87)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:26)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:22)(cid:3)
`(cid:56)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:53)(cid:72)(cid:80)(cid:82)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:38)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:89)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:56)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:87)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:86)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:85)(cid:76)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:49)(cid:82)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:28)
`
`

`

`Case 8:12-cv-00329-AG-JPR Document 398-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 4 of 2041 Page ID
` #:18404
`4
`
`SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA; TUESDAY, MAY 6, 2014; 0900
`---
`
`THE CLERK: SACV12-0329-AG. Universal Electronics,
`Inc., vs. Universal Remote Control, Inc.
`THE COURT: Can I have the appearances, please.
`MR. LEE: Good morning, Your Honor.
`Christopher Lee, Chris Laney, Laura Kenneally, and
`Brian Haan on behalf of plaintiff Universal.
`THE COURT: Let's go over that again. Christopher
`
`Lee --
`
`Haan.
`
`MR. LEE: Chris Laney, Laura Kenneally, and Brian
`
`THE COURT: From the defense?
`MR. DONAHEY: Thank you, Your Honor.
`Teague Donahey with my colleague Ted Chandler and
`Cynthia Chi for defendant URC.
`THE COURT: We have Ted Chandler, Cynthia Chi, and
`
`who else?
`
`MR. DONAHEY: I'm Teague Donahey.
`THE COURT: All right.
`The Court has observed among some of those in the
`courtroom a possible proclivity to last-minute settlements.
`When was the last time you had settlement discussions?
`MR. LEE: Your Honor, the last settlement
`
`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
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`(cid:56)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:87)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:26)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:23)(cid:3)
`(cid:56)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:53)(cid:72)(cid:80)(cid:82)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:38)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:89)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:56)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:87)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:86)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:85)(cid:76)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:49)(cid:82)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:28)
`
`

`

`Case 8:12-cv-00329-AG-JPR Document 398-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 5 of 2041 Page ID
` #:18405
`5
`
`discussion took place by way of exchange of settlement and
`counter offer last week. That was the fourth or fifth
`exchange the parties had. This morning, I informed the
`defendant that unfortunately, despite our best efforts,
`parties are simply too far apart to resolve this lawsuit.
`THE COURT: What does the defense say?
`MR. DONAHEY: Well, Your Honor, I understand that
`while we were arriving at court, they sent us a response to
`our most recent counter proposal, and the response was that
`they were no longer interested in engaging in settlement
`discussions. So to the extent that's the case, I agree with
`counsel that we sort of reached an impasse at this point.
`THE COURT: Was that the message communicated
`you're no longer interested in engaging in settlement
`discussions?
`MR. LEE: No, Your Honor. What we did is we
`rejected their last offer on the basis that one, parties are
`too far apart --
`THE COURT: Hold on. I don't want to get deep into
`it. Counsel just said you folks said you're no longer
`interested in settlement discussions.
`You didn't say that?
`MR. LEE: No. In fact, our last sentence in the
`response simply said we remain open, flexible, and willing to
`talk to them during trial and after trial, at least for
`
`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
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`(cid:56)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:87)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:26)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:24)(cid:3)
`(cid:56)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:53)(cid:72)(cid:80)(cid:82)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:38)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:89)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:56)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:87)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:86)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:85)(cid:76)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:49)(cid:82)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:28)
`
`

`

`Case 8:12-cv-00329-AG-JPR Document 398-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 6 of 2041 Page ID
` #:18406
`6
`
`now --
`
`THE COURT: Mr. Donahey?
`MR. DONAHEY: Yes.
`THE COURT: Who is telling me the truth here?
`MR. DONAHEY: I haven't seen what they sent me.
`What I was told was what they said in their paper -- this is
`hearsay -- let the chips fall where they may. That's what I
`was told.
`
`THE COURT: That's different than no longer
`interested in settlement negotiations.
`MR. DONAHEY: All right. I don't want to
`characterize what they meant by that.
`THE COURT: I'm going to order you to continue in
`settlement discussions. I'm going to ask you tomorrow
`whether you engaged in such discussions today. Again, that's
`partly derived from past history. It's partly because if you
`are going to settle, I'd like to know as soon as possible.
`I'm supposed to be at a patent conference next week. I am on
`the verge of cancelling my attendance at the Berkeley Patent
`Conference for federal judges. I'm happy to cancel it. I
`don't want to cancel it and then have the case settle. So if
`you're going to settle, let me know as soon as possible.
`We've had quite the activity. Most recently,
`further damage material followed by a motion to strike, ex
`parte, et cetera, et cetera. I continue to believe this case
`
`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
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`(cid:56)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:87)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:26)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:25)(cid:3)
`(cid:56)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:53)(cid:72)(cid:80)(cid:82)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:38)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:89)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:56)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:87)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:86)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:85)(cid:76)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:49)(cid:82)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:28)
`
`

`

`Case 8:12-cv-00329-AG-JPR Document 398-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 7 of 2041 Page ID
` #:18407
`7
`
`is being overdone to the end that effectiveness is being
`diminished on both sides. That's my opinion. It seems to be
`strengthened with each passing day.
`I think at this point we should address the pending
`additional filings, I believe, last Friday and the motion to
`strike as of late yesterday is when I heard about it.
`So let's hear from the defense who filed the motion
`
`to strike.
`
`MR. DONAHEY: Thank you, Your Honor. Yeah --
`THE COURT: My tentative is to grant the motion to
`strike. Go ahead.
`MR. DONAHEY: Thank you, Your Honor. Yes, on
`Friday we received -- during the course of exchanging trial
`exhibits, we've been trying to, you know, clean up the trial
`exhibits and make them more legible. Where missing pages are
`found, the trial exhibits are fixed by the paralegals. In
`the course of that process, their paralegal sent our
`paralegal 28 new trial exhibits that were referred to
`casually as supplemental exhibits. As it turns out, these
`are not mere supplemental exhibits. They are a replacement
`to Mr. Bernatowicz's damages analyses. The exhibits to his
`report which contain the substance of his calculations.
`So the question is what do we do about that now,
`given that trial is scheduled to begin tomorrow? We ask the
`Court to strike those exhibits. There's no basis to permit
`
`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
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`(cid:56)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:87)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:26)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:26)(cid:3)
`(cid:56)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:53)(cid:72)(cid:80)(cid:82)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:38)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:89)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:56)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:87)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:86)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:85)(cid:76)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:49)(cid:82)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:28)
`
`

`

`Case 8:12-cv-00329-AG-JPR Document 398-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 8 of 2041 Page ID
` #:18408
`8
`
`them to supplement their damages expert report on the eve of
`trial. Particularly, since all of this could have been done
`long ago.
`
`One of the big things --
`THE COURT: Well, maybe it could've been done after
`the Court made its ruling.
`MR. DONAHEY: Your Honor's summary judgement ruling
`was made in March, Your Honor.
`THE COURT: All right. So that's long ago. March
`is long ago?
`MR. DONAHEY: In the context of this case and all
`of the activities, yes, Your Honor. Yes.
`THE COURT: Okay.
`MR. DONAHEY: Had they come to us and said we would
`like to supplement Mr. Bernatowicz' report and they were
`upfront about it, that might have been one thing. Then we
`could have had an orderly process where the parties could
`have engaged supplemental report, supplemental rebuttal
`report, supplemental depositions, and so forth. They did not
`do that. Instead, they waited until the eve of trial to
`provide these things. They didn't even give counsel notice
`that these things were coming. They tried to sneak it in the
`back door via the paralegal route.
`Sales projections, Mr. Bernatowicz now has for the
`first time sales projections covering the time period from
`
`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
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`(cid:56)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:87)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:26)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:27)(cid:3)
`(cid:56)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:53)(cid:72)(cid:80)(cid:82)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:38)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:89)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:56)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:87)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:86)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:85)(cid:76)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:49)(cid:82)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:28)
`
`

`

`Case 8:12-cv-00329-AG-JPR Document 398-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 9 of 2041 Page ID
` #:18409
`9
`
`February 2013 to the present. So he's extended his damages
`period. His expert report was served in November of 2013.
`There's no reason why he could not have had an analysis of
`sales projections. He didn't do it for whatever reason the
`first time around. There's no basis for him to come in on
`the Friday before trial begins and do it now.
`He's changed his market share analysis. Before he
`had a market share of X for certain customers. Now it's Y.
`Market share doesn't change. Why did it change? We don't
`know. One of the problems here is there was no expert report
`served accompanying these exhibits. So there is no
`explanation for the changes, the new data that we're getting.
`The remedy, according to plaintiff, is that we take
`his deposition during trial, I suppose, and try to figure out
`what he's done that he hasn't disclosed because no expert
`report was provided.
`So all in all, Your Honor --
`THE COURT: Give me the bullet points. By the way,
`this is a timed trial. Your comments here are cutting into
`your time.
`
`MR. DONAHEY: Understood.
`THE COURT: I said the tentative was in your favor.
`Give me the bullet point reasons why I should grant your
`motion to strike.
`MR. DONAHEY: I think I just did, Your Honor. I'll
`
`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
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`(cid:56)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:87)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:26)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:28)(cid:3)
`(cid:56)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:53)(cid:72)(cid:80)(cid:82)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:38)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:89)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:56)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:87)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:86)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:85)(cid:76)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:49)(cid:82)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:28)
`
`

`

`Case 8:12-cv-00329-AG-JPR Document 398-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 10 of 2041 Page ID
` #:18410
`10
`
`stop there.
`THE COURT: It wasn't bullet points. It was a
`narrative. One, it's untimely.
`MR. DONAHEY: Untimely.
`THE COURT: Two, inconsistent with previously filed
`expert reports.
`MR. DONAHEY: Correct.
`THE COURT: Three, inconsistent with my summary
`judgment ruling.
`MR. DONAHEY: Not necessarily inconsistent. I
`think it's responsive to your summary judgement ruling.
`THE COURT: Anything else?
`MR. DONAHEY: Prejudicial, Your Honor. It's Friday
`before trial. Thank you.
`THE COURT: Let's hear from the plaintiff.
`MR. LEE: Attached to the -- Mr. Bernatowicz'
`report that was submitted in November were 32 schedules.
`Those are the schedules that they extensively examined
`Mr. Bernatowicz about. All we did, Your Honor, was once we
`get Your Honor's summary judgment ruling, motions in limine
`ruling, and Daubert ruling, which didn't come down until
`about ten days ago, he went back --
`THE COURT: Was I slow in issuing the Daubert
`
`ruling?
`
`MR. LEE: No, Your Honor. Obviously, the Court had
`
`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
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`(cid:56)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:87)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:26)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:3)
`(cid:56)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:53)(cid:72)(cid:80)(cid:82)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:38)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:89)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:56)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:87)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:86)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:85)(cid:76)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:49)(cid:82)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:28)
`
`

`

`Case 8:12-cv-00329-AG-JPR Document 398-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 11 of 2041 Page ID
` #:18411
`11
`
`a lot of papers.
`THE COURT: How long did it take me to issue the
`
`ruling?
`
`MR. LEE: I'm sorry?
`THE COURT: How long after the hearing did I issue
`what you've called the Daubert ruling?
`MR. LEE: I believe the final ruling came down
`several days after the hearing, which is --
`THE COURT: I'll stand by several days. Go ahead.
`MR. LEE: Yes.
`What Mr. Bernatowicz did is he went back and
`revised those 32 schedules using the exact methodology, exact
`format, exact approach that he used and he took away any
`references to '067 patent, '426 patent, changed the
`calculations based on new damage commencement date. He also
`removed references to any reasonable royalty, the rate or
`calculations based on that rate that he had previously
`opined.
`
`So those are the changes that are made. We don't
`believe, Number 1, it's untimely in that he's using the same
`theory, same analysis that he opined in his expert report.
`He was extensively questioned about that during his
`deposition in January. They argue that Mr. Bernatowicz's
`calculations are inconsistent. They are not inconsistent.
`He's using the same theory; same analysis.
`
`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
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`(cid:56)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:87)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:26)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:3)
`(cid:56)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:53)(cid:72)(cid:80)(cid:82)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:38)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:89)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:56)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:87)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:86)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:85)(cid:76)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:49)(cid:82)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:28)
`
`

`

`Case 8:12-cv-00329-AG-JPR Document 398-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 12 of 2041 Page ID
` #:18412
`12
`
`Now, the numbers are different because we have less
`number of patents being asserted. We have shorter period of
`damage now which starts in March 2010, rather than going back
`to 2007. I don't believe we are inconsistent with
`Your Honor's ruling on summary judgement. I think what we
`did is we tried in good faith to comply with Your Honor's
`orders with respect to motion in limine, Daubert motion, and,
`of course, summary judgement ruling. Had we not removed
`references to all of those patents or issues that are no
`longer in the case, I think they would have jumped up and
`objected at trial. So we are caught in a rock and a hard
`place.
`
`We didn't try to sneak this in. We told them about
`this in our original trial exhibit list. We told them in our
`motion in limine that we intend to do so.
`THE COURT: Wait. I didn't understand that last
`
`sentence.
`
`MR. LEE: Well, we informed them that the -- that
`Mr. Bernatowicz would update his expert calculations based on
`whatever rulings that Your Honor may render on Daubert
`motions, summary judgement motions, and, of course, motions
`in limine. So we don't believe the supplementation of these
`calculations. These aren't new opinions. These are merely
`calculations. We don't believe they are untimely or
`inconsistent.
`
`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
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`(cid:56)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:87)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:26)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:3)
`(cid:56)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:53)(cid:72)(cid:80)(cid:82)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:38)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:89)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:56)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:87)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:86)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:85)(cid:76)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:49)(cid:82)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:28)
`
`

`

`Case 8:12-cv-00329-AG-JPR Document 398-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 13 of 2041 Page ID
` #:18413
`13
`
`Lastly, they talk about the supposed sales
`projection. I think I will be frank with Your Honor. They
`were ordered in July last year to provide us with the sales
`summaries and underlying sales information. When we got
`their information at that time, we got information through
`February 2013, which was the -- whatever the information we
`believe they had.
`And after the summary judgement motion ruling, I
`went back to Mr. Kang of URC and asked, are you going to
`supplement the sales figures for the trial? For the first
`time he said, no, we are not. We are not going to give it to
`you.
`
`So we filed a motion in limine with Your Honor
`asking Your Honor to bar them from challenging whatever
`projections that we may make based on actual historical sales
`figures. Your Honor denied that, which means URC, at least
`in our view, is free to contest at trial accuracy or the
`veracity of whatever estimates that Mr. Bernatowicz may make
`for February 2013 going forward. But we should not be
`precluded from seeking damages for the products that are sold
`in February 2013 and forward because URC failed to supplement
`sales, summaries, or underlying information.
`THE COURT: All right. Given all of the
`circumstances in this case and given the arguments just made,
`I'm going to grant the motion to strike. The motion to
`
`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
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`(cid:56)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:87)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:26)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:22)(cid:3)
`(cid:56)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:53)(cid:72)(cid:80)(cid:82)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:38)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:89)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:56)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:87)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:86)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:85)(cid:76)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:49)(cid:82)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:28)
`
`

`

`Case 8:12-cv-00329-AG-JPR Document 398-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 14 of 2041 Page ID
` #:18414
`14
`
`strike is granted.
`Now, let us turn to the case at hand which is
`basically the jury instructions. I've been involved in some
`pretty big cases as a lawyer and as a judge over 35 to
`40 years. I've never seen a case with over 100 pages of
`objections to jury instructions. Never have seen such a
`case. So I ask why is that going on in this case?
`Frankly, I've been involved in cases with more
`complex technology and more complex issues. So I issued the
`order saying let's meet and confer and try to get our arms
`around this. How much meet-and-conferring went on? Because
`I actually think the objections got longer after I issued my
`order. I don't know what kind of statement that is. The
`Court says, it's being overdone. Meet and confer. 100 pages
`it's too much. Re-file. The re-filing is bigger. What kind
`of a statement is that? It's not an example of effective
`advocacy. It's just not.
`So how much meeting and conferring has been going
`on concerning these jury instructions? Anybody? Is the
`meet-and-conferring one of those deals where it's the low-
`level people without much getting accomplished? How much
`meet-and-conferring has there been concerning the jury
`instructions?
`MR. CHANDLER: Many, many hours. Many, many
`communications back and forth. It's -- our point person has
`
`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
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`(cid:56)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:87)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:26)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:3)
`(cid:56)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:53)(cid:72)(cid:80)(cid:82)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:38)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:89)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:56)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:87)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:86)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:85)(cid:76)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:49)(cid:82)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:28)
`
`

`

`Case 8:12-cv-00329-AG-JPR Document 398-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 15 of 2041 Page ID
` #:18415
`15
`
`been Ms. Chi who is a junior associate, but she's not doing
`this on her own. She's doing this on behalf of -- in
`consultation with every member, including the senior members
`of our trial team.
`I believe there have been -- I can't comment on how
`much time the opposing counsel spent, but dozens of hours
`have been spent on this issue of the jury instructions.
`THE COURT: Well, now wait a minute. I have no
`doubt that internally dozens and dozens of hours have been
`spent as reflected in this. (Indicating) I'm asking how
`much time has been spent discussing among each other?
`MR. CHANDLER: That's my response. That there have
`
`been --
`
`THE COURT: What does the plaintiff say about how
`much time has been spent meeting and conferring about the
`instructions?
`MR. LANEY: Your Honor, we've spent substantial
`time. Ms. Kenneally was the point person on our end. She's
`a partner at our law firm. She was dealing with Ms. Chi.
`But we've spent, perhaps -- well, the answer is we spent a
`lot of time trying to go back and forth with opposing
`counsel.
`
`I think -- I will point out one thing, which is
`Your Honor has referred to the previous case in which we
`settled on the doorsteps a couple weeks ago. I will point
`
`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
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`(cid:56)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:87)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:26)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:24)(cid:3)
`(cid:56)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:53)(cid:72)(cid:80)(cid:82)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:38)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:89)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:56)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:87)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:86)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:85)(cid:76)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:49)(cid:82)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:28)
`
`

`

`Case 8:12-cv-00329-AG-JPR Document 398-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 16 of 2041 Page ID
` #:18416
`16
`
`out that we were the defendants in that case.
`THE COURT: You were the defendants and couldn't
`get your indemnifying German fella out here. I understand
`all of that.
`MR. LANEY: Your Honor, but my point with all of
`that is we didn't have any jury instruction problems. That
`was on the defendant. We did the model jury instructions.
`We recognized that they were objective and fair. On this
`one, we did the same approach. Only now I'm the plaintiff.
`I'm being consistent with the idea that I'm trying to follow
`something that doesn't interject people's arguments that are
`written to be neu