throbber
Filed on behalf of TQ Delta, LLC
`By: Peter J. McAndrews
`McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd.
`500 W. Madison St., 34th Floor
`Chicago, IL 60661
`Tel: 312-775-8000
`E-mail: pmcandrews@mcandrews-ip.com
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., DISH NETWORK, LLC,
`COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
`TIME WARNER CABLE ENTERPRISES LLC,
`VERIZON SERVICES CORP., and ARRIS GROUP, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TQ DELTA, LLC
`Patent Owner
`_____________
`
`Case No. IPR2016-010211
`Patent No. 8,718,158
`_____________
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXHIBITS 1022, 1023, 1024,
`1025, and 1028, PORTIONS OF THE TELLADO TESTIMONY (EX. 2013),
`AND PORTIONS OF THE 2nd TELLADO DECLARATION (EX. 1026)
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c)
`
`
`1 DISH Network, L.L.C., who filed a Petition in IPR2017-00255, and Comcast
`Cable Communications, L.L.C., Cox Communications, Inc., Time Warner Cable
`Enterprises L.L.C., Verizon Services Corp., and ARRIS Group, Inc., who filed a
`Petition in IPR2017-00417, have been joined in this proceeding.
`
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent Owner Motion to Exclude
`IPR2016-01021
`
`Patent Owner TQ Delta, LLC submits the following motion to exclude. The
`
`exhibits in question should be excluded for Petitioner’s failure to cite documents
`
`that constitute prior art, its untimely introduction of exhibits on Reply that are
`
`irrelevant to the substantive issues and not cited in the Reply, rendering them
`
`irrelevant, and its expert’s failure to retain copies of testing he performed on which
`
`he relies.
`
`II. EXHIBITS 1022, 1023, 1024, 1025, AND 1028, PORTIONS OF THE
`TELLADO TESTIMONY (EX. 2013) AND PORTIONS OF THE
`SECOND TELLADO DECLARATION (EX. 1026) SHOULD BE
`EXCLUDED
`A. EXHIBIT 1022 SHOULD BE EXCLUDED UNDER AT LEAST
`FED. R. EVID. 402
`
`Exhibit 1022 is a chapter and some additional pages from a book titled
`
`WiMedia UWB. Patent Owner timely objected to Exhibit 1025. See Paper 25 at 1.
`
`Exhibit 1022 was not included with the Petition and it is not cited or
`
`explained in the Reply. It is also not cited in the Second Tellado Declaration
`
`(submitted with the Petitioner Reply). Exhibit 1022 should be excluded for this
`
`reason alone as irrelevant and untimely under Fed. R. Evid. 402, Fed. R. Evid.
`
`403, 37 C.F.R. § 42.23, and/or 37 C.F.R. § 42.61.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Moreover, Exhibit 1022 should be excluded as irrelevant because it is not
`
`Patent Owner Motion to Exclude
`IPR2016-01021
`
`
`
`prior art and therefore irrelevant to the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`as of 1999. Both the book itself and the chapter in question (Ch. 3) bear copyright
`
`dates of 2008. See Ex. 1022 at 3, 11. Patent Owner timely objected to Exhibit
`
`1025. See Paper 25 at 2. There is no evidence that the book or the chapter cited
`
`were publicly-available or otherwise constituted prior art as of 1999, the filing date
`
`of the ’158 patent. See Ex. 1001 at cover. In other words, Exhibit 1022 is nine
`
`years too late. Exhibit 1022 is irrelevant to show or evidence the knowledge of
`
`one of ordinary skill as of the date the invention was made.
`
`The relevant time-frame for patentability is the time of the invention, and no
`
`later than the effective filing date. See Synthon IP, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc., C.A. No.
`
`1:05cv1267, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26115, at *15-17 (E.D. Va. Apr. 6, 2007)
`
`(“[T]he obviousness inquiry asks whether the subject matter ‘would have been
`
`obvious [to one of ordinary skill in the art] at the time the invention was made.’”),
`
`quoting Alza Corp. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 464 F.3d 1286, 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
`
`(emphasis added in Synthon); Walt Disney Prods. v. Fred A. Niles Communs. Ctr.,
`
`Inc., 369 F.2d 230, 234 (7th Cir. 1966) (“The difference between the subject matter
`
`sought to be patented and the prior art must be such that the subject matter as a
`
`whole would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`which said subject matter pertains, as of the date of the invention.”; explaining that
`
`Patent Owner Motion to Exclude
`IPR2016-01021
`
`the use of knowledge from a later date constituted impermissible hindsight).
`
`Because Exhibit 1022 was nine years too late, it is irrelevant under Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 402, and should be excluded.2
`
`B.
`
`EXHIBIT 1025 SHOULD BE EXCLUDED AS IRRELEVANT
`UNDER AT LEAST FED. R. EVID. 402
`
`Exhibit 1025 is a thesis from Petitioner’s Expert. It should be excluded for
`
`multiple reasons. Patent Owner timely objected to Exhibit 1025. See Paper 25 at
`
`2.
`
`Petitioner submitted Exhibit 1025 (Tellado thesis) for the first time on
`
`Reply. Like Exhibit 1022, the thesis was not cited in either the Petition or the
`
`Reply. Exhibit 1025 should be excluded for this reason alone as irrelevant and
`
`untimely under F.R.E. 402, F.R.E 403, 37 C.F.R. § 42.23, and/or 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.61.
`
`Moreover, Exhibit 1025 should be excluded as irrelevant because it is not
`
`prior art and therefore irrelevant to the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`as of 1999. The only expert testimony offered by Petitioner in this case is offered
`
`to show the viewpoint of a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the filing date of
`
`
`2 Exhibit 1022 should also be excluded because it is not cited in either the Reply or
`
`the Second Tellado Declaration.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`November 9, 1999. See Ex. 1009 ¶ 7. But, like Exhibit 1022, there is no evidence
`
`Patent Owner Motion to Exclude
`IPR2016-01021
`
`that the Tellado thesis was publicly accessible as of this filing date. The Tellado
`
`thesis itself lists two dates, without explanation—(1) a copyright date of 2000 (Ex.
`
`1025 at 2); and (2) the statement “September 1999” under the author’s name. Id. at
`
`1. After Patent Owner’s objection to Ex. 1025, Petitioner submitted supplemental
`
`evidence to allege only that the thesis was “catalogued by the Stanford University
`
`Libraries on May 9, 2000 (field 916) and was publicly available from the Stanford
`
`University Libraries since this date.” Ex. 1035 ¶ 2, at 2.
`
`The proponent of the publication, here Petitioner, bears the burden of
`
`producing sufficient proof of dissemination or sufficient proof that the publication
`
`was otherwise available and accessible. See SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys.,
`
`Inc., 511 F.3d 1186, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see also Carella v. Starlight Archery &
`
`Pro Line Co., 804 F.2d 135, 139 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“[O]ne who wishes to
`
`characterize the information, in whatever form it may be, as a ‘printed publication’
`
`should produce sufficient proof of its dissemination or that it has otherwise been
`
`available and accessible to persons concerned with the art to which the document
`
`relates . . . .”).
`
`To be relevant, a publication must have been publicly accessible as of the
`
`effective filing date. In this case, Petitioner has admitted that the relevant date, and
`
`indeed the only date on which its expert offers his opinions regarding the
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`knowledge of a person of ordinary skill is November 9, 1999. See Ex. 1009 ¶ 7.
`
`Patent Owner Motion to Exclude
`IPR2016-01021
`
`The supplemental evidence submitted by Petitioner shows, at best, a date of public
`
`accessibility (“catalog[ing]”) of May 9, 2000, which falls after date of knowledge
`
`of a person of ordinary skill (November 9, 1999) proffered by Petitioner’s expert
`
`(see Ex. 1009 ¶ 7). That date, not surprisingly, matches the earliest claimed filing
`
`date for the ’158 patent. See Ex. 1001 at cover; Ex. 1008. Therefore, the Tellado
`
`thesis (Ex. 1025) is too late in time and is irrelevant to the testimony of Tellado,
`
`and irrelevant to this review under Fed. R. Evid. 402.
`
`C. ALL OR PORTIONS OF PARAGRAPHS 16, 29, 42
`(INCLUDING HEADER), 43, AND 52 OF THE SECOND
`TELLADO DECLARATION (EX. 1026) AND PAGES 46:19-
`47:16, 49:1-50:13, 51:5-56:23, 57:6-12, AND 61:19-23 OF THE
`TELLADO TRANSCRIPT
`(EX.
`2013)
`SHOULD BE
`EXCLUDED
`
`During cross-examination, Petitioners’ expert (Dr. Tellado) testified that he
`
`relied on at least two “MatLab” computer simulations to support his opinions, but
`
`materials relating to only one simulation were provided to Patent Owner. The
`
`materials related to the second simulation were apparently written over, discarded,
`
`and/or withheld from Patent Owner. See Ex. 2013 at 47:9-48:6, 57:6-17, 58:10-14,
`
`59:6-12, 60:3-8, 60:9-20. Patent Owner timely objected to the failure to disclose
`
`or retain evidence and the possible discarding of evidence. See 6/22/17 A. Karp e-
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`mail to counsel; 6/22/17 A. Karp e-mail to Board; Ex. 2013 at 57:25-58:2, 62:13-
`
`Patent Owner Motion to Exclude
`IPR2016-01021
`
`63:4.
`
`In addition to the testing of the 12,000 foot loop that Dr. Tellado performed
`
`and disclosed in connection with his second declaration, Dr. Tellado also
`
`performed an undisclosed simulation using a MatLab script for an “AWG26 loop
`
`of 18,000 feet.” Ex. 2013 at 46:10-18. But, Dr. Tellado testified on cross-
`
`examination that the MatLab script and simulation results for an 18,000 foot loop
`
`formed the basis of his opinion that Dr. Short’s (Patent Owner’s expert) Gaussian
`
`approximation was “poor.” See, e.g., Ex. 2013 at 46:19-47:8, 51:5-20, 52:25-
`
`53:12. When asked about whether he has or had an electronic or hard copy of the
`
`MatLab script or simulation results, whether he communicated the same to anyone
`
`else, or whether he discarded or deleted the same, Dr. Tellado could only say that
`
`did not recall. See, e.g., id. at 47:9-48:6, 57:6-17, 58:10-14, 59:6-12, 60:3-8, 60:9-
`
`20.
`
`Without providing Patent Owner with access to the MatLab simulation
`
`result, Dr. Tellado has not disclosed the facts and data underlying his opinion, in
`
`violation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(b). Under Rule 65(b), when Petitioner’s expert
`
`relied on a technical test or data from it, he was required to “provide an affidavit
`
`explaining” the test and its underlying data. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(b) (setting forth
`
`the requirements of the affidavit); 3D-Matrix, Ltd., v. Menicon Co., Ltd., IPR2014-
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`00398, Paper 11, August 1, 2014. Moreover, it remains impossible to cross-
`
`Patent Owner Motion to Exclude
`IPR2016-01021
`
`examine Dr. Tellado regarding his opinions regarding simulations and his
`
`criticisms of Dr. Short, as reflected in at least (1) Exhibit 1026, Second Tellado
`
`Declaration, ¶ 16 (last 2 sentences), ¶ 29, ¶ 42 (including preceding header), ¶ 43
`
`(first sentence), ¶ 52, and (2) Exhibit 2013, Tellado transcript at 46:19-47:16, 49:1-
`
`50:13, 51:5-56:23, 57:6-12, and 61:19-23. See Altaire Pharma., Inc. v. Paragon
`
`Biotek, Inc., PGR2015-00011, Paper 122, November 14, 2016 (“Without the
`
`necessary information prescribed in § 42.65(b), we cannot determine whether the
`
`evidence Petitioner relies on is credible.”).
`
`Moreover, the unavailable MatLab simulation information was required to
`
`be disclosed as routine discovery at least because (1) it was relied on or cited by
`
`Dr. Tellado during his testimony under 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.51(b)(1)(i); see Lumentum
`
`Holdings, Inc. v. Capella Photonics, Inc., IPR2015-00731, Paper 32, February 5,
`
`2016 (information relied on was required to be disclosed regardless of whether it
`
`was actually called an exhibit in a paper); MaxLinear, Inc., v. Cresta Tech. Corp.,
`
`IPR2015-00594, Paper 35, January 27, 2016 (testimony referencing an exhibit,
`
`although not formally; and (2) it is inconsistent, at least, with Petitioners’ (and
`
`Petitioners’ expert’s) positions regarding the accuracy of Dr. Short’s analysis. 37
`
`C.F.R. §§ 42.51(b)(1)(i), (b)(1)(iii); see also MaxLinear, IPR2015-00594, Paper
`
`35. Therefore, this information should already have been produced.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`As a result of the improper withholding, the following paragraphs of the
`
`Patent Owner Motion to Exclude
`IPR2016-01021
`
`
`
`Second Tellado Declaration (Ex. 1026) should be excluded under Fed. R. Evid.
`
`702 as being based on insufficient facts or data: ¶ 16 (last 2 sentences), ¶ 29, ¶ 42
`
`(including preceding header), ¶ 43 (first sentence), and ¶ 52. For the same reasons,
`
`the following pages of the Tellado transcript (Ex. 2013) should be excluded under
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 702: 46:19-47:16, 49:1-50:13, 51:5-56:23, 57:6-12, and 61:19-23.
`
`As a result of Dr. Tellado’s refusal to disclose the underlying facts and data
`
`on cross-examination, the same portions of the Second Tellado Declaration (Ex.
`
`1026) and the Tellado transcript (Ex. 2013) should also be excluded under Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 705.
`
`For at least these reasons, and due to Dr. Tellado’s withholding of the
`
`simulation data, the above-referenced portions of the Second Tellado Declaration
`
`(Ex. 1026) and Tellado transcript (Ex. 2013) should be excluded under Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 702, 705, 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.51(b)(1)(i) & 41.51(b)(1)(iii), and 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.65(b).
`
`D. EXHIBITS 1023, 1024, AND 1028, AND PORTIONS OF DR.
`TELLADO’S REDIRECT ADDRESSING THE SAME (EX.
`2013) SHOULD BE EXCLUDED UNDER F.R.E. 402, F.R.E 403,
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23, AND/OR 37 C.F.R. § 42.61
`
`Exhibits 1023, 1024, and 1028, each of which was cited in the Reply for the
`
`first time, should be excluded under F.R.E. 402, F.R.E 403, 37 C.F.R. § 42.23,
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`and/or 37 C.F.R. § 42.61. Patent Owner timely objected to these exhibits. See
`
`Patent Owner Motion to Exclude
`IPR2016-01021
`
`Paper 25 at 1-2. Similarly, the portions of Dr. Tellado’s redirect regarding the
`
`same (Ex. 2013 at 146:20-149:7 (Ex. 1023), 149:8-152:25 (Ex. 1024)) should also
`
`be excluded under F.R.E. 402, F.R.E 403, 37 C.F.R. § 42.23, and/or 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.61. Patent Owner also timely objected to this redirect testimony. See Ex. 2013
`
`at 146:20-149:7, 149:8-152:25
`
`These exhibits purportedly attempt to fill in a major shortcoming in the
`
`evidentiary record—namely, there is no evidence in the Petition (besides an
`
`unsupported, conclusory allegation by Petitioners’ expert) that a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that randomizing the phases of
`
`subcarriers in a multicarrier signal would result in a lower peak-to-average power
`
`ratio (“PAR”) in Shively’s system. Both the Petition and Petitioners’ expert’s first
`
`declaration baselessly state: “A POSITA would have recognized that by
`
`randomizing the phase of each subcarrier, Stopler provides a technique that allows
`
`two subcarriers in Shively’s system to transmit the same [one or more] bits, but
`
`without those two subcarriers having the same phase.” Petition at p. 14; Ex. 1009
`
`(Dr. Tellado’s First Declaration) at ¶ 67. No supporting evidence was provided.
`
`Now, when Patent Owner has no chance to respond, Petitioners seek to
`
`remedy this deficiency in the Petition (and first expert declaration) through
`
`attorney argument regarding these exhibits. Exhibit 1023, Petitioners allege,
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`discloses “random phasor transformation” (Paper 20 at 13)—although they never
`
`Patent Owner Motion to Exclude
`IPR2016-01021
`
`explain how such a “phasor” transformation equates to randomizing phases on
`
`each subcarrier to reduce PAR. With respect to Exhibit 1024, Petitioners purport
`
`that it discloses “phase rotated signal parts,” Paper 20 at 13, again with no further
`
`explanation as to how this shows phase scrambling. And regarding Exhibit 1028,
`
`Petitioners merely claim it demonstrates having a “phase rotation applied to each
`
`[DMT] tone.” Paper 20 at 13. Again, no explanation is provided as to how this
`
`equates to phase scrambling to lower PAR.
`
`Thus, Exhibits 1023, 1024, and 1028 are too late and not relevant to the
`
`timely opinions and art actually raised in this review, and thus inadmissible under
`
`F.R.E. 402, 37 C.F.R. § 42.23, and/or 37 C.F.R. § 42.61. Petitioners should not be
`
`allowed to supplant the record by filling in the gaps left by their Petition and
`
`supporting declaration. Moreover, because Patent Owner has no opportunity to
`
`respond to the new exhibits at this late stage, the danger of unfair prejudice
`
`substantially outweighs any minimal probative value they may have, rendering
`
`them inadmissible under Fed. R. 403.
`
`Recognizing the shortcoming in its citations, Petitioner took up these topics
`
`on deposition redirect of its own expert also, in an untimely attempt to fill in the
`
`gaps. See Ex. 2013 at 146:20-149:7 (Ex. 1023), 149:8-152:25 (Ex. 1024). Having
`
`failed to address these exhibits in its Petition, first Tellado Declaration, and Second
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`Tellado Declaration, these exhibits are too late and not relevant to the timely
`
`Patent Owner Motion to Exclude
`IPR2016-01021
`
`opinions and art actually raised in this review, and thus inadmissible for the same
`
`reasons under Fed. R. Evid. 402, 403, 37 C.F.R. § 42.23, and/or 37 C.F.R. § 42.61.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For all the foregoing reasons, TQ Delta respectfully requests that the Board
`
`exclude Exhibits:
`
` Exhibit 1022, WiMedia UWB (including Chapter 3);
`
` Exhibit 1025, the Tellado thesis;
`
` Exhibit 1026, the Second Tellado Declaration, ¶ 16 (last 2 sentences),
`
`¶ 29, ¶ 42, ¶ 43 (first sentence), ¶ 52;
`
` Exhibit 2013, the Tellado Transcript, at 46:19-47:16, 49:1-50:13,
`
`51:5-56:23, 57:6-12, and 61:19-23;
`
` Exhibit 1023, 1024, and 1028, newly-cited art; and
`
` Exhibit 2013, The Tellado Transcript, at 146:20-149:7 and 149:8-
`
`
`
`152:25.
`
`Dated: June 30, 2017
`
`
`
`CUSTOMER NUMBER: 23446
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`/Peter J. McAndrews/
`Peter J. McAndrews
`Registration No. 38,547
`McANDREWS, HELD & MALLOY,
`LTD.
`500 West Madison St., Suite 3400
`Chicago, IL 60661
`Telephone: (312) 775-8000
`
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that the Patent Owner Motion to Exclude in connection with
`Inter Partes Review Case IPR2016-01021 was served on this 30th day of June,
`2017 by electronic mail to the following:
`Lead Counsel
`David L. McCombs
`HAYNES & BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave., Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`Tel. 214-651-5533
`Fax 214-200-0853
`david.mccombs.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`Heidi L. Keefe
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave., Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel. 650-843-5001
`Fax 650-849-7400
`hkeefe@cooley.com
`Dish-TQDelta@cooley.com
`zpatdcdocketing@cooley.com
`
`John M. Baird
`Duane Morris LLP
`505 9th St. NW, Ste 1000
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel. 202-776-7819
`Fax 202-776-7801
`JMBaird@duanemorris.com
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Theodore M. Foster
`Tel. 972-739-8649
`Russell Emerson
`Tel. 214-651-5328
`Jamie H. McDole
`Tel. 972-651-5121
`HAYNES & BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave., Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`Fax 972-692-9156
`ipr.theo.foster@haynesboone.com
`russell.emerson.ipr@haynesboone.com
`jamie.mcdole@haynesboone.com
`Stephen McBride
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave., Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel. 650-843-5001
`Fax 650-849-7400
`smcbride@cooley.com
`
`
`Christopher Tyson
`Duane Morris LLP
`505 9th St. NW, Ste 1000
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel. 202-776-7819
`Fax 202-776-7801
`CJTyson@duanemorris.com
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Dated: June 30, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CUSTOMER NUMBER: 23446
`
`Patent Owner Motion to Exclude
`IPR2016-01021
`
`
`
`
`
`/Peter J. McAndrews/
`Peter J. McAndrews
`Registration No. 38,547
`McANDREWS, HELD & MALLOY, LTD.
`500 West Madison St., Suite 3400
`Chicago, IL 60661
`Telephone: (312) 775-8000
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

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