throbber
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`
`1
`
`RAI STRATEGIC HOLDINGS, INC.,
`et al.,
`Plaintiffs,
`v.
`ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES, LLC,
`et al.,
`Defendants.
`TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION HEARING PROCEEDINGS
`(VIA ZOOM CONFERENCE)
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE THERESA C. BUCHANAN,
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`)))))))))))))
`
`Civil Action
`No. 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB
`December 4, 2020
`11:06 a.m.
`
`APPEARANCES:
`For the Plaintiffs:
`
`Charles Bennett Molster, III, Esq.
`The Law Offices of Charles B.
`Molster III, PLLC
`2141 Wisconsin Ave NW, Suite M
`Washington, DC 20007
`703-346-1505
`Email: Cmolster@molsterlaw.com
`Jason Burnette, Esq.
`Jones Day
`1420 Peachtree Street, N.E.,
`Suite 800
`Atlanta, Georgia 30309-3053
`1-404-521-3939
`Jburnette@jonesday.com
`Sanjiv Prakash Laud, Esq.
`Jones Day
`90 South Seventh Street,
`Suite 4950,
`Minneapolis, MN, 55402
`612-217-8800
`Email: Slaud@jonesday.com
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter
`(703)549-4626 * scottwallace.edva@gmail.com
`
`LG Display
`Exhibit 1031
`LG Display v. Solas
`IPR2020-01238
`
`Ex. 1031-001
`
`

`

`2
`
`APPEARANCES: Cont.
`
`For the Defendants:
`
`Maximilian Antony Grant, Esq.
`Latham & Watkins LLP (DC)
`555 11th St NW, Suite 1000
`Washington, DC 20004-1304
`202-637-2200
`Email: Max.grant@lw.com
`Lawrence Jay Gotts, Esq.
`Latham & Watkins LLP (DC)
`555 11th St NW
`Suite 1000
`Washington, DC 20004-1304
`(202) 637-2200
`Fax: (202) 637-2201
`Email: Lawrence.gotts@lw.com
`
`Court Reporter:
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, RMR, CRR
`Official Court Reporter
`United States District Court
`401 Courthouse Square
`Alexandria, VA 2231-5798
`703.549.4626
`scottwallace.edva@gmail.com
`Proceedings reported by machine shorthand, transcript produced
`by computer-aided transcription.
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter
`(703)549-4626 * scottwallace.edva@gmail.com
`
`Ex. 1031-002
`
`

`

`3
`
`FRIDAY MORNING SESSION, DECEMBER 4, 2020
`(11:06 a.m.)
`THE COURTROOM CLERK: RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc., et
`al., versus Altria Client Services, LLC, et al., 20-cv-393.
`Counsel, please note your appearances for the record.
`MR. MOLSTER: Good morning, Your Honor. Charles Molster
`on behalf of the plaintiffs, and with me are a number of Jones
`Day lawyers. If you would like them to all enter their
`appearances, I'm sure they would be happy to. They include Jason
`Burnette from the Atlanta office, who is pro hoc vice. He will
`address defendant's motion to stay, with the Court's permission;
`and Sanjiv Laud, who is from Jones Day, the Minneapolis office,
`and, with the Court's permission, he will address Reynolds's
`motion to compel and motion to strike.
`MR. GRANT: Your Honor, Max Grant on behalf of the
`defendants, and arguing with me or sharing the load today will be
`Larry Gotts.
`THE COURT: All right. Mr. Grant, are you actually at a
`podium? Like, are you recording this?
`MR. GRANT: Yes, Your Honor, we are. The way we do these
`remote hearings and remote trials is we actually have a sound
`stage set up so that it has the feel and look of a courtroom.
`MR. MOLSTER: I've got to get one of those.
`THE COURT: Better than where I am right now.
`MR. GRANT: Well, candidly, Your Honor, I was going to say
`
`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
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter
`(703)549-4626 * scottwallace.edva@gmail.com
`
`Ex. 1031-003
`
`

`

`4
`
`you look like you're on a movie set. That looks exactly like
`what I would expect a judge's background to look.
`THE COURT: I managed to get the picture of the Supreme
`Court Reporters behind me. When I tried to do the one with the
`seal that some of the other judges have done, that was the limit
`of my technological capabilities, and I just gave up and went
`with the Supreme Court Reporters.
`MR. GRANT: If you can believe it, Your Honor, we actually
`have two of these sound stages, and the other one is being used
`for a virtual trial that's ongoing.
`THE COURT: That's great. All right. So, I have all of
`the motions. I read all of the replies. And before I get
`started, one thing I just wanted to bring up was it appears that
`we did not receive -- and I'm not going to yell at you right now
`because I think we're having Clerk's Office issues as well, but
`we checked everywhere, checked Judge O'Grady's chambers, and it
`appears that Reynolds did not give us courtesy copies this week
`of any of their pleadings.
`MR. LAUD: Well, that's a --
`MR. MOLSTER: Your Honor, I think I checked on that, and I
`think I was told that they were all delivered, Your Honor. So,
`if that's the case, we profusely apologize, but we're obviously
`aware of the rule, and we thought we complied.
`THE COURT: If you could make sure. Mr. Molster, if you
`don't mind just checking on it, I would love to know if they 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
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter
`(703)549-4626 * scottwallace.edva@gmail.com
`
`Ex. 1031-004
`
`

`

`5
`
`dropped in the drop box outside of the Clerk's Office and if they
`had my name on them or if they had Judge O'Grady's name on them,
`because we've checked everywhere. And if it was the Clerk's
`Office's fault, I want to make sure that I follow through with
`them and don't let them off the hook on this.
`MR. MOLSTER: Very good, Your Honor. We'll do so. And my
`apologies. If it was our mistake, which I don't know, but it's
`my understanding that it's not. But if it was, we profusely
`apologize.
`THE COURT: We just want to make sure in the future that
`you do it, but, in this instance, please let me know where they
`were delivered because I want to make sure that whoever is
`handling these --
`MR. MOLSTER: With the Court's permission, may I send
`Erica an e-mail on that?
`THE COURT: That's totally fine.
`MR. MOLSTER: Thank you, Your Honor.
`THE COURT: Okay. So, sa I said, I read everything. I
`even read the replies that came in yesterday, and I don't feel
`like I need much oral argument. Is there anything that you all
`want to add? I was going to address the motion to stay first
`because, frankly, that would moot everything else.
`Is there anything that you all need to add to that? Okay.
`Hearing nothing --
`MR. GRANT: Your Honor -- Look, Your Honor, if you're
`
`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
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter
`(703)549-4626 * scottwallace.edva@gmail.com
`
`Ex. 1031-005
`
`

`

`6
`
`ready to roll, so be it.
`THE COURT: I am. And what I'm going to tell you, as to
`the motion to stay, I had a lengthy discussion with Judge O'Grady
`about this yesterday, and we're both of the same mind. We think
`that {indiscernible} --
`THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, Judge. Judge, I'm sorry,
`you weren't coming through. Could you repeat that last sentence,
`please?
`THE COURT: We think that the motion to stay should be
`granted; as to the counterclaims as well. It should be stayed in
`its entirety. They -- we think it makes sense for them to decide
`whether or not to institute review first, and, if granted, then
`they, of course, will rule on the merits, because otherwise it's
`a waste of judicial resources.
`We noticed that you had litigation pending in, I think,
`North Carolina, and I can see -- and frankly, because of COVID,
`we've passed on doing jury trials again. I would not be
`surprised, and Judge O'Grady said it, that he would expect that
`we wouldn't actually go to trials again until maybe 2022, maybe
`the end of 2022, because they have to do all of the criminal jury
`trials first.
`So, as I already stated, it does not seem appropriate to
`proceed on the counterclaims if the claims by the plaintiff are
`stayed, so we --
`MR. GRANT: Can I just briefly be heard on that, Your
`
`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
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter
`(703)549-4626 * scottwallace.edva@gmail.com
`
`Ex. 1031-006
`
`

`

`7
`
`Honor?
`THE COURT: Okay.
`MR. GRANT: You know, look, I understand the Court's
`ruling, and my only point would be this, Your Honor: The rule
`that we thought made sense for the Court to adopt is one that
`says, you know, you will stay the case if the IPR petitions are
`instituted.
`As to the counterclaims, there have been no IPR petitions
`filed, much less considered, and so the concern I have from my
`client's perspective is, you know, we're staying a case just
`because they're saying they may file them. And even if they did
`file them, it would be hard for them to demonstrate diligence
`because here we are six months down the road.
`THE COURT: I am not staying it because they might file
`it. That's a separate issue. And I don't think that that is a
`good reason to stay, because they haven't even filed it. I'm not
`basing it on that. It just makes no sense to proceed with this
`piecemeal, and especially when we're not going to get to trial
`any time soon.
`So, Judge O'Grady and I, as I said, discussed this
`yesterday. We agreed that this was the proper thing to do, so
`it's stayed in its entirety. You all are welcome to appeal me,
`but, frankly, I think that might be a waste of time.
`MR. GRANT: And I appreciate the Court's insight that it's
`conferred with Judge O'Grady. That's very helpful. We'll be --
`
`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
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter
`(703)549-4626 * scottwallace.edva@gmail.com
`
`Ex. 1031-007
`
`

`

`8
`
`So, can I ask --
`THE COURT: Sure, go ahead. Go ahead.
`MR. GRANT: Can I ask the Court this, because it's
`relevant to the timing for the motion to reconsider which is on a
`very short time-frame, particularly in light of your last
`statement, you know. One thing I don't want the PTAB to rely on
`is to rely on the fact that the stay order is issued by a
`magistrate judge and is subject to an, arguably, report and
`recommendation, objections and the like, and so one thing I would
`ask the Court to consider is whether that order could be issued
`by Judge O'Grady, because the deadline that we're facing in the
`PTAB is just a week away or a little bit over a week away, and I
`don't want the response from Jones Day to the PTAB being, Well,
`this isn't really a stay, it's just a report and recommendation.
`So that's one question.
`And then the other question I have, Your Honor, is what
`will be the deadline for the stay? In other words, I understand
`the Court is staying the case with respect to our IPRs. What
`makes sense to me is that it's stayed until there's an
`institution decision or a denial on the merits.
`Is there -- when do we know to come back in front of the
`Court and say it's time to lift the stay, nothing's happened?
`THE COURT: Well, I think it's appropriate, frankly, that
`we do what counsel for the defendants suggested, which was to
`report back within three days, once they have any kind of
`
`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
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter
`(703)549-4626 * scottwallace.edva@gmail.com
`
`Ex. 1031-008
`
`

`

`9
`
`indication from the PTAB as to what they're going to do. I think
`it's on page -- on their reply, page -- the reply on the last
`page.
`"The parties should further be directed to file a joint
`status report three days following each decision by the PTAB so
`that the Court and the parties may revisit the appropriateness of
`a continued stay," and I think that's the appropriate thing to
`do.
`
`With regard to everything else here, and I'll get to that
`now, I'm staying this with regard to motions that you all may
`file, but what I'm not going to do is stay it as to things that
`need to be cleaned up in discovery. I don't expect you all to
`just do nothing, stop production that's already in the process of
`going on. I want you to finish that process -- finish that
`production and finish answering any discovery that may be out
`there. I don't want you bringing a motion to compel if you think
`that it wasn't answered completely at this point. We'll deal
`with that later. But I want you to produce everything. So that,
`you know, for instance, affects the plaintiffs' motion to compel
`because I think you're in the production on that one, and --
`MR. GRANT: And I can confirm for the Court that that
`production is complete.
`THE COURT: Okay. And the timeliness issue is,
`effectively, mooted on the defendants' -- on the plaintiffs'
`motion to strike the infringement contentions. So, you know, all
`
`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
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter
`(703)549-4626 * scottwallace.edva@gmail.com
`
`Ex. 1031-009
`
`

`

`10
`
`of those motions, because they both deal with timeliness issues,
`I think are mooted in terms of the argument on timeliness.
`So, basically, whatever else is in the works I want you to
`complete. It doesn't necessarily mean that the expert reports
`need to be produced. I don't think that they do. But what I
`would like you all to do is to come up with a timeline that makes
`sense. As soon as we hear from the PTAB, you all in the
`meantime, before you even hear from them, meet and confer about
`what -- because I don't want to be fooled with later on. You all
`figure out now, you know, okay, once the stay is lifted, how many
`days to finish this, how many days to do that. Figure it out now
`so when the stay is lifted we're ready to go. Okay?
`MR. GRANT: Understood.
`THE COURT: Okay. The only other issue, then, is with
`regard to the defendants' motion to compel a complete answer to
`Interrogatory 7. Do you all have anything that you want to add
`with regard to that on behalf of the defendants?
`MR. GRANT: No, I don't, Your Honor. I think we'll rest
`on the papers. I think it's crystal clear that we're entitled to
`some of the facts supporting the damages claims, and we've yet to
`receive them.
`THE COURT: I think that their answer is with the third
`supplement, and, frankly, are adequate at this point. I think
`that the additional -- you've got, I think, the basis there for
`it, essentially. And as far as the other details are concerned,
`
`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
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter
`(703)549-4626 * scottwallace.edva@gmail.com
`
`Ex. 1031-010
`
`

`

`11
`
`the expert reports are due soon, and I think you'll be able to
`get that out of the expert report now.
`I think, since -- that's due in another week or so, isn't
`it, perhaps, when the expert reports are due?
`MR. GRANT: I think the expert reports are due in about
`ten days, Your Honor, but what I understand the Court to be
`saying is that that is part of what's stayed. Is that correct or
`wrong?
`THE COURT: Well, you know, it seems to me as though, if
`the -- it might be a waste of time at this point to produce the
`expert reports if the PTAB acts.
`On the other hand, I think, if they do produce it and you
`don't have to produce your expert reports yet, then I think that
`kind of gives an unfair advantage for you to have what could be
`months to produce your expert report.
`So, at this point, I don't think you need to produce the
`expert reports, but I expect counsel for the plaintiffs to be
`ready to file that within the same time period, once the stay is
`lifted. So, if it's due in ten days, I expect, once the stay is
`lifted, you'll file it in ten days. Okay?
`So, is there anything I didn't deal with here? Because
`what I'm going to do is deny that -- I'm denying all of the --
`{indiscernible}.
`THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, Judge. You're not coming
`through.
`
`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
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter
`(703)549-4626 * scottwallace.edva@gmail.com
`
`Ex. 1031-011
`
`

`

`12
`
`MR. GRANT: Your Honor, I just want to make sure I'm a
`hundred percent clear, that the parties are a hundred percent
`clear. So, as of today, or shortly thereafter, we'll have a
`definitive order from the Court staying the case pending
`decisions from the PTAB, at least on the IPRs that are filed.
`As of today, the parties will -- or at least as of the
`close of business, because, obviously, there are depositions
`occurring today, as of close of business today, the parties will
`suspend conduct in the litigation, and, for example, if there's a
`week due from today until expert reports, when we approach the
`Court within three days of those IPR decisions in January and the
`Court deems it correct to lift the stay, we will put up a draft
`schedule before the Court that picks up exactly where we left off
`at the close of business today, i.e., if expert reports are due
`in seven days, they'll be due in seven days from that, and all
`the other scheduling deadlines will follow accordingly.
`THE COURT: Exactly, exactly.
`MR. GRANT: Understood.
`THE COURT: Okay. And I think, if you think there's a
`problem with the PTAB, I'm sure Judge O'Grady will have no
`problem issuing an order staying it.
`MR. GRANT: I think that would be -- I think that would
`help with the PTAB, Your Honor, and it would avoid any motion
`practice regarding objections.
`THE COURT: Okay. Is there anything else, counsel?
`
`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
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter
`(703)549-4626 * scottwallace.edva@gmail.com
`
`Ex. 1031-012
`
`

`

`13
`
`MR. LAUD: May I ask one clarifying question for
`plaintiffs, Your Honor? There are some outstanding discovery
`requests that were just served, I believe, yesterday, and there
`are others, I think, on our side that were in the works that
`haven't quite been served yet. Should we pause on those as well?
`I think I understand Your Honor to be saying we should answer the
`discovery requests that were just served as if -- so that we can
`keep things moving in the background.
`THE COURT: I think it makes sense. I mean, you know, if
`the case is stayed, technically you don't have to, but I hate to
`see you pause in production -- that's the thing -- when we can
`just kind of get that thing wrapped up. And if there are any
`objections to anything, we can deal with that once the stay is
`lifted.
`MR. GRANT: And again, Your Honor, just for clarity,
`continue producing documents. Does the stay/suspension apply to
`other written discovery, or should we continue with any pending
`written discovery?
`THE COURT: I think that you should finish the discovery
`that you've got and not issue new discovery until the stay is
`lifted.
`MR. GRANT: I understand.
`MR. LAUD: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor. And I'll just
`say, before we close, if it's all right, thank you, Your Honor,
`for hearing us virtually today. It was a great help to our side.
`
`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
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter
`(703)549-4626 * scottwallace.edva@gmail.com
`
`Ex. 1031-013
`
`

`

`14
`
`THE COURT: No problem. We don't want people traveling.
`MR. LAUD: Thank you.
`THE COURT: Okay. Anything else that you all can think
`
`of?
`
`MR. GRANT: Nothing further for the defendants.
`MR. MOLSTER: Nothing further for plaintiffs, Your Honor.
`Thank you very much for your time this morning.
`THE COURT: All right. Thank you all. Take care.
`(Proceedings adjourned at 11:21 a.m.)
`
` C E R T I F I C A T E
`
` I, Scott L. Wallace, RDR-CRR, certify that
`the foregoing is a correct transcript from the record of
`proceedings in the above-entitled matter.
`
`12/4/20
` /s/ Scott L. Wallace
` ---------------------------- ----------------
` Scott L. Wallace, RDR, 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
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter
`(703)549-4626 * scottwallace.edva@gmail.com
`
`Ex. 1031-014
`
`

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