Case 4:22-cv-03892-YGR Document 118 Filed 11/09/22 Page 1 of 4
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`GENTEX CORPORATION and INDIGO
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`Case No. 4:22-cv-03892-YGR
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`THALES VISIONIX, INC.,
`
`JOINT [PROPOSED] ORDER
`REGARDING CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION AND DISCOVERY
`
`Involuntary Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`META PLATFORMS, INC. and META
`PLATFORMS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`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
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`JOINT [PROPOSED] ORDER
`
`Case No. 22-cv-3892-YGR
`
`IPR2022-01308
`Exhibit 2002
`Page 1 of 4
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-03892-YGR Document 118 Filed 11/09/22 Page 2 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) and the Notice Setting a Case Management
`
`Conference (Dkt No. 88), the parties to the above-titled action, Plaintiffs Gentex Corporation and
`
`Indigo Technologies, LLC (collectively, “Gentex”), and Defendants Meta Platforms, Inc. and Meta
`
`Platforms Technologies, LLC (collectively, “Meta”) jointly filed a case management conference
`
`statement (“CMC Statement”) (Dkt. No. 113) agreeing to certain case management issues and
`
`limitations on discovery.
`
`With respect to claim construction, the parties have agreed that no technical tutorial is
`
`necessary. The parties further agreed that claim construction will proceed on the parties’ prior
`
`briefing as submitted in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. There
`
`are, at present, a total of 12 disputed claim terms to be presented to this Court during the Markman
`
`hearing.1
`
`Further, finding that good cause exists, the Court ORDERS that discovery proceed as
`
`stipulated in the parties’ CMC Statement (Dkt. No. 113), as set forth below:
`
`1. Other than as modified below, discovery shall be conducted in accordance with the
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`2. The parties shall be limited to 15 depositions of party and non-party witnesses,
`
`including witnesses noticed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6). Claim construction and
`
`venue depositions conducted before transfer do not count towards the 15 depositions
`
`allowed under this section. The time limitations of Rule 30(d)(1) shall apply to all
`
`depositions, unless otherwise agreed by the parties. The depositions of testifying
`
`experts are not included within the total number of depositions allowed to each side.
`
`3. Each deposition of an expert witness shall be limited to seven (7) hours, unless
`
`otherwise agreed by the parties or ordered by the Court in light of the scope of
`
`testimony.
`
`
`1 In the Western District of Texas, the parties briefed a total of 14 disputed claim terms (1 raised by
`Gentex and 13 raised by Meta) pursuant to a ruling from that Court granting leave to do so. On
`October 21, 2022, pursuant to the Scheduling Order, Gentex served infringement contentions that
`narrowed the number of asserted claims and eliminated the claims associated with two of Meta’s
`identified disputed terms.
`JOINT [PROPOSED] ORDER
`
`Case No. 22-cv-3892-YGR
`
`1
`
`
`
`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
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`IPR2022-01308
`Exhibit 2002
`Page 2 of 4
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-03892-YGR Document 118 Filed 11/09/22 Page 3 of 4
`
`
`
`
`4. The parties are limited to 25 interrogatories per party, excluding any venue or claim
`
`construction interrogatories served prior to transfer of the case to this Court.
`
`5. The parties are limited to 50 requests for admission with respect to substantive
`
`matters. However, no limits shall be placed on the number of requests for admission
`
`concerning the authenticity of a document.
`
`6. Service by email is effective on Gentex at Gentex-Meta@wc.com and 22-
`
`3892@cases.warrenlex.com, and on Meta at Facebook-Gentex@kirkland.com.
`
`Service by email will be treated as service by hand delivery. For documents not filed
`
`through the Court’s ECF system, service by email by 8:00 PM Pacific time on a given
`
`day shall be treated as service by personal delivery that day. Documents filed
`
`publicly through the Court’s ECF system need not be separately served by email or
`
`otherwise and that ECF filing constitutes personal service as of the date and time such
`
`document was filed. Documents filed under seal or manually must be served by
`
`email or other electronic means including FTP transfer within a reasonable time
`
`following a related ECF filing, and the email service of such documents shall relate
`
`back to the time of the related ECF filing.
`
`7. Information concerning documents or things otherwise protected by the attorney-
`
`client privilege, work product immunity, or other privilege or protection (“Privileged
`
`Materials”) that were created after July 22, 2021 (the “cut-off date”) do not generally
`
`need to be included on any privilege log, but if Meta waives attorney-client privilege
`
`to defend against willful infringement, the parties will discuss a procedure for logging
`
`documents after the cut-off date to ensure that sufficient information is provided to
`
`resolve any disputes about the proper scope of the waiver.
`
`a. Absent such waiver, Privileged Materials created by or on behalf of, or
`
`exchanged by a party with, a party’s own litigation counsel, regardless of their
`
`date, do not generally need to be included on any privilege log. The parties
`
`are discussing but not have yet agreed on the procedure and scope for logging
`
`any allegedly Privileged Materials shared or exchanged between Gentex and
`
`JOINT [PROPOSED] ORDER
`
`2
`
`Case No. 22-cv-3892-YGR
`
`
`
`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
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`IPR2022-01308
`Exhibit 2002
`Page 3 of 4
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-03892-YGR Document 118 Filed 11/09/22 Page 4 of 4
`
`involuntary plaintiff, Thales Visionix, Inc. The parties will raise disputes, if
`
`any, with the Court at the appropriate time.
`
`b. To the extent one party has good cause to request the logging of certain
`
`identified categories of documents after the cutoff date or created by or on
`
`behalf of or exchanged with litigation counsel, the requesting party may
`
`request such a log from the producing party. If the producing party does not
`
`agree, the requesting party may move the Court for an order requiring the
`
`producing party to provide such a log.
`
`8. The protections provided in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(B) and (C) will apply equally to
`
`expert declarations as they do to expert reports, including both drafts of declarations
`
`and communications related to declarations. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4),
`
`draft expert reports, notes, outlines, and any other writings leading up to an expert’s
`
`final report(s) are exempt from discovery. In addition, all communications with and
`
`all materials generated by an expert with respect to his or her work on this action are
`
`exempt from discovery unless relied upon by the expert in forming his or her
`
`opinions. If an expert produces a report, the expert must produce his or her final
`
`report and all materials on which he or she relied.
`
`9. The parties will negotiate a stipulation governing discovery of electronically stored
`
`information and will file the stipulation with the Court when negotiations are
`
`complete.
`
`Further, the Court hereby ORDERS that the Markman hearing shall proceed on January 13,
`
`2023 at 9:00 am, and that, except for two terms removed due to Gentex’s reduction of asserted
`
`claims, claim construction will proceed on the parties’ prior briefing on a total of 12 terms.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED
`
`Date: 11/9/2022
`
`JOINT [PROPOSED] ORDER
`
`3
`
`Case No. 22-cv-3892-YGR
`
`YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`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
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`IPR2022-01308
`Exhibit 2002
`Page 4 of 4
`
`