Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA244522
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`10/23/2008
`
`Filing date:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`91173411
`Plaintiff
`3M Company
`Joel D. Leviton
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3300
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`UNITED STATES
`leviton@fr.com, jal@fr.com, tmdoctc@fr.com
`Other Motions/Papers
`Susan J. Hightower
`shightower@pirkeybarber.com, bbarber@pirkeybarber.com,
`eolson@pirkeybarber.com
`/SJH/
`10/23/2008
`hightower decl.pdf ( 88 pages )(5347453 bytes )
`
`Proceeding
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`Filer's Name
`Filer's e-mail
`
`Signature
`Date
`Attachments
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`3M Company,
`
`Opposer,
`
`V.
`
`Professional Gallery, Inc.,
`
`Applicant.
`
`C-O'300'3UO'3CdO'360'=f-0300‘D0O“D€-O’-‘o
`
`Opposition No. 91 17341 1
`
`DECLARATION OF SUSAN J. HIGHTOWER IN SUPPORT OF
`
`OPPOSER’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO APPLICANTS RENEWED MOTION
`TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES
`
`1, Susan J. Hightower, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I am an attorney with the law firm Pirkey Barber LLP in Austin, Texas, and
`
`counsel for 3M Company (“3M”) in the above-captioned proceeding.
`
`2.
`
`This declaration is submitted in support of Opposer’s Response to App1icant’s
`
`Renewed Motion to Compel Discovery Responses.
`
`3.
`
`Attached as Exhibit P-3 is a true and correct copy of a letter from Dustin R.
`
`DuFault to William G. Barber dated July 30, 2008.
`
`4.
`
`Attached as Exhibit P-4 is a true and correct copy of a letter from Eric R. Olson to
`
`Dustin R. DuFauit dated August 6, 2008.
`
`5.
`
`Attached as Exhibit P-5 is a true and correct copy of an email from Bill Barber to
`
`Dustin DuFault dated September 9, 2008.
`
`6.
`
`Attached as Exhibit P~6 is a true and correct copy of Applicant’s Privilege Log.
`
`

`
`7.
`
`Attached as Exhibit P-7 is a true and correct copy of a letter from Joel D. Leviton
`
`to Dustin R. DuFault dated September 15, 2008 with attachment 3M Company V. Professional
`
`Galiery Inc. Supplemental Privilege Log.
`
`8.
`
`Attached as Exhibit P-8 is a true and correct copy of a letter from Joel D. Leviton
`
`to Dustin R. DuFauit dated July 16, 2007.
`
`9.
`
`Attached as Exhibit P-9 is a true and correct copy of Autotech Technologies
`
`Limited Partnership v. Automaiiondirectcorn, Inc., 248 F.R.D. 556 (ND. 111. 2008), obtained
`
`from the Westlaw database.
`
`10.
`
`Attached as Exhibit P-10 is a true and correct copy of McCord v. Stare Farm Fire
`
`& Casualty Insurance Co, No. 06-4998, 2008 WL 1988850 (ED. La. May 2, 2008), obtained
`
`from the Westlaw database.
`
`11.
`
`Attached as Exhibit P-11 is a true and correct copy of Schmidt v. Levi Strauss &
`
`Co., No. C04-01026, 2007 WL 2688467 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2007), obtained from the Westlaw
`
`database.
`
`12.
`
`Attached as Exhibit P-12 is a true and correct copy of Ponca Tribe ofIndians of
`
`Okiahoma v. Continental Carbon Co., No. CIV-05-445-C, 2006 WL 2927878 (W.D. Olda.
`
`Oct. 11, 2006), obtained from the Westlaw database.
`
`13.
`
`Attached as Exhibit P-13 is a true and correct copy of Wyeth v.
`
`Impax
`
`Laboratories, Inc., 248 F.R.D. 169 (D. Del. 2006), obtained from the Westlaw database.
`
`14.
`
`Attached as Exhibit P-14 is a true and correct copy of Pace v. International Mill
`
`Service, Inc, No. 205 CV 69, 2007 WL 1385385 (N.D. Ind. May 7, 2007), obtained from the
`
`Westlaw database.
`
`

`
`15.
`
`Attached as Exhibit P-15 is a true and correct copy of Kenmcigy Speedway, LLC v.
`
`National Association ofSr0ck Car Auto Racing, Inc., No. 05-138, 2006 WL 5097354 (E.D. Ky.
`
`Dec. 18, 2006), obtained from the Westlaw database.
`
`16.
`
`Attached as Exhibit P-16 is a true and correct copy of Bank Brussels Lambert 12.
`
`Credit Lyonnais (Suisse) S./1., 160 F.R.D. 437 (S.D.N.Y. 1995).
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
`
`foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Austin, Texas this 23” day of October, 2008.
`
`
`
`
`in-
`
`
`Susan J. Hight .
`
`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing DECLARATION OF
`SUSAN J. HIGHTOWER IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSER’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO
`APPLICANTS RENEWED MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES has been
`served via First Class Mail, postage prepaid, to each counsel for Applicant at the addresses
`below, on October 23, 2008:
`
`Dustin R. DuFault
`
`DuFauIt Law Firm
`
`700 Lumber Exchange Building
`Ten South Fifth Street
`
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`
`Paul Egtvedt, Esq.
`2915 Wayzata Blvd.
`Minneapolis, MN 55405
`
`
`
`

`
`EXHIBIT P-3
`
`

`
`l
`
`L.
`
`DUFAULT
`
`
`
`LAW FIRM, P.C.
`
`920 Lumber Exchange Building
`Ten South Fifth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Info@DuFau1t-Law.com
`
`www.DuFault-Law.com
`
`Wednesday, July 30, 2008
`
`Dustin R. DuFault
`Phone: 612-284-7309
`Mobile: 612-250-4851
`Fax: 612-465-8801
`
`Sent Via EIectrom'c Mail
`
`( l3ba1'ber@ pirl(eybarber.com )
`
`Mr. William G. Barber
`
`Pirkey Barber LLP
`600 Congress Avenue
`Suite 2120
`
`Austin, TX 78701
`
`Re:
`
`3M Company v. Professional Gallery, Inc.
`Opposition No.
`:
`91/173,411
`Mark
`:
`FLAG-IT!
`Our File
`:
`P01 .24-01
`
`-
`
`1\/Ir. Barber:
`
`As you indicated in your 21 July 2008 letter to me, 3M was to provide PGI with copies of
`any documents identified during my review on 28 July 2008. In response thereto, please provide
`me with copies of the following documents (each range being no greater than 100 pages):
`
`3MFI0092140 through 3MFI0092161
`3MF.[009364l through 3M1-710093662
`3MFI036219l through 3MFI036220O
`3MFI0362475 through 3MFI0362480
`31\/IFI0421859 through 3i\/IFI0421883
`3MFI0421933 through 3I\/LFI042l966
`
`3MFI0092860 through 3MFI0092903
`3MFI0095894 through 3M_l-710095910
`3l\/IFI0362402 through 31\/11310362419
`31\/JFI0420001 through 3MFI0420100
`3MFI042l984 through 3MFI042203-4
`3IV1FI0422095 through 3MFI0422l02
`
`I look forward to receiving the copies of the above-identified.
`
`Sincerely,
`DuFAULT LAW FIRM, P.C.
`
`
`
`Dustin R. DuFault
`
`Cc: Mr. Joel Leviton
`
`

`
`EXHIBIT. P-4
`
`

`
` I PieyBarb_er.tip.'.'
`
`Eric R. Olson
`
`Sr. Paralegal
`(512) 482-5226 (Direct)
`eolson@pirkeybarber.con1
`
`August 6, 2008
`
`Via Overnight Courier
`
`Dustin R. DuFau1t
`
`DuFault Law Firm, P.C.
`Lumber Exchange Building
`Ten South Fifth Street, Suite 920
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`
`Re:
`
`3114' Company 12. Professional Gallery, Inc.
`Opposition No. 91173411
`
`Dear Dustin,
`
`As requested in your July. 30, 2008 letter to Bill Barber, enclosed are copies of the
`following documents produced to you during your document review at 3M on July 28, 2008:
`
`3MFI0092140 through 3MI*‘I0092161
`3MFI009364l through 3MFI0093662
`3l\/IFI0362191 through 3l\/[FI0362200
`3MFI03 62475 through 3MFI03 62480
`3M_FI0421859 through 3l\zIFI0421883
`3M1"I0421933 through 3l\/11310421966
`
`3MFI0092860 through 3MFI0092903
`31»/11710095894 through 31‘/K310095910
`31\/{F103 62402 through 3l\/K110362419
`3IviFI042000l through 3MFI0420l00
`3lV.EFI042l934 through 3l\/£FI0422034
`3l\/IFI0422095 through 3l\/IF10422102
`
`Please give me a call if you should have any questions.
`
`Very truly yours,
`
`Eric R. Olson
`Sr. Paralegal
`
`CC:
`
`Bill Barber, Esq.
`Susan J. Hightower, Esq.
`Ms. Kari Brunner
`
`512.322.5200
`
`Fax:512.322.52(}‘l
`
`600Congres5Avenue
`
`Suite 2120 Aus1in,Texas78701
`
`w w w .
`
`pirkeyharber.
`
`C
`
`CI
`
`131
`
`

`
`EXHIBIT P--5
`
`

`
`Message
`
`Susan J. Hightower
`
`From:
`
`Biil Barber
`
`Sent:
`
`Tuesday, September 09, 2008 3:42 PM
`
`To:
`
`Cc:
`
`Dustln@DuFault-i_aw.com
`
`‘Joel Leviton‘; Susan J. Hightower; Eric Olson
`
`Subject: RE: 3M Company v. Professional Gallery, Inc. :: Opposition No. 91/173,411
`
`Dustin,
`
`As you requested, here is a list of the issues we would like to discuss with you tomorrow:
`
`‘i. PGl's "Narrowed" Document Requests
`
`We want to make sure we understand what you are proposing on pp. 3-4 of your August 29, 2008 letter, and
`explore with you what we can feasibly do in response in order to satisfy any remaining discovery disputes. Of
`course, we disagree that 3M has failed to comply with Ruie 34 as alleged in your letter. However, it is my
`understanding from your letter that if we provide a satisfactory response to the "narrowed" requests set forth in
`the bullet points on pages 3-4 of your letter, this will resolve the dispute and you will not file any additional motion
`(s) to compel relating to these issues. Please confirm that my understanding of your proposal is correct, or iet me
`know otherwise. Assuming this is correct, we would like to explain to you in our conference call tomorrow what
`we have determined can be done in response to those narrowed requests, and discuss the form in which those
`documents would be produced in electronic format.
`
`2. Privilege Log
`
`With the hope of avoiding any further misunderstandings regarding the parties‘ privilege logs, we would tike to
`clarify the date through which you believe 3M should supplement its privilege log. We understand from your letter
`that yours are not asking for an "updated" privilege log, and we note that the privilege log you produced in this
`matter appears to include documents up to the date of PGl's responses to 3lVl's document requests (which you
`signed on 2/20/07). Similarly, 3iVl's responses to PGl's document requests were served 319/07, and we assume
`that is the date through which you contend 3M's privilege log should include. Please confirm.
`
`3. PGl's Document Production
`
`Aithough we appreciate the supplemental document production (consisting of 39 pages) that you provided
`recently in response to the deficiencies raised in Joel Leviton's letter of August 21, 2007, we still do not
`believe PGi‘s production is complete.
`in particular, the next to last paragraph of Joel's letter discusses Mr.
`Bertram's testimony that the Fields catalog is sent to all of PGl's customers at the beginning of the year, and that
`PG! is abie to track who has pieced orders for flags. As requested in Mr. Leviton’s letter, please produce
`documents sufficient to identify: ('1) each person to whom PG} has sent the Fields catalog; and (2) each person
`who has placed orders for Fields flag products.
`
`We wiii call you tomorrow at 1 p.m.
`
`Thanks,
`Bill
`
`From: Bill Barber
`
`Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 8:52 AM
`To: 'Dustin@DuFault—Law.corn'
`Cc: ‘Joel Leviton'; Susan 3. Hightower; Eric Olson
`Subject: RE: 3M Company v. Professional Gallery, Inc. :: Opposition No. 91/173,411
`
`10/22/2008
`
`

`
`Message
`
`Dustin,
`
`Susan and i are avaiiable for a conference caii at the time you proposed (1 p.m. tomorrow), and of course have
`no problem with your sending a confirming letter after the cail.
`I have to run to a meeting right now, but I will send
`you a fist of issues we would like to discuss later today.
`
`Thanks,
`Bill
`
`
`
`From: DuFauIt Law Firm, P.C. [mai|to:Dustin@DuFauit—Law.com]
`Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 5:17 PM
`To: Bili Barber
`Cc: ‘Joel l.eviton'
`
`Subject: RE: 3M Company v. Professional Gallery, Inc. :: Opposition No. 91/173,411
`
`Mr. Barber:
`
`Please see attached letter.
`
`Sincerely,
`
`/pm re pastry
`DuFauit Law Firm, P.C.
`
`700 Lumber Exchange Building
`Ten South Fifth Street
`
`Minneapolis MN 55402
`Www.DuFautt-Law.com
`Tel:
`612-284-7309
`Mob: 612-250-4851
`
`CONFIDENTJAL NOTICE
`The information in this e-mail and any included attachments is confidential, may be privileged, and is oniy for the
`use of the recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that
`distribution of this e-mail is neither intended nor permissible. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please
`notify the sender immediately by telephone, e—maEi or fax, and destroy all printed and eiectronio copies of this e-
`mail.
`
`-----Original Message----—
`From: Bill Barber imailto:bbarber@piri<eybarber.com]
`Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 3:23 PM
`To: Dustin@DuFault-l.aw.com
`
`Cc: Susan J. Hightower; Eric Olson
`Subject: FW: 3M Company v. Professional Gailery, Inc. :: Opposition No. 91/ 173,411
`
`Dustin,
`
`I just wanted to confirm that Susan and i calied and left you a voice mail message on Friday to discuss
`some of the issues raised in your letter of August 29, as well as a couple of issues we have with your
`production. Please give us a call at your convenience.
`
`Thanks,
`Bill Barber
`
`Pirkey Barber LLP
`600 Congress Avenue
`
`10/22/2008
`
`

`
`Message
`
`Suite 2120
`Austin, TX 78701
`(512) 322-5200 (main)
`(512) 482-5223 (direct)
`(512) 322-5201 (fax)
`bbarber@pirkeybarber.com
`www.pirkeybarber.com
`
`
`From: DuFauIt Law Firm, P.C. [maiito:Dustin@DuFau|t-Law.com]
`Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 9:05 PM
`To: Bill Barber
`Cc: ‘Joel Leviton'
`Subject: 3M Company v. Professional Gallery, Inc. :: Opposition No. 91/ 173,411
`
`Mr. Barber:
`
`Please see attached and confirm receipt hereof by reply email.
`
`Sincerely,
`
`palcaaliy
`/pr-'.a’fi»'r
`DuFauIt Law Firm, PC.
`
`920 Lumber Exchange Building
`Ten South Fifth Street
`
`Mjxmeapolis MN 55402
`www.DuFaL11t—Law.com
`Tel:
`612-284-7309
`Mob: 612-250-4851
`
`CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE
`The information in this e-mail and any included attachments is confidential, may be privileged, and is only
`for the use of the recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified
`that distribution of this e-mail is neither intended nor permissible. If you have received this e-maii by
`mistake, please notify the sender immediateiy by telephone, e-mail or fax, and destroy all printed and
`electronic copies of this e-maii.
`
`10/22/2008
`
`

`
`EXHIBIT P -6
`
`

`
`3M Company V. Professional Gallery, Inc.
`Opposition Number 91/173,41 1
`PGI’s PRIVILEGE LOG
`
`
`
`
`FROM:
`Kevin Goldxick Dustin R.
`
`DuFault
`
`PGI002
`
`DuFault
`
`iDATE:
`05/1 1/05
`Trademark
`Search Results
`
`06/02/05
`
`01/16/07
`
`Appln. N0.
`78/642,201
`3M V. PGI
`
`01/04/07
`
`3M V. PGI
`
`12/22/06
`
`3M V. PGI
`
`Kevin Goldrick
`Kevin Goldrick
`
`12/03/05
`11/21/05
`
`K
`11/21/06
`
`3M V. PGI
`
`3M v. PGI
`
`3M V. PGI
`
`11/19/06
`
`3M V. PGI
`
`08/G3/05
`
`FLAG-IT!
`
`Kevin Goldrick
`Kevin Goldrick
`Kevin Goldrick
`Kevin Goldrick
`Kevin Goldrick
`
`DuFault
`
`as/03/05
`06/23/05
`06/23/05
`06/02/05
`I2/12/06
`
`12/04/06
`
`FLAG-IT I
`
`E
`
`BAND-
`BAND-IT!
`Company Legal
`
`E?(D
`
`3M V. PGI
`
`FLAC-,‘r—IT!
`
`
`
`DuFau1t
`
`DuFauIt
`
`PGI007
`
`DuFault
`
`DuFau1t
`
`PGI010
`
`DuFau1t
`
`DuFau1t
`
`DuFault
`
`PGI025
`
`DuFau1t
`
`PGI027
`
`DuFau1t
`
`PGI030
`
`DuFault
`
`PGIO32
`
`DuFault
`
`PGI04O
`
`DuFau1t
`
`DuFault
`
`PGI079
`
`DuFault
`
`PGIO81
`
`PGI082
`
`
`
`DuFau1t
`
`Kevin Goldrick Dustin R.
`DuFauIt
`Kevin Goldrick Dustin R.
`
`12/12/06
`
`Meeting
`
`12/22/06
`
`3M V. PGI
`
`09/27/06
`
`FLAG-IT!
`
`10/25/06
`
`3M V. PGI
`
`

`
`———
`
`
`PGI083
`Kevin Goldrick
`12/04/05
`
`DuFault
`
`3M V. PGI
`
`
`
`DuFau1t
`
`DuFault
`
`DuFau1t
`
`'
`
`DuFau1t
`
`DuFauIt
`
`DuFauIt
`
`DuFauIt
`
`DuFauIt
`
`DuFau1t
`
`DuFau1t
`
`DuFault
`
`DuFault
`
`DuFault
`
`
`
`PGI097
`
`PGIO99
`
`
`
`

`
`EXHIBIT P-7
`
`

`
`F
`
`f
`
`FISH sz RICHARDSON P.C.
`
`Frcderick P. Fish
`13554930
`
`WK. Richardson
`1859-I951
`
`3
`September 15 2008
`
`VIA MESSENGER
`
`-
`
`Dustin R. DuFault
`DuFau1t Law Finn
`
`Lumber Exchange Building
`Ten South Fifth Street, Suite 920
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`
`3300 Dain Rauschcr Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, Minnesota
`55402-
`
`_
`
`-
`
`Tefephone
`612 ass-5070
`
`Facsimile
`612. 288-9696
`Web Site
`www.Fr.com
`
`J6‘;:[3]337'_I;5°9":t°”
`
`Erna}!
`!°‘“‘°“@f"‘°‘"
`
`®
`ATLANTA
`AUSTIN
`
`Re:
`
`3M Company V. Professional Gallery, Inc.
`Opposition No.: 911734} 1
`Our Ref.: 21733~001PP1
`
`BOSTON
`
`D681‘ DL1SfiI1f
`
`DALLAS
`BMW”
`
`“W "°"“
`SAN DIEGO
`
`’
`.
`Enclosed and served upon you, please find 3M’s Supplementai Pnvllege Log.
`
`Very truly yours,
`
`SILICON VALLEY <>"’B C:'“-
`
`TW1 N CITI BS
`WASH INGTON, DC
`
`_
`Joel D. Levnon
`
`JDU)’ a1
`Enclosure
`
`6{J5261_44.doe
`
`

`
`t...4...Iu._4.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`uuuuaumu_»O_>>>uCL.uH_d..m:.___umuuP_n_
`
`._uMwHcfiam._._u.sou_._a_I
`
`
`
`.cm_.0.3...._._B_>o._
`
`
`
`l_t5_..._m_.E3._m
`
`
`
`co_uB__.._.E..Eou“E20.559_.3n_manEoGm.>zma..._E.fiEauco_umu_:aEEou
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`..—O—ufi_G:EEOUEu.
`
`.u-130ufi‘2n
`
`
`
`
`
`....=.....n...fi.r......:._._...3..n>1m
`
`
`
`=o_umu_c_._EEoU2..u__u>wEm:_Euucoum.EuE_..uuuuufiémm.0.02..._._B_>u._ooo~...m..w._n:n$.__m_mow.“
`
`
`
`
`
`mc_Euucoaflcufianuuufiflumnun_._u_uB__._aEEou
`
`
`
`.and>..
`
`
`
`.mfiu..Euv_.cuPEr
`
`
`
`._.mA:38...n>..ou_..m_Imoo~...n~.¢.
`
`
`
`
`
`mc_Eau:ouflcafiauouuafimfln_u_._m_._o_umu_c:EEou&mJ_un_._u§.=occn_u
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:c_...H__.=..EEuU._Em__u>wE.£<
`
`..fuu.....n...‘I-.14
`
`
`
`J_._n.v_.._u:_._._.:m
`
`
`
`.um_.0En....:B_>v._
`
`nuanhflm
`
`
`
`
`
`_._o_uE__.3EEouu_._u._U>uF_0fl<
`
`
`
`H5uEaate?>u..cofi...._
`
`.-H-4uLu.u...4
`
`
`
`.Tan...-.3a...a
`
`
`
`
`
`.9.___um.uuo._n__._oEmon_n.oHrum.>Em
`
`
`
`._..x.I..._1._umzu_Zéoczmu
`
`0Lu-..
`
`
`
`.._tau....u:cP_m
`
`
`
`1__._mv_.hE:P_m
`
`
`
`._xm.ncfiam.b.sa£m_:waowkut
`
`H<
`
`noomhmxmEI
`
`
`
`
`
`:o_uau_c:E_.._._aU€20>aEoH_<_.._:_..rauc8Bcasfiouuofimumucm_..o_uS_§EEoumnow....H..S mmwu
`
`
`
`r...a.u..1.3:...mmu..
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`..2._a
`
`J..:
`
`moon::3422mSun
`
`
`
`
`
`Ba~...:.m._.Zm=>3UDO.:.wm._mmfl
`
`
`
`ro._m.u__>_......___2._9_B_.§m.u:_m__mU_m:o_mmm..o..u_.>:m.EooEn
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:o_umu_::EEoUu:w=Uco_u_mo9uoHum5Zna..__Faucou_..o_pmu__._aEEou1.:3..bcc:._mBn~.n......n._?.sm_82
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.wfl.0.32...c3_>m1__ncoN...oH.6«._?._..m..33
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`noonhnsm.=<2.u_.89“
`
`
`
`moafimmk._H<zm33
`
`
`
`_Bom_.m..w._H<:mmom."
`
`
`
`.2g5:.g§g§§233u woowkmk._§,mfimn
`
`éfl.nswam..a_saEu__.. 8o~...m~.¢.EEma
`
`onfl
`
`2%
`
`.<mmfimn._._om._u>_mrEv.nm.n
`
`noo~.:.9@Ema
`
`mama
`
`.3o~...flRmama
`
`
`
`_JE_u_.=~xa_<eoflEum-_EEo.So~..m.aU..._Zm_33
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ém.nnan.c3_>mJem...__umfi_:.=a_.Enu.Sa~_.m..n._Ezmmofl
`
`
`
`
`
`I__._3_cuccem._u_M._J_vm_._u¥._..aE_..wnoowaim3..man.“I
`emd32...._3_>u._Bowasa.a..sm_nufl
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.nNM.”
`
`
`
`Hd.emfl
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ba~.....m..mEsmmama.uM_.0B2.cB._>w._.3o~.a~.a.uH,_.n__uon.:5_>3...ao~.5.m.82&m.0E2.:B._>w._.Bo~.....:mama.9.mamaI E._u..m.n__uon53.5..
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`r.uII.1u..
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:aumu_:_._EEuUu:u__U>u..ED.,fi<,nnnfioaaogun..>Emm_.__Emocouco_umu__..:EEauu=_..ncwcncjam...__.....m:u__.._aoccmu&mm.0Ban£og>u._.Bom...m.R._H<_.,_mmumn
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`agea..__,__,_
`
`»4.:=.4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`conmuEaEEo0_Eu=U..6Eofi<_._o_:mon_noBa..>Emm:_Eou:8:onmuE:EEouJ.33..._u_.E:._méwm.0B2..:3_>3.mSmccox._._ou..S_._.Bo~..~.r..n..=<Zmmama
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`fizuflav_.6>>58034am.J.35.:..._oc.._mu
`
`
`
`
`
`,...
`
`I-u.J#4-.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:an_mon_n_oan.>Emm£EuUcoo:OWBHC_._F_F_UUu___.__...._u:_uc_._._uWu..I__un_._um>_._._o:cmm.émm.n_Eon.Euu_>uahwma
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:o_u_m88am5Enuc_EmU.._ou_._on8_c_._EEou1.£3..._uEe..._.___M_.0man.c2._>w._._u.oIn_1_.35.:._._o_..§w.‘.oo~..~dR._:.zm_mama
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.m_.»HBOfl.0O.._Q-W_..U0.._C0v_.qou>m_._
`
`
`
`
`
`o___._ncwc_u_.__._.ummJHwncuzzaoccnm.._.m_.n__wom.:B_>u._
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`...__,n5.03.a:_§_z
`
`
`
`
`
`.._u_.__u_.__._.5.J_um_..u_2.E_.e...u.wfl.n_Eon.:B_>w._ ._H<_)E .u=_.:..2.35:2:._.m_J.35“:.E=_.awaw.n__uon__§_>u._ .m___._nca_.._u..__._.u.m_J_um_..u?_...8_.=._mD.E..m.n_Ban.:3_>u._
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`tumE.7.53...
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.823Em.n_.8”.=2_>u._ cofimoannHum.>Emac_Euucou_._u_u..cm_J_wa_._u=..._aoccawam.n_Eon~cE_>u._ .._ .E§=,_m ém..__u2u=.,_
`
`.%..§_§.u_z.Es.22
`
`
`
`2...;c9i.__._em.n_was.=5Su._.5.._.umfi_:.c9._Eu
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.:o:_..m..w.mm»ouow.._._...._....._omn.Bnéfl1._umo_u__z._a:u_am u=:n..a._u_.fi.Hm..__%fi__.,_
`
`
`
`
`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of 3M
`
`COMPANY ’S SUPPLEMENTAL PRIVILEGE LOG has been served this 15th day of
`
`September, 2008 by Messenger on counsel for the parties as follows:
`
`Dustin R. Dufault
`Dufault Law Firm
`
`Lumber Exchange Building
`Ten South Fifth Street, Suite 920
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`
`xlkxgiu.
`Julie Lindner
`
`WW3»
`
`5D526I52.dDC
`
`

`
`EXHIBIT P—8
`
`

`
`Frederick P. Fish
`1855-I930
`
`WK. Richardson
`1959-195!
`
`to
`ATLANTA
`
`AUSTIN
`
`BOSTON
`
`DALLAS
`
`DELAWARE
`
`NEW YORK
`
`SAN DIEGO
`
`SILICON VALLEY
`
`TWIN CITIES
`
`WASHINGTON. DC
`
`FISH ac RICHARDSON P.C.
`
`Juiy 16 2007
`
`VIA EMAIL
`
`Confirmation by Mail
`
`Dustin R. DuFault
`DuFault Law Firm
`
`Lumber Exchange Buiiding
`Ten South Fifth Street, Suite 920
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`
`_
`3300 Dam Rauscher Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis. Minnesota
`55491
`
`Telephone
`512 33s~so7o
`
`Facsimile
`““'“'9“"”
`Web Site
`www. Fncom
`
`Re:
`
`3M Company v. Professional Gallery, Inc.
`Our Ref.: 21733-001PP1
`
`Dear Mr. DuFau1t:
`
`This responds to your letter of July 1 1, 2007.
`
`As you know from my email of April 23, 2007, 3M’s documents have been available
`for you to review since April 27, 2007. As you also know from that email, 3M’s
`production is substantial in size, given your client’s incredibly broad document
`requests. Despite knowing the considerable size of 3M’s production, you waited for
`over two months —- until July 5, 2007 — to contact me to arrange your review. Your
`client’s delay in reviewing 3M’s documents is entirely of its own making.
`
`With respect to your demand that 3M’s documents be organized to correspond to
`your client’s production requests, as a reminder, Rule 34 requires that “a party who
`produces documents for inspection shall produce them as they are kept in the usual
`course of business o_r shall organize and label them to correspond with categories in
`the requests.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(i) (emphasis added). 3M will comply with the
`rules.
`
`When you arrive at the 3M campus on Wednesday, please go to building 236 (which
`is on the corner of Century and Conway) ask for Ken Hayden. If others will be
`joining you for the review, please provide me their names before Wednesday and
`confirm any such people are authorized, under Paragraph 6 of the Protective order, to
`review 3M’s confidential information.
`
`Very truly yours,
`
`Gsbcggrw
`
`Joel D. Leviton
`
`

`
`EXHIBIT P—9
`
`

`
`Wéstlaw.
`
`248 F.R.D. 556
`
`248 F.R.D. 556
`
`Page 1
`
`H
`
`.
`United States District Court,N.D.
`Illinois,Eastem Division.
`AUTOTECH TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED
`PARTNERSHIP, Plaintiffi
`v
`
`AUTOMATIONDIRECTCOM, INC.,
`Timothy Hohmann and Koyo Electronics
`Industries Co., Ltd., Defendants.
`Autoniationdirectcorn, Inc., Plaintiff,
`V.
`
`Autotech Technologies L.P., AVG
`Advanced Technologies, Inc., Shalli
`Industries, Inc., and Shalabh Kumar,
`Defendants.
`
`No. 05 C 5488.
`
`April 2, 2008.
`
`Background: Manufacturer brought state~
`court action against marketer to recover for
`breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty,
`and fraudulent misrepresentation arising out
`of marketer's development of competing
`touch screen. Defendant moved to compel
`production of electronic copy of document.
`
`Holding: The District Court, Jeffrey Cole,
`United States Magistrate Judge, held that
`plaintiff
`adequately
`complied
`with
`defendant's request for documents.
`
`Motion denied.
`
`West I-Ieadnotes
`
`Federal Civil Procedure
`[11
`63391634
`
`170A
`
`170A Federai Civil Procedure
`
`to Comply
`
`l70AX Depositions and Discovery _
`'
`170AXg§) Discovery and Production
`of Documents and Other Tangible Things
`170AXg§1S Compliance; Failure
`_
`1’70Akl634 k. Sufficiency of
`Compliance. Most Cited Cases
`with
`Plaintiff
`adequately
`complied
`by
`for
`defendant's
`request
`documents
`furnishing electronic copy of documents,
`even if documents were created with word
`
`copy did not
`processing program, but
`contain metadata, where defendant did not
`specify that it wanted metadata as part of
`document
`production.
`Fed.Rules
`Civ.Proc.Rule 34gb);2)§E1gii;, 28 U.S.C.A.
`
`Federal Civil Procedure
`1;]
`$591581
`
`170A
`
`1_7t)_i41I Federal Civil Procedure
`l70AX Depositions and Discovery
`170AXgE) Discovery and Production
`of Documents and Other Tangible Things
`170AX(E13 Particuiar Subject
`
`Matters
`
`l7OAl<;158l k.
`Most Cited Cases
`
`In General.
`
`Courts will not ordinarily compel production
`of metadata when party did not make that
`part of its discovery request. Fed.Rules
`Civ.Proc.Rule 34gbgg2)gEggii ), 28 U.S.C.A.
`
`*557 Kenneth M. Suggs, Francis M. Hinson,
`Janet, Jenner & Suggs, LLC, Columbia, SC,
`‘Cary S. Fleischer, David Seth Argentar,
`Sanjay Shiypuri, Chuhak & Tecson P.C,
`Chicago,
`IL, John Grover Foreman, The
`Law Firm of John G. Foreman, Shorewood,
`IL, Keith Allen Klopfenstein, Keith A.
`
`C) 2008 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
`
`

`
`248 F.R.D. 556
`
`248 F.R.D. 556
`
`Page 2
`
`Klopfenstein, Esq., Chicago, IL, Catherine
`Simmons-Gill,
`Offices
`of
`Catherine
`Simmons-Gill, LLC, Chicago,
`IL,
`for
`Piaintiff.
`
`Robert Eliot Shapiro, Wendi E. Sloane,
`Barack
`Ferrazzano
`Kirschbaum
`&
`
`IL, Alan R.
`Nageiberg LLP, Chicago,
`Lipton, Barry Francis Macentee, Hinshaw &
`Culbertson, Chicago, IL, James A. Trigg,
`Susan A. Cahoon, Virginia S. Taylor,
`Kilpatrick Stockton LLP, Atlanta, GA, for
`Defendants.
`
`MEMORAND UM OPINIONAND
`ORDER
`
`JEFFREY COLE, United States Magistrate
`Judge.
`ADC seeks to compel Autotech to produce
`an electronic copy of a document
`titled
`EZTouch File I Structure. Autotech has
`aircady produced the document in both .PDF
`format on a compact disc and paper format.
`Not good enough says ADC, because the
`document was
`created with
`a Word
`
`processing program and exists in its “native
`forma ”-the way it is stored and used in the
`normal course of business—on a computer at
`Autotech's offices in Bettendorf, Iowa. ADC
`Wants it in this format because it Wants the
`
`"metadata”—information ADC claims
`
`is
`
`within
`
`the
`
`electronic
`
`version of
`
`the
`
`document including when the document was
`created, when it Was modified, and when it
`was designated “confidential.” M
`
`FNl. Metadata, commonly described
`as “data about data,” is defined as “a
`set of data that describes and gives
`information about other data” or
`
`“information about a particular data
`set which describes how, when and
`by whom it was coilected, created,
`
`accessed, or modified and how it is
`formatted
`(including
`data
`demographics such as size, location,
`storage
`requirements
`and media
`information).” It includes all of the
`contextual,
`processing,
`and
`use
`information needed to identify and
`certify the scope, authenticity, and
`integrity of
`active
`or
`archival
`electronic information or
`records.
`
`examples of metadata for
`Some
`electronic documents include: a file's
`
`name, a file's location (e. g., directory
`structure or pathnamc), file format or
`file type, file size, fiie dates (e.g.,
`creation date, date of last data
`modification, date of last data access,
`and
`date
`of
`last metadata
`
`modification), and file permissions
`(e.g., who can read the data, who can
`write to it, who can run it). Some
`metadata,
`such as
`file dates and
`sizes, can easily be seen by users;
`other metadata can be hidden or
`
`embedded
`
`and
`
`unavailable
`
`to
`
`not
`are
`users who
`computer
`technically adept. Scorrs Co. LLC 1’.
`Liberg Mm‘.
`Ins. Co., 2007 WL
`1723509, *3 n. 2 gS.D.Ohio June 12,
`20071 (citations omitted).
`
`ADC explains that this dispute harkens back
`to the motions to compei
`responses to
`interrogatories and. document
`requests it
`filed in March of 2007. (ADC's Motion to
`Compel File Structure Document, at 2-3),
`which
`demanded
`“[e]ach
`and
`every
`document
`identified in your responses to
`accompanying interrogatories and/or used or
`referred
`to
`in
`responding
`to
`said
`interrogatories.”
`(ADC’s Memorandum in
`Support‘ ofIts Motion to Compel Responsive
`Answers (Dkt. # 294), at 10; EX. 2). The
`
`© 2008 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
`
`

`
`248 F.R.D. 556
`
`248 F.R.D. 556
`
`Page 3
`
`to
`pa1t—as
`in
`granted
`motion was
`12,
`interrogatory answers-on September
`2007, and the parties were directed*558 to
`confer
`in good faith over the discovery
`dispute.
`
`and
`Autotech employees, Dick Glover
`Michael Horn,
`submitted
`their
`sworn
`declarations as to their efforts to provide
`ADC with the file at
`issue.
`(Autoteclfs
`Response to ADC’s Motion to Compel, Ex.
`2). They
`saved
`two
`electronic
`files—
`specifically,
`two
`Microsoft Word
`documents-to a compact disc. (Id, Decl. of
`Richard Glover, ll 2; Decl. of Michael Horn,
`1l 2). The files came directly from Autotech's
`engineering server, where they are kept in
`the ordinary course of business. No change
`was made to the documents, their contents
`or their metadata during the process of
`“burning” the electronic files to compact
`disc. (Decl. of Richard Glover, 1] 3; Decl. of
`Michael Horn, fill] 3-4).
`
`One of the two Microsoft Word documents
`
`contained the text of Autotech’s “PGI” file
`
`interface
`the operator
`is
`structure. PGI
`program Autotech employed to create the
`EZTouch panel. Autotech calls
`it
`the
`predecessor or forerunner of the EZTouch
`file structure. The creation and history of
`these
`computer
`files
`dates
`back
`to
`approximately
`1991.
`As
`Autotech's
`employees did not use Word in the early
`1990s, the PGI file structure was most likely
`written in some type of a word processing
`program other than Microsoft Word and was
`converted to a Word format sometime in the
`
`mid 1990s. (Decl. of Richard Glover, ‘H 4).
`
`structure document
`only EZTouch file
`Autotech maintains. Autotech does not, and
`historically has not, independently preserved
`older files at the time of revision. That is to
`
`say, as the EZToueh file structure has been
`changed and updated, each newer version of
`the file structure document has been added
`
`the top of the previous version.
`over
`Nevertheless,
`one
`can
`follow
`a
`chronological history of changes to the file
`structure by viewing the
`face of
`the
`document
`itself. Pages 7-15 provide the
`“Document Modification I-iistory.” It is a
`chronological list of all changes that have
`been made since the BZTouch file structure
`
`was created from the PGI design document
`on February 9, 2000. Prior history and
`contents of this document are contained in
`
`the PGI file structure document described
`
`above. (Decl. of Michael Horn, 1] 5).
`
`As the instant motion makes clear, ADC is
`not satisfied with the efforts of Mssrs.
`
`Glover and Horn. It complains that the file
`was not produced in its native format-a
`Microsoft Word
`document
`on
`an
`
`engineering computer at Autotech's offices-
`but in .PDF, or portable document format,
`and a hard copy. The problem with that,
`According to ADC, is that these format do
`not contain metadata which would show the
`
`document,
`the
`of
`history
`electronic
`especially when the document was
`first
`created,
`and when the document was
`designated “confidential.”
`
`Fed.R.Civ.P.
`production
`information:
`
`controls
`34§b1g2ggE1
`of
`electronically
`
`the
`stored
`
`The second Microsoft Word documents
`
`contained the text of Autotech‘s current file
`
`structure for the EZTouch panel. It is the
`
`the Docmnenrs
`Producing
`(E)
`Stored
`Infimnation.
`Electronically
`Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by
`
`or
`
`© 2008 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
`
`

`
`248 F.R.D. 556
`
`248 F.R.D. 556
`
`Page 4
`
`these procedures apply to
`court,
`the
`producing documents
`or
`electronically
`stored information:
`
`(i) A party must produce documents as
`they are kept
`in the usual course of
`business or must organize and label them
`to correspond to the categories in the
`request;
`
`(ii) If a request does not specify a form
`for
`producing
`electronically
`stored
`information, a party must produce it in a
`form or forms in which it is ordinarily
`maintained or
`in a reasonably usable
`form or forms; and
`
`(iii) A party need not produce the same
`electronically stored information in more
`than one form.
`
`Here, ADC did not specify a form for the
`production of the document at
`issue, so
`Autotech had the option of producing it in
`the
`form in which it was ordinarily
`maintained, or
`in a reasonably usable
`forrnw
`
`FN2. The case upon which ADC
`relies, Hagenbuch v. 386 Sistemi
`
`Elettronici Iirdzrstrirrli S.R.L.
`2006
`
`([§.D.Ill. Mar.8,
`*1
`WL 665005,
`2006}, does not suggest otherwise.
`There,
`the
`plaintiff
`specifically
`requested
`“identical,
`electronic
`copies of the electronic media” at
`issue, making it clear
`that paper
`copies would
`not
`suffice.
`It
`designated certain compact discs and
`DVDs to be copied and produced in
`that
`format. But
`the
`defendant
`
`produced them in a different format.
`It converted the documents to a
`
`then
`only
`form and
`different
`downloaded
`them onto
`compact
`discs. The court
`found that
`the
`
`plaintiff was entitled to what it had
`
`requested. 2006 WL 665005 *2.
`
`*559 ADC argues that the document at issue
`was converted from Microsoft Word to
`
`that it was not produced in the
`1'. e.
`.PDF;
`form in which it was ordinarily maintained.
`But that is all it is-an argument-and ADC
`does not provide evidence,
`such as an
`affidavit
`to support
`its version of the
`production. An uncorroborated statement in
`a brief doesn't count. See IFC Credit‘ Corp.
`
`V. Alicmo Brothers General Comtractors
`
`Inc, 437 F.3d 606, 610-611 17th Cir.20061;
`Clams Trcmsphase Scientific, Inc. V. Q-Ray,
`Ina, 2006 WL 4013750, *12 §§.D.lll. Oct.6,
`20061. As of March 12, 2008, about two
`weeks after filing this motion to compel,
`counsel
`for ABC had only performed a
`“cursory review”-his term-of the documents
`on the compact disc. (Aurofechh Response
`to ADC’s Motion to Compel, Ex. 1). At that
`time, he indicated in an email to Autotech's
`counsel that he was “having further analysis
`done on the materials,” but that he did “not
`believe that the original Word files have
`been provided....”(Id.).
`
`the sworn
`its support
`for
`AAutotech has
`declarations of Mssrs. Glover and Horn who
`
`state that the Microsoft Word file was saved
`
`onto a compact disc, and that no changes
`were made to the files in the process of
`moving them to the disc. Yet, in its response
`brief, Autotech says that it “provided both
`paper and ‘.pdf’ versions of Autote