`
` 1
`
` 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
` FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
` 2 MARSHALL DIVISION
`
` 3 BLITZSAFE TEXAS, LLC )
` Plaintiff )
` 4 )
` vs. ) NO. 2:15-CV-1274-JRG-RSP
` 5 ) LEAD CASE
` HONDA MOTOR CO. LTD, ET )
` 6 AL )
` Defendants )
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
` 10 PLAINTIFF BLITZSAFE TEXAS, LLC'S MOTION TO COMPEL THE
` TOYOTA DEFENDANTS TO PROVIDE RELEVANT DISCOVERY
` 11
`
` 12 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ROY S. PAYNE
`
` 13 SEPTEMBER 27, 2016
`
` 14
`
` 15
`
` 16
`
` 17
`
` 18
`
` 19
`
` 20
`
` 21 COURT REPORTER: Ms. Tammy L. Goolsby
` Tammylgoolsby@sbcglobal.net
` 22
` Proceedings taken by Machine Stenotype; transcript was
` 23 produced by a Computer
`
` 24
`
` 25
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 198 Filed 10/24/16 Page 2 of 24 PageID #: 6801
`
` 2
`
` 1 APPEARANCES
`
` 2 FOR PLAINTIFF BLITZSAFE TEXAS, LLC.:
`
` 3 MR. PETER LAMBRIANAKOS
` BROWN RUDNICK - NEW YORK
` 4 Seven Times Square, 47th Floor
` New York, New York 10036
` 5 212-209-4813
` Fax: 212-209-4801
` 6 Email: Plambrianakos@brownrudnick.com
`
` 7 MR. SAMUEL FRANKLIN BAXTER
` MCKOOL SMITH - MARSHALL
` 8 104 East Houston Street, Suite 300
` Marshall, Texas 75670
` 9 903-923-9000
` Fax: 903-923-9099
` 10 Email: Sbaxter@mckoolsmith.com
`
` 11
`
` 12 FOR DEFENDANT TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION:
`
` 13 MR. J. THAD HEARTFIELD
` THE HEARTFIELD LAW FIRM
` 14 2195 Dowlen Road
` Beaumont, Texas 77706
` 15 409-866-33181
` Fax: 409-866-5789
` 16 Email: Thad@heartfieldlawfirm.com
`
` 17 MR. WILLIAM H. MANDIR
` SUGHRUE MION
` 18 2100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 800
` Washington, DC 20037
` 19 202-293-7060
` Fax: 202-293-7860
` 20 Email: Wmandir@sughrue.com
`
` 21
`
` 22
`
` 23
`
` 24
`
` 25
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 198 Filed 10/24/16 Page 3 of 24 PageID #: 6802
`
` 3
`
` 1 INDEX
`
` 2 PAGE
`
` 3 Appearances 2
`
` 4 Index 3
`
` 5 Proceedings 4
`
` 6 Plaintiff's Argument by Mr. Lambrianakos 4
`
` 7 Defendants' Argument by Mr. Mandir 14
`
` 8 Reporter's Certificate 23
`
` 9
`
` 10
`
` 11
`
` 12
`
` 13
`
` 14
`
` 15
`
` 16
`
` 17
`
` 18
`
` 19
`
` 20
`
` 21
`
` 22
`
` 23
`
` 24
`
` 25
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 198 Filed 10/24/16 Page 4 of 24 PageID #: 6803
`
` 4
`
` 1 P R O C E E D I N G S
`
` 2
`
` 3 THE COURT: Good afternoon. Please be
`
` 4 seated.
`
` 5 For the record we're here for the motion
`
` 6 hearing in Blitzsafe Texas versus Honda Motor Company,
`
` 7 et al, and specifically Toyota, which is under
`
` 8 Consolidated Civil Action 2:15-1274.
`
` 9 Would counsel state their appearances for
`
` 10 the record?
`
` 11 MR. BAXTER: Sam Baxter, Peter
`
` 12 Lambrianakos, we're here. We're ready, Your Honor.
`
` 13 THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Baxter.
`
` 14 MR. HEARTFIELD: Good afternoon. Thad
`
` 15 Heartfield and William Mandir for Toyota, we're ready.
`
` 16 THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Mr.
`
` 17 Heartfield.
`
` 18 All right. This is Plaintiff's motion,
`
` 19 so I'll be happy to hear from Plaintiff first.
`
` 20 MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: Good afternoon, Your
`
` 21 Honor. Peter Lambrianakos of Brown Rudnick for the
`
` 22 Plaintiff.
`
` 23 We're asking the Court to compel
`
` 24 production of information regarding Toyota's USB box.
`
` 25 Specifically what we're requesting is an identification
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 198 Filed 10/24/16 Page 5 of 24 PageID #: 6804
`
` 5
`
` 1 of those vehicles in which the USB box was installed and
`
` 2 the numbers of USB boxes which were actually installed
`
` 3 in those vehicles.
`
` 4 That's slightly different than what we
`
` 5 had put in our brief, but at this juncture in the case,
`
` 6 we believe that that is the minimal information that
`
` 7 we're going to need in order to be able to take the USB
`
` 8 box information into account in our expert reports.
`
` 9 To put this into context, Your Honor, the
`
` 10 USB box is very important to this case because we
`
` 11 believe it is infringing interface under the Court's
`
` 12 construction of interface for the 786 patent.
`
` 13 The Court's construction requires that
`
` 14 the interface be functionally and structurally separate
`
` 15 from the car radio, and that's what the USB box is.
`
` 16 It is a self-contained box that is
`
` 17 separate from the car radio which has connectors that
`
` 18 connect the interface the USB box to the car radio and
`
` 19 then permit that interface to also connect to a portable
`
` 20 device, so the portable device will be integrated with
`
` 21 the car radio, so the USB box is a very important aspect
`
` 22 of this case and it's a very important product.
`
` 23 Now, in our infringement contentions, we
`
` 24 identified all of the Toyota vehicles which we believe
`
` 25 had the -- the infringing functionality in this case
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 198 Filed 10/24/16 Page 6 of 24 PageID #: 6805
`
` 6
`
` 1 under both patents.
`
` 2 And then we served interrogatory early in
`
` 3 the case which requested that Toyota provide product
`
` 4 information regarding those aspects, those components
`
` 5 and products which put -- which provide the infringing
`
` 6 functionality into those vehicles.
`
` 7 Now, Toyota responded with a lengthy list
`
` 8 of parts of actual head units and other components which
`
` 9 provide the accused functionality in the vehicles which
`
` 10 were identified in our infringement contentions, but
`
` 11 this USB box was not on that list.
`
` 12 We had -- we treated that list as the
`
` 13 universe of head units and other components which were
`
` 14 accused in this case and which provided the accused
`
` 15 functionality all throughout the case.
`
` 16 Now, what happened then is --
`
` 17 THE COURT: Mr. Lambrianakos, just so
`
` 18 I'll understand, are you suggesting that you didn't
`
` 19 realize there was a USB box in these vehicles?
`
` 20 MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: That's correct.
`
` 21 THE COURT: Tell me about that. Why --
`
` 22 what years are we talking about here?
`
` 23 MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: It appears from
`
` 24 Toyota's deposition testimony that the USB box was
`
` 25 created to work with what's called a 2007 calendar year
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 198 Filed 10/24/16 Page 7 of 24 PageID #: 6806
`
` 7
`
` 1 head units and may have been installed in cars through
`
` 2 the 2010 calendar year products, so we're talking about
`
` 3 roughly 2008 through 2011 in terms of model year.
`
` 4 THE COURT: And it's -- how is this box
`
` 5 different from just a USB port that people would be
`
` 6 familiar with in cars?
`
` 7 MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: The USB port is the
`
` 8 property that a user would see in the car, in the
`
` 9 dashboard, in a location.
`
` 10 The USB box is a box that sits behind the
`
` 11 dashboard that has a wire coming out from it which
`
` 12 ultimately connects to the port and has another wire
`
` 13 coming out which connects to the rest of the car radio.
`
` 14 So that box is behind the dashboard and is not visible
`
` 15 to a user.
`
` 16 So when Blitzsafe was preparing its
`
` 17 infringement contentions, we obtained a Toyota head
`
` 18 unit, and we had that Toyota head unit taken apart and
`
` 19 photographed and shown as an exemplary head unit.
`
` 20 We also examined all the car manuals for
`
` 21 Toyota's products, and we identified all the Toyota and
`
` 22 Lexus products which provided USB functionality and also
`
` 23 Bluetooth functionality.
`
` 24 And we showed in our infringement charts
`
` 25 how all those cars had the same functionality, and we
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 198 Filed 10/24/16 Page 8 of 24 PageID #: 6807
`
` 8
`
` 1 used the head unit that we had and all the -- and the
`
` 2 manuals that we had and we said that those were
`
` 3 exemplary of the functionality of all the cars.
`
` 4 And no doubt this USB box works exactly
`
` 5 the same way as the other head units. It allows a user
`
` 6 to use the buttons on the -- on the -- on the car radio
`
` 7 to control the device.
`
` 8 It obtains the audio from the device and
`
` 9 plays it over the speakers, and it also obtains
`
` 10 information about a song that's being played and allows
`
` 11 it to be displayed.
`
` 12 So it's indistinguishable in terms of its
`
` 13 functionality from anything else any of the other
`
` 14 products, anything that we had at the time.
`
` 15 So when we received Toyota's answers to
`
` 16 interrogatories, which listed everything from the 2007
`
` 17 calendar year devices all the way through to the time of
`
` 18 the answer, we believed that we had a comprehensive list
`
` 19 of the products that provide the functionality, and we
`
` 20 relied on that throughout discovery.
`
` 21 Now, during our review of the documents
`
` 22 in this case, there were about two and a half million
`
` 23 pages of documents that were produced, we did a find a
`
` 24 document, 49-page document that identified the USB box.
`
` 25 But this USB box did not have any of the
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 198 Filed 10/24/16 Page 9 of 24 PageID #: 6808
`
` 9
`
` 1 part numbers in it that corresponded to what Toyota had
`
` 2 identified. There were also no other indications that
`
` 3 this box was -- was installed in vehicles that were
`
` 4 identified by us or by Toyota.
`
` 5 And so what we did was we brought the --
`
` 6 we brought the specification to a deposition to see
`
` 7 whether we could get information on whether this USB box
`
` 8 was, in fact, installed in any cars, notwithstanding the
`
` 9 fact that it wasn't identified in interrogatory answers.
`
` 10 And it did turn out in depositions,
`
` 11 specifically on September 1st of this year, that the USB
`
` 12 box is a component that was installed. The witness was
`
` 13 not able to identify specifically which head units it
`
` 14 was installed with, but he did say it was made to be
`
` 15 installed with at least the 2007 models, some of which
`
` 16 are identified in interrogatory answers.
`
` 17 He also stated that he believed that
`
` 18 there was a document in Toyota that would allow him to
`
` 19 determine specifically which models this USB box was
`
` 20 installed in. He said he didn't know one way or the
`
` 21 other whether that document was produced in discovery.
`
` 22 So we've looked for that document. We
`
` 23 can't find any such document. The only evidence that we
`
` 24 have about this USB box is the specification which we
`
` 25 found in the production and the -- and the testimony
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 198 Filed 10/24/16 Page 10 of 24 PageID #: 6809
`
` 10
`
` 1 which we obtained on September 1st that indicates that
`
` 2 the USB box was, in fact, installed in cars that were
`
` 3 accused of infringement at the beginning of the case.
`
` 4 THE COURT: And are you representing that
`
` 5 the first notice your side had that the USB box at issue
`
` 6 was installed in cars during the relevant period was at
`
` 7 that September 1 deposition?
`
` 8 MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: Yes, Your Honor.
`
` 9 THE COURT: The document production that
`
` 10 you're talking about that included this 49-page document
`
` 11 about the USB box, that was what you received back in
`
` 12 February?
`
` 13 MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: It may have been
`
` 14 February or March. It was very early. Yes, it was part
`
` 15 of that production.
`
` 16 THE COURT: And did you make any other
`
` 17 effort before the September 1 deposition to determine
`
` 18 whether or not that USB box was present in any of the --
`
` 19 any of the accused products?
`
` 20 MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: The only other effort
`
` 21 we made was we did have that specification with us for
`
` 22 an earlier deposition that occurred in mid-August of
`
` 23 another witness that was designated on technical topics.
`
` 24 But when it became clear during the
`
` 25 deposition that the witness had no knowledge in this
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 198 Filed 10/24/16 Page 11 of 24 PageID #: 6810
`
` 11
`
` 1 area, we didn't ask him about the USB box. We waited
`
` 2 until we had Mr. Hata on August 31 and September 1 in
`
` 3 order to determine whether the USB box was, in fact,
`
` 4 installed.
`
` 5 To be frank, Your Honor, when we read the
`
` 6 specification and we looked at the list of products that
`
` 7 was installed, we assumed that it must have been an
`
` 8 earlier product, and that's the reason why it wasn't on
`
` 9 the list.
`
` 10 And it's -- but we thought that it would
`
` 11 be helpful in a deposition to determine whether --
`
` 12 because it was a very good document in terms of
`
` 13 explaining functionality, we thought that it might be
`
` 14 useful to help the witness explain to us how the radios
`
` 15 functioned.
`
` 16 And I was actually quite surprised when
`
` 17 the witness said, oh, that there were certain radios on
`
` 18 their list of accused products which actually didn't
`
` 19 have USB functionality in them.
`
` 20 And then he revealed that those -- those
`
` 21 radios only work with the USB if the box is installed,
`
` 22 and that's when we realized, oh, this is actually a
`
` 23 product that was actually installed in these head units.
`
` 24 THE COURT: All right. And the
`
` 25 Defendants take the position that you did not accuse
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 198 Filed 10/24/16 Page 12 of 24 PageID #: 6811
`
` 12
`
` 1 these boxes. What -- what is your response to that?
`
` 2 MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: Our response is that
`
` 3 what we did accuse were the automobiles that had the
`
` 4 infringing functionality, and so we accused, you know,
`
` 5 makes, models, and model years of automobiles that
`
` 6 included the infringing functionality.
`
` 7 And so they were aware that the very cars
`
` 8 that included the USB boxes were accused of infringement
`
` 9 because they had that functionality, and what would have
`
` 10 been responsive to our interrogatories would have been
`
` 11 an identification of all the components of those cars
`
` 12 that provide that functionality, that includes the USB
`
` 13 box, and yet the USB box was not identified in the case.
`
` 14 If I had -- we had not taken that
`
` 15 document and asked the witness about it, we would never
`
` 16 have known that the USB box was, in fact, an accused
`
` 17 product that provided the accused functionality in those
`
` 18 automobiles.
`
` 19 THE COURT: You made reference to a
`
` 20 document identified by the deponent during the
`
` 21 September 1 deposition. Tell me again what it is you
`
` 22 contend that document concerns.
`
` 23 MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: Okay. The document
`
` 24 that -- that we questioned the witness on is attached to
`
` 25 our motion as Exhibit 8.
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 198 Filed 10/24/16 Page 13 of 24 PageID #: 6812
`
` 13
`
` 1 THE COURT: That's the 49 page?
`
` 2 MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: Yes.
`
` 3 THE COURT: I'm talking about a document
`
` 4 you said the witness said existed that you looked for in
`
` 5 your production and didn't find.
`
` 6 MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: In his deposition on
`
` 7 page 139, which is part of Exhibit 6, I -- I -- the
`
` 8 question was, "Even without knowing a particular part
`
` 9 number, are you aware of a Toyota product that provides
`
` 10 USB conductivity when combined with this 07CY model head
`
` 11 units."
`
` 12 So there, Your Honor, I'm referring to a
`
` 13 07CY head unit identified in Toyota's interrogatory
`
` 14 answer.
`
` 15 His response was, "Toyota does have
`
` 16 documents that indicate which Toyota vehicles have a USB
`
` 17 box installed, but I don't know -- I don't know which
`
` 18 vehicles had USB boxes installed, but Toyota does have
`
` 19 such documents. I don't know whether or not those
`
` 20 documents have been produced." And that's on page 136,
`
` 21 lines 12 through 17 of Mr. Hata's deposition.
`
` 22 THE COURT: So your contention is that
`
` 23 would be responsive to the first category or first type
`
` 24 of information you said you needed?
`
` 25 MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: That would at least
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 198 Filed 10/24/16 Page 14 of 24 PageID #: 6813
`
` 14
`
` 1 identify the head units, so, yes, Your Honor, we would
`
` 2 additionally need to know how many units of USB boxes
`
` 3 were provided.
`
` 4 So between that document and the number
`
` 5 of units, that would be sufficient for us.
`
` 6 THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Mr.
`
` 7 Lambrianakos. Let me hear from the Defendant. Then
`
` 8 I'll let you respond.
`
` 9 MR. MANDIR: Good afternoon, Your Honor.
`
` 10 William Mandir on behalf of the Toyota Defendants.
`
` 11 So as the Court identified, Toyota
`
` 12 produced documents back in February of 2016, and at that
`
` 13 time we produced all the documents that Toyota has
`
` 14 concerning this USB box product, including the
`
` 15 specification that you were just talking about.
`
` 16 They then served a set of
`
` 17 interrogatories, their first set of interrogatories, and
`
` 18 in interrogatory number one asked for the product
`
` 19 numbers of all accused products, and they defined
`
` 20 accused products in the interrogatory. Interrogatory
`
` 21 three asked for financial information about those
`
` 22 products such as cost and profit information.
`
` 23 In response, we filed our -- we served
`
` 24 our responses to those interrogatories on March 4. In
`
` 25 those interrogatories, we made objections, and we
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 198 Filed 10/24/16 Page 15 of 24 PageID #: 6814
`
` 15
`
` 1 specifically objected that Toyota was not going to
`
` 2 provide information with respect to any products that
`
` 3 were not set forth in their infringement contentions
`
` 4 which they served back in November of 2015.
`
` 5 And if I can go back to that infringement
`
` 6 contentions, Blitzsafe's counsel mentioned that
`
` 7 Blitzsafe identified vehicles, and that's correct, and
`
` 8 they -- but the infringement contentions are more than
`
` 9 just vehicles. You have to chart what the infringement
`
` 10 is.
`
` 11 They did chart one exemplary product, had
`
` 12 nothing to do with the USB box at all. It has to do
`
` 13 with chips that are actually embedded in the car radio
`
` 14 itself. That's the infringement contention, so nothing
`
` 15 about the USB box.
`
` 16 We made this objection in our
`
` 17 interrogatory responses, and we made it very
`
` 18 specifically. We said we're not going to provide
`
` 19 information that's not in the infringement contentions.
`
` 20 We put that in the general objections,
`
` 21 and we also specifically made the same objection when we
`
` 22 responded to interrogatory one and three, so the -- the
`
` 23 responses have, you know, at least three instances that
`
` 24 same objection.
`
` 25 After we made that -- those responses and
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 198 Filed 10/24/16 Page 16 of 24 PageID #: 6815
`
` 16
`
` 1 gave those objections, we didn't hear anything from
`
` 2 Blitzsafe. They didn't contact us to say what does this
`
` 3 objection mean, that they disagree with the objection.
`
` 4 We never heard from them until
`
` 5 September 16th, more than five months later, where
`
` 6 they -- we had a meet and confer and we discussed this
`
` 7 USB box.
`
` 8 And Blitzsafe counsel mentioned that you
`
` 9 didn't give us information about this USB box, and we
`
` 10 indicated, well, that's right, we made objections about
`
` 11 this, we haven't heard from anything from you about it.
`
` 12 This was Friday, September 16th. The
`
` 13 fact discovery cutoff was Monday, September 19th, so
`
` 14 then they filed this motion on the 19th.
`
` 15 We've since now gotten their expert
`
` 16 report which includes the USB box, even though they've
`
` 17 not moved under patent 03-6B to amend their infringement
`
` 18 contentions.
`
` 19 So it's our position, Your Honor, that
`
` 20 the USB box is not in the case. They still haven't
`
` 21 moved to amend their contentions, you know, which also
`
` 22 requires a showing of good cause, and it's our position
`
` 23 it shouldn't be in the case, and we intent to file a
`
` 24 motion to strike it from their expert's report.
`
` 25 THE COURT: Mr. Mandir, do you dispute
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 198 Filed 10/24/16 Page 17 of 24 PageID #: 6816
`
` 17
`
` 1 their contention that they did not know about the
`
` 2 existence of such a USB box until the September 1st
`
` 3 deposition?
`
` 4 MR. MANDIR: I mean, I can only take them
`
` 5 at what they say. I don't understand it if that is what
`
` 6 happened because I guess I would expect to -- they would
`
` 7 have picked it up even before they filed the lawsuit.
`
` 8 But that being said, certainly by
`
` 9 February when -- we had produced it by February. I
`
` 10 mean, February to September, I mean, that's a lot of
`
` 11 months not to have any idea about this USB box or to
`
` 12 wait until September to start asking about it.
`
` 13 THE COURT: Other than the 49-page
`
` 14 document that Mr. Lambrianakos has talked about, is
`
` 15 there anything else in your document production that you
`
` 16 believe should have notified them about the presence of
`
` 17 this USB box?
`
` 18 MR. MANDIR: We don't, Your Honor. So
`
` 19 that -- just to give a little background, the USB box is
`
` 20 not a product that Toyota developed. It was something
`
` 21 we bought. It was developed, we understand, by
`
` 22 Panasonic. It's a legacy product that we purchased, so
`
` 23 it's not something we developed.
`
` 24 We had this technical specification and
`
` 25 some reference to it and some other documents and that's
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 198 Filed 10/24/16 Page 18 of 24 PageID #: 6817
`
` 18
`
` 1 it. Everything that we had that is anything related to
`
` 2 the USB box was produced in February of 2016.
`
` 3 THE COURT: Well, I guess where I'm
`
` 4 leaning on this is that it sounds to me reasonable for
`
` 5 them not to have known about this box.
`
` 6 When I first read this, I was assuming we
`
` 7 were talking about something that's clearly visible in
`
` 8 the automobile, like the USB port, and I was not
`
` 9 prepared to understand how they could wait until the
`
` 10 close of discovery to accuse that.
`
` 11 But if this is something that is not
`
` 12 visible and is only in certain vehicles and they had no
`
` 13 notice of its existence in the accused vehicles until
`
` 14 that deposition on September 1st, then I -- I am more
`
` 15 understanding of why we're here.
`
` 16 You provided interrogatory answers that
`
` 17 listed out other components that you felt were accused
`
` 18 by their claims?
`
` 19 MR. MANDIR: That's correct, Your Honor.
`
` 20 900 parts actually.
`
` 21 THE COURT: And there was no mention of
`
` 22 this one?
`
` 23 MR. MANDIR: Not the USB box because we
`
` 24 specifically indicated that we were providing parts for
`
` 25 those that were in their initial disclosures and in
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 198 Filed 10/24/16 Page 19 of 24 PageID #: 6818
`
` 19
`
` 1 their infringement contentions.
`
` 2 THE COURT: Well, I am remembering from
`
` 3 the claim construction hearing that as this box has been
`
` 4 described to me now, I can understand it to have a more
`
` 5 important role in this case.
`
` 6 I'm not offering any opinion about
`
` 7 whether or not it will carry the day, but it certainly
`
` 8 is relevant to the issues we're discussing, and I'm --
`
` 9 I'm satisfied that they've acted with reasonable
`
` 10 diligence.
`
` 11 I'm not at this point making any finding
`
` 12 about whether Toyota was in any way deficient in its
`
` 13 responses, but I'm satisfied that there isn't anything
`
` 14 that causes me to think they were not reasonably
`
` 15 diligent.
`
` 16 So talk to me about the burden involved
`
` 17 in responding to the two requests that -- that the
`
` 18 Plaintiff is now seeking.
`
` 19 MR. MANDIR: Well, if I understand it, I
`
` 20 think they want a listing of the products that the USB
`
` 21 was installed into, and I guess all -- is that -- I
`
` 22 think that's all that was mentioned.
`
` 23 THE COURT: That and the number of USB
`
` 24 boxes sold, is my understanding.
`
` 25 MR. MANDIR: Right. I mean, certainly we
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 198 Filed 10/24/16 Page 20 of 24 PageID #: 6819
`
` 20
`
` 1 can -- we can get that information if necessary. I
`
` 2 don't -- I'm not sure if -- if the question is how long
`
` 3 it would take us to get that, I'm not exactly sure; but
`
` 4 I would think, you know, within a couple of weeks for
`
` 5 sure, if not sooner.
`
` 6 THE COURT: All right. Well, then I'm
`
` 7 going to grant their request for that information.
`
` 8 As far as the length of time it -- what
`
` 9 is the next step, Mr. Lambrianakos, for which you need
`
` 10 that? What are you seeking in terms of time? Mr.
`
` 11 Mandir has mentioned two weeks or less.
`
` 12 MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: Your Honor, the
`
` 13 schedule is undergoing some negotiation for some slight
`
` 14 changes based on some things that have happened with the
`
` 15 experts in the case in terms of some scheduling issues.
`
` 16 But what we would need is if we had that
`
` 17 information in