Case 2:17-cv-00140-RWS-RSP Document 50-4 Filed 12/14/17 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 1350
`
`Exhibit 2
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-RWS-RSP Document 50-4 Filed 12/14/17 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: 1351
`
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`
`Subject:
`
`Christopher Evans <cevans@ShoreChan.com>
`Thursday, November 30, 2017 9:07 AM
`Brann, Elizabeth L.; Michael Shore
`Team Samsung CyWee; Ari Rafilson; Alfonso G Chan; Paul Beeler; Rhonda Polvado;
`Andrew Huffstetler; 'melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com'; Caroline Johnson
`[EXT] RE: CyWee v. Samsung, Case No. 2:17-cv-0140-RWS-RSP
`
`Liza, we are going to file a motion to compel today on your responses to Interrogatory Nos. 7, 8, 10, and 19, and will 
`note your opposition, unless you tell us otherwise. 
` 
` 
`
`
` 
`
`
`Christopher L. Evans
`Shore Chan DePumpo LLP
`901 Main Street, Suite 3300
`Dallas, Texas 75202
`214-593-9118 (Direct)
`214-593-9110 (Firm)
`214-593-9111 (Fax)
`
`NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY:
`The information contained in and transmitted with this e-mail may be subject to the Attorney-Client and Attorney Work Product privileges, and is
`Confidential. It is intended only for the individuals or entities designated as recipients above. You are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution,
`copying, use or reliance upon the information contained in and transmitted with this e-mail by or to anyone other than the addressee designated above by the
`sender is unauthorized and strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply immediately. Any e-mail erroneously
`transmitted to you should be immediately destroyed.
` 
`From: Brann, Elizabeth L. [mailto:elizabethbrann@paulhastings.com]  
`Sent: Friday, September 29, 2017 7:02 PM 
`To: Michael Shore <mshore@ShoreChan.com>; Christopher Evans <cevans@ShoreChan.com> 
`Cc: Team Samsung CyWee <TeamSamsungCyWee@paulhastings.com>; Ari Rafilson <arafilson@ShoreChan.com>; 
`Alfonso G Chan <achan@ShoreChan.com>; Paul Beeler <pbeeler@ShoreChan.com>; Rhonda Polvado 
`<rpolvado@ShoreChan.com>; Andrew Huffstetler <ahuffstetler@ShoreChan.com>; 'melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com' 
`<melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com>; Caroline Johnson <cjohnson@ShoreChan.com> 
`Subject: RE: CyWee v. Samsung, Case No. 2:17‐cv‐0140‐RWS‐RSP 
` 
`Michael, 
` 
`We disagree for the reasons stated in our objections. 
` 
`Best regards, 
` 
`Liza 
` 
`  
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-RWS-RSP Document 50-4 Filed 12/14/17 Page 3 of 10 PageID #: 1352
`
`____________________________________________________________________________ 
`Elizabeth L. Brann | Partner, Litigation Department
`Paul Hastings LLP | 4747 Executive Drive, Twelfth Floor, San Diego, CA 92121 |
`Direct: +1.858.458.3014 | Main: +1.858.458.3000 | Fax: +1.858.458.3005 |
`elizabethbrann@paulhastings.com | www.paulhastings.com  
`
` 
`
` 
`  
` 
`From: Michael Shore [mailto:mshore@ShoreChan.com]
`Sent: Friday, September 29, 2017 12:46 PM
`To: Brann, Elizabeth L.; Christopher Evans
`Cc: Team Samsung CyWee; Ari Rafilson; Alfonso G Chan; Paul Beeler; Rhonda Polvado; Andrew Huffstetler;
`'melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com'; Caroline Johnson
`Subject: [EXT] RE: CyWee v. Samsung, Case No. 2:17-cv-0140-RWS-RSP
` 
`Liza, 
` 
`The Interrogatory 7 asks for the identities of individuals. Interrogatory 10 asks for a list of products existing at a point in 
`time. Neither requires expert testimony. Only Samsung can answer those questions. Are you saying an expert hired later 
`is the only person who can identify past Samsung negotiators and state what products they would have referenced? 
`That is ridiculous. 
` 
`The same is true for Interrogatory 19, as only Samsung can state what features Samsung believes to be relevant. Is your 
`expert just going to make that up without input from Samsung? We are entitled to discovery factual information. That 
`an expert may use similar information later to form the basis of his/her opinion does not mean CyWee has to wait for 
`Samsung to designate an expert to conduct discovery on those facts. What if your expert never considers them at all? 
`Does that mean Samsung never has to provide the information? 
` 
`Your position is meritless. I suggest you rethink it. 
` 
`Michael 
` 
` 
` 
`Sent from my Windows Phone 
`
`From: Brann, Elizabeth L.
`Sent:  9/ 29/ 2017 13:50
`To: Christopher Evans
`Cc: Team Samsung CyWee; Ari Rafilson; Michael Shore; Alfonso G Chan; Paul Beeler; Rhonda Polvado; Andrew 
`Huffstetler; 'melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com'; Caroline Johnson
`Subject: RE: CyWee v. Samsung, Case No. 2:17‐cv‐0140‐RWS‐RSP
`
`Chris, 
`
`  
`Below is our update regarding Samsung’s supplemental responses to CyWee’s First Set of Interrogatories. Samsung will 
`supplement its responses to interrogatories 1‐6, 8, 11, 14, 16‐18, 20‐26, and 29‐31. However, Samsung will not 
`supplement its responses to the remaining interrogatories—7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 19, 27 and 28.  
`
`  
`Samsung’s original responses to interrogatories 9, 12, 13, 15, 27, and 28 remain complete. For the remaining 
`interrogatories, Samsung maintains its objections and will not supplement its responses. A summary of Samsung’s 
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-RWS-RSP Document 50-4 Filed 12/14/17 Page 4 of 10 PageID #: 1353
`objections to each of those interrogatories, as also set forth in Samsung’s original objections and responses, follows 
`below. 
`
`  
` Numbers 7, 10: Interrogatory no. 7 asks Samsung to “[i]dentify the Person or people that [it believes] would 
`have participated in the Hypothetical Negotiation on [its] behalf.” Number 10 asks Samsung to “[i]dentify all of 
`[its] products in existence or development at the time of the Hypothetical Negotiation whose sales (both actual 
`and projected) would have been considered by [Samsung] during the Hypothetical Negotiation.” Both of these 
`interrogatories are improper because, inter alia, they present improper hypotheticals and therefore call for 
`expert testimony. See, e.g., " i4i Ltd. P'ship v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831, 854 (Fed. Cir. 2010)(noting that the 
`Federal Circuit “ha[s] consistently upheld experts' use of a hypothetical negotiation…for estimating a reasonable 
`royalty” and inferring that such an analysis of a hypothetical negotiation requires expert testimony) (emphasis 
`added). 
`
`  
`
` Number 19: Interrogatory no. 19 asks that Samsung “[i]dentify all features of the Accused Products that [it] 
`believe[s] should be included in a conjoint study used to determine the value of the inventions claimed in the 
`Patents‐In‐Suit.” Given that the response to this interrogatory requires damages expert testimony regarding the 
`proper makeup of any such study, this interrogatory is improper because, inter alia, it is premature. See In re 
`Mega Sys., L.L.C., 2006 Bankr. LEXIS 4682, at *3‐4 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 14, 2006)(finding an individual unqualified to 
`render an opinion regarding valuation of a patent because he was not an expert and lacked “specialized 
`knowledge, skill, training [and] education in the valuation of patents.”).  
`  
`Of course, Samsung reserves the right to further amend or supplement its responses to any of CyWee’s interrogatories 
`after further investigation and discovery, after the Court construes the claims, as the posture of this action changes, or 
`for any other reason permitted under the rules. 
`  
`In order to allow sufficient time to collect documents and other information necessary to supplement these responses, 
`and because Samsung will be closed for the Korean holidays from October 2‐9, we expect to serve the supplemental 
`responses on Friday, October 13. 
`
`  
`Best regards, 
`
`  
`Liza 
`____________________________________________________________________________ 
`Elizabeth L. Brann | Partner, Litigation Department
`Paul Hastings LLP | 4747 Executive Drive, Twelfth Floor, San Diego, CA 92121 |
`Direct: +1.858.458.3014 | Main: +1.858.458.3000 | Fax: +1.858.458.3005 |
`elizabethbrann@paulhastings.com | www.paulhastings.com  
`
` 
`
`  
`
`From: Christopher Evans [mailto:cevans@ShoreChan.com]
`Sent: Friday, September 29, 2017 9:28 AM
`To: Brann, Elizabeth L.
`Cc: Team Samsung CyWee; Ari Rafilson; Michael Shore; Alfonso G Chan; Paul Beeler; Rhonda Polvado; Andrew
`Huffstetler; 'melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com'; Caroline Johnson
`Subject: [EXT] RE: CyWee v. Samsung, Case No. 2:17-cv-0140-RWS-RSP 
`
`  
`Liza, 
`
`  
`When can I expect to hear from you today about whether Samsung will supplement interrogatories numbers 3,
`6, 7, 16, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 31? 
`
`Best, 
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-RWS-RSP Document 50-4 Filed 12/14/17 Page 5 of 10 PageID #: 1354
`
`
`Chris Evans 
`  
`  
`
` 
`
` 
`
`Christopher L. Evans 
`Shore Chan DePumpo LLP 
`901 Main Street, Suite 3300 
`Dallas, Texas 75202 
`214-593-9118 (Direct) 
`214-593-9110 (Firm) 
`214-593-9111 (Fax) 
` 
`
`NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY:  
`The information contained in and transmitted with this e-mail may be subject to the Attorney-Client and Attorney Work Product privileges, and is
`Confidential. It is intended only for the individuals or entities designated as recipients above. You are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution,
`copying, use or reliance upon the information contained in and transmitted with this e-mail by or to anyone other than the addressee designated above by the
`sender is unauthorized and strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply immediately. Any e-mail erroneously
`transmitted to you should be immediately destroyed. 
`
`  
`From: Christopher Evans  
`Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 12:01 PM 
`To: Brann, Elizabeth L. <elizabethbrann@paulhastings.com> 
`Cc: Team Samsung CyWee <TeamSamsungCyWee@paulhastings.com>; Ari Rafilson <arafilson@ShoreChan.com>; 
`Michael Shore <mshore@ShoreChan.com>; Alfonso G Chan <achan@ShoreChan.com>; Paul Beeler 
`<pbeeler@ShoreChan.com>; Rhonda Polvado <rpolvado@ShoreChan.com>; Andrew Huffstetler 
`<ahuffstetler@ShoreChan.com>; 'melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com' <melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com>; Caroline Johnson 
`<cjohnson@ShoreChan.com> 
`Subject: RE: CyWee v. Samsung, Case No. 2:17‐cv‐0140‐RWS‐RSP 
`
`  
`Liza, 
` 
`
`Thank you for conferring with me today about Samsung’s interrogatories today. My understanding is that
`you will let me know by next Friday (9/29/17) whether Samsung will supplement interrogatories numbers
`3, 6, 7, 16, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 31. You agreed to supplement all other interrogatories on October 6,
`2017 and that supplementation will includes specific bates numbers or ranges for each interrogatory that
`currently cites to Rule 33(d). 
`
`
` I
`
` promised to provide you with some legal cases concerning the discoverability of the existence and
`membership of a joint defense group, these are listed below. While I will acknowledge that there is a
`significant split over whether joint defense agreements themselves are discoverable, there is general
`agreement in the caselaw that the existence of a joint defense group and the identities of its members are
`relevant and discoverable, which is what we’ve requested. 
`  
`
` “The parties to a joint defense agreement, however, are relevant because the existence of the
`agreement may demonstrate bias.” Biovail Labs. Int'l SRL v. Watson Pharm., Inc., No. 10-20526-CIV,
`2010 WL 3447187, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 30, 2010). 
` “That being said, however, the parties to the agreement, as Judge Schneider found, are relevant.
`Edgewood has a right to know which parties are maintaining a common defense against it.” Ford
`Motor Co. v. Edgewood Properties, Inc., 257 F.R.D. 418, 428 (D.N.J. 2009) 
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-RWS-RSP Document 50-4 Filed 12/14/17 Page 6 of 10 PageID #: 1355
`
` “Plaintiff first seeks the identity of all participants in the joint defense group. We have previously
`noted that should the joint defense agreement be memorialized in writing, defendants should
`produce a copy of the agreement to plaintiff. If the agreement was made orally or informally,
`defendants need only produce to defendant a list of the participating members.” Trading Techs. Int'l,
`Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., No. 04 C 5312, 2007 WL 1302765, at *2 (N.D. Ill. May 1, 2007). 
`
` 
`
`Best, 
`
`Chris Evans 
`  
`  
`
` 
`
` 
`
`Christopher L. Evans 
`Shore Chan DePumpo LLP 
`901 Main Street, Suite 3300 
`Dallas, Texas 75202 
`214-593-9118 (Direct) 
`214-593-9110 (Firm) 
`214-593-9111 (Fax) 
` 
`
`NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY:  
`The information contained in and transmitted with this e-mail may be subject to the Attorney-Client and Attorney Work Product privileges, and is
`Confidential. It is intended only for the individuals or entities designated as recipients above. You are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution,
`copying, use or reliance upon the information contained in and transmitted with this e-mail by or to anyone other than the addressee designated above by the
`sender is unauthorized and strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply immediately. Any e-mail erroneously
`transmitted to you should be immediately destroyed. 
`
`  
`From: Christopher Evans  
`Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 5:02 PM 
`To: Brann, Elizabeth L. <elizabethbrann@paulhastings.com> 
`Cc: Team Samsung CyWee <TeamSamsungCyWee@paulhastings.com>; Ari Rafilson <arafilson@ShoreChan.com>; 
`Michael Shore <mshore@ShoreChan.com>; Alfonso G Chan <achan@ShoreChan.com>; Paul Beeler 
`<pbeeler@ShoreChan.com>; Rhonda Polvado <rpolvado@ShoreChan.com>; Andrew Huffstetler 
`<ahuffstetler@ShoreChan.com>; 'melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com' <melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com>; Caroline Johnson 
`<cjohnson@ShoreChan.com> 
`Subject: RE: CyWee v. Samsung, Case No. 2:17‐cv‐0140‐RWS‐RSP 
`
`  
`Liza, 
`
`  
`Let’s talk at 9:00 a.m. PT. We’ll send a dial in number before the call. 
`  
`  
`
` 
`
` 
`
`Christopher L. Evans 
`Shore Chan DePumpo LLP 
`901 Main Street, Suite 3300 
`Dallas, Texas 75202 
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-RWS-RSP Document 50-4 Filed 12/14/17 Page 7 of 10 PageID #: 1356
`
`214-593-9118 (Direct) 
`214-593-9110 (Firm) 
`214-593-9111 (Fax) 
` 
`
`NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY:  
`The information contained in and transmitted with this e-mail may be subject to the Attorney-Client and Attorney Work Product privileges, and is
`Confidential. It is intended only for the individuals or entities designated as recipients above. You are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution,
`copying, use or reliance upon the information contained in and transmitted with this e-mail by or to anyone other than the addressee designated above by the
`sender is unauthorized and strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply immediately. Any e-mail erroneously
`transmitted to you should be immediately destroyed. 
`
`  
`From: Brann, Elizabeth L. [mailto:elizabethbrann@paulhastings.com]  
`Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 3:52 PM 
`To: Christopher Evans <cevans@ShoreChan.com> 
`Cc: Team Samsung CyWee <TeamSamsungCyWee@paulhastings.com>; Ari Rafilson <arafilson@ShoreChan.com>; 
`Michael Shore <mshore@ShoreChan.com>; Alfonso G Chan <achan@ShoreChan.com>; Paul Beeler 
`<pbeeler@ShoreChan.com>; Rhonda Polvado <rpolvado@ShoreChan.com>; Andrew Huffstetler 
`<ahuffstetler@ShoreChan.com>; 'melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com' <melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com> 
`Subject: RE: CyWee v. Samsung, Case No. 2:17‐cv‐0140‐RWS‐RSP 
`
`  
`Chris, 
`  
`In light of your unfounded accusation that Samsung did not provide any responsive information and boilerplate reliance 
`on Rule 33, CyWee’s positions regarding Samsung’s interrogatory responses remain unclear. As noted in my prior email, 
`the parties’ discussion regarding these responses will be much more productive if Samsung has notice of (1) the specific 
`deficiencies CyWee has identified and (2) why CyWee thinks it is entitled to any supposedly missing information. Please 
`provide this information as soon as possible. 
`  
`I will be available to discuss on Wednesday between 9:00am and 11:00am Pacific time. Please confirm that this time 
`works for you and circulate dial‐in information. 
`
`  
`Best regards, 
`
`  
`Liza 
`____________________________________________________________________________ 
`Elizabeth L. Brann | Partner, Litigation Department
`Paul Hastings LLP | 4747 Executive Drive, Twelfth Floor, San Diego, CA 92121 |
`Direct: +1.858.458.3014 | Main: +1.858.458.3000 | Fax: +1.858.458.3005 |
`elizabethbrann@paulhastings.com | www.paulhastings.com  
`
` 
`
`  
`
`From: Christopher Evans [mailto:cevans@ShoreChan.com]
`Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 12:23 PM
`To: Brann, Elizabeth L.; O'Brien, Karen R.; Ari Rafilson; Michael Shore; Alfonso G Chan; Paul Beeler; Rhonda Polvado;
`Andrew Huffstetler
`Cc: Team Samsung CyWee; 'melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com'
`Subject: [EXT] RE: CyWee v. Samsung, Case No. 2:17-cv-0140-RWS-RSP 
`
`  
`Liza, 
`
`  
`Let’s plan to talk on Wednesday the 20th. Samsung didn’t provide a substantive response to a single interrogatory. So to 
`answer your questions: (1) all requested information and (2) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33. 
` 
`Best, 
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-RWS-RSP Document 50-4 Filed 12/14/17 Page 8 of 10 PageID #: 1357
`
` 
`Chris Evans 
`  
` 
`
`<image002.gif> 
` 
`
`Christopher L. Evans 
`Shore Chan DePumpo LLP 
`901 Main Street, Suite 3300 
`Dallas, Texas 75202 
`214-593-9118 (Direct) 
`214-593-9110 (Firm) 
`214-593-9111 (Fax) 
` 
`
`NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY:  
`The information contained in and transmitted with this e-mail may be subject to the Attorney-Client and Attorney Work Product privileges, and is
`Confidential. It is intended only for the individuals or entities designated as recipients above. You are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution,
`copying, use or reliance upon the information contained in and transmitted with this e-mail by or to anyone other than the addressee designated above by the
`sender is unauthorized and strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply immediately. Any e-mail erroneously
`transmitted to you should be immediately destroyed. 
`
`  
`From: Brann, Elizabeth L. [mailto:elizabethbrann@paulhastings.com]  
`Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 1:25 PM 
`To: Christopher Evans <cevans@ShoreChan.com>; O'Brien, Karen R. <karenobrien@paulhastings.com>; Ari Rafilson 
`<arafilson@ShoreChan.com>; Michael Shore <mshore@ShoreChan.com>; Alfonso G Chan <achan@ShoreChan.com>; 
`Paul Beeler <pbeeler@ShoreChan.com>; Rhonda Polvado <rpolvado@ShoreChan.com>; Andrew Huffstetler 
`<ahuffstetler@ShoreChan.com> 
`Cc: Team Samsung CyWee <TeamSamsungCyWee@paulhastings.com>; 'melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com' 
`<melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com> 
`Subject: RE: CyWee v. Samsung, Case No. 2:17‐cv‐0140‐RWS‐RSP 
`
`  
`Chris, 
`  
`I will be available to meet and confer early next week. Please let us know your availability on either Monday (9/18) or 
`Wednesday (9/20). Also, to enable a meaningful discussion, please let us know by the end of the week: (1) what 
`information CyWee specifically contends is missing from Samsung’s responses; and (2) for each allegedly deficient 
`response, CyWee’s basis for its contention that is entitled to that information.  
`
`  
`Best regards, 
`
`  
`Liza 
`
`  
`  
`
`  
`____________________________________________________________________________ 
`Elizabeth L. Brann | Partner, Litigation Department
`Paul Hastings LLP | 4747 Executive Drive, Twelfth Floor, San Diego, CA 92121 | Direct:
`+1.858.458.3014 | Main: +1.858.458.3000 | Fax: +1.858.458.3005 |
`elizabethbrann@paulhastings.com | www.paulhastings.com  
`
`<image001.gif> 
`
` 
`  
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-RWS-RSP Document 50-4 Filed 12/14/17 Page 9 of 10 PageID #: 1358
`
`  
`
`From: Christopher Evans [mailto:cevans@ShoreChan.com]
`Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 7:04 AM
`To: O'Brien, Karen R.; Ari Rafilson; Michael Shore; Alfonso G Chan; Paul Beeler; Rhonda Polvado; Andrew Huffstetler
`Cc: Team Samsung CyWee; 'melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com'
`Subject: [EXT] RE: CyWee v. Samsung, Case No. 2:17-cv-0140-RWS-RSP 
`
`  
`Christopher, 
` 
`When are you available to conference about these non‐responses? 
` 
`Best, 
`
`  
`Chris Evans 
`  
` 
`
`<image002.gif> 
` 
`
`Christopher L. Evans 
`Shore Chan DePumpo LLP 
`901 Main Street, Suite 3300 
`Dallas, Texas 75202 
`214-593-9118 (Direct) 
`214-593-9110 (Firm) 
`214-593-9111 (Fax) 
` 
`
`NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY:  
`The information contained in and transmitted with this e-mail may be subject to the Attorney-Client and Attorney Work Product privileges, and is
`Confidential. It is intended only for the individuals or entities designated as recipients above. You are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution,
`copying, use or reliance upon the information contained in and transmitted with this e-mail by or to anyone other than the addressee designated above by the
`sender is unauthorized and strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply immediately. Any e-mail erroneously
`transmitted to you should be immediately destroyed. 
`
`  
`From: O'Brien, Karen R. [mailto:karenobrien@paulhastings.com]  
`Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 6:55 PM 
`To: Ari Rafilson <arafilson@ShoreChan.com>; Michael Shore <mshore@ShoreChan.com>; Alfonso G Chan 
`<achan@ShoreChan.com>; Christopher Evans <cevans@ShoreChan.com>; Paul Beeler <pbeeler@ShoreChan.com>; 
`Rhonda Polvado <rpolvado@ShoreChan.com>; Andrew Huffstetler <ahuffstetler@ShoreChan.com> 
`Cc: Team Samsung CyWee <TeamSamsungCyWee@paulhastings.com>; 'melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com' 
`<melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com> 
`Subject: CyWee v. Samsung, Case No. 2:17‐cv‐0140‐RWS‐RSP 
`
`  
`Counsel, 
`
`  
`Attached for service please find Samsung’s Objections and Responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories. 
`
`  
`Best regards, 
`Karen 
`
` 
`____________________________________________________________________________
`Karen O'Brien | Client Service Specialist
`Paul Hastings LLP | 4747 Executive Drive, Twelfth Floor, San Diego, CA 92121 | Direct:
`
`<image001.gif> 
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-RWS-RSP Document 50-4 Filed 12/14/17 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:
` 1359
`+1.858.458.2021 | Main: +1.858.458.3000 | Fax: +1.858.458.3005 |
`karenobrien@paulhastings.com | www.paulhastings.com  
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`******************************************************************************************
`This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received
`this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.
`
`For additional information, please visit our website at
`
`******************************************************************************************
`This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received
`this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.
`
`For additional information, please visit our website at
`
`******************************************************************************************
`This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received
`this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.
`
`For additional information, please visit our website at
`
`******************************************************************************************
`This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received
`this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.
`
`For additional information, please visit our website at www.paulhastings.com
`
`******************************************************************************************
`This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received
`this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.
`
`For additional information, please visit our website at
`
`9
`
`