Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 166 Filed 02/13/19 Page 1 of 18 PageID #: 14651
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
`THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`CASE NO. 2:17-cv-514-JRG
`(Lead Case)
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`CASE NO. 2:17-CV-515-JRG
`(Member Case)
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`§§§§§§§§§
`
`§§§§§§§§§
`
`
`
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT, LLC
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`HTC CORPORATION, et al.
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT, LLC
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`LG ELECTRONICS INC.
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`DEFENDANT LG ELECTRONICS INC.’S OPPOSITION TO AGIS’S MOTION TO
`STRIKE THE JANUARY 11, 2019 EXPERT REPORT OF EDWARD R. TITTEL
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 166 Filed 02/13/19 Page 2 of 18 PageID #: 14652
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`AGIS WAS WELL AWARE OF LG’S RELIANCE ON GOOGLE WITNESSES
`
`Under Rule 37, Mr. Tittel’s Reliance On Information Obtained From
`
`THE GOOGLE SOURCE CODE IDENTIFIED BY AGIS IN ITS MOTION WAS
`
`INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................1
`BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................2
`GOOGLE SOURCE CODE.............................................................................................2
`GOOGLE WITNESSES ..................................................................................................3
`ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................5
`TIMELY PRODUCED AND INSPECTED BY AGIS ....................................................5
`FROM THE OUTSET OF THIS CASE ...........................................................................8
`a.
`Third-Party Google Fact Witnesses Is “Harmless” ............................................. 10
`i.
`Important ................................................................................................ 11
`ii.
`Is Not Prejudicial And Does Not Warrant A Continuance ....................... 11
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 12
`
`The Information Obtained from William Luh and Micah Mason Is
`
`Any Allegedly Late Identification Of Google Witnesses By Name
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`I.
`II.
`A.
`B.
`III.
`A.
`B.
`
`IV.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 166 Filed 02/13/19 Page 3 of 18 PageID #: 14653
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Allergan Sales, LLC v. Sandoz, Inc.,
`No. 2:12-CV-207-JRG, 2016 WL 7209798 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2016) ................................ 10
`
`Baltimore Aircoil Co., Inc. v. SPX Cooling Techs. Inc.,
`No. CCB-13-2053, 2016 WL 4426681 (D. Md. Aug. 22, 2016), aff’d, 721 F.
`App’x 983 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ................................................................................................. 10
`
`Brown v. Chertoff,
`No. 406cv002, 2009 WL 50163 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 7, 2009) ........................................................ 9
`
`ContentGuard Holdings, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`No. 2:13-CV-1112- JRG, 2015 WL 6886957 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 7, 2015) ................................. 7
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corp.,
`No. 14-cv-02998-HSG (JSC), 2018 WL 620156 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2018) ............................ 7
`
`Norton v. Assisted Living Concepts, Inc.,
`786 F. Supp. 2d 1173 (E.D. Tex. 2011) ............................................................................... 10
`
`Primrose Operating Co. v. Nat’l Am. Ins. Co.,
`382 F.3d 546 (5th Cir. 2004) ............................................................................................... 10
`
`Smith v. Ardew Wood Prods., Ltd.,
`No. C07-5641 FDB, 2009 WL 799679 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 24, 2009) ............................. 11, 12
`
`Williams v. Toyota Motor Corp.,
`No. 4:08-cv-487, 2009 WL 305183 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 6, 2009)............................................... 12
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d) ................................................................................................................... 7
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37............................................................................................ 10
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 166 Filed 02/13/19 Page 4 of 18 PageID #: 14654
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiff AGIS Software Development LLC (“AGIS”) seeks to strike portions of the
`
`January 11, 2019 Expert Report of Edward R. Tittel (D.I. 110, “Motion”). The Motion is based
`
`on misleading arguments and omits critical context; it should be denied in whole.
`
`First,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`
`Second, with respect to an alleged failure to disclose Google witnesses relevant to LG’s
`
`defense in this action, AGIS again entirely misrepresents the record. From the outset of this
`
`case, AGIS has been on notice that LG expected to rely on Google witnesses and evidence,
`
`especially since AGIS’s allegations are directed solely to Google technology. Indeed, AGIS was
`
`expressly put on notice that LG expected to rely on Google engineers for the accused Google
`
`Find My Device application and the accused Google Maps application over a year before the
`
`close of fact discovery. And, AGIS served a deposition subpoena to Google purporting to
`
`request depositions of the Google engineers with knowledge of the accused functionality in Find
`
`My Device and Google Maps. But, AGIS chose not to take any Google depositions. After
`
`serving the notice on Google, AGIS never again asked Google anything with respect to
`
`depositions or Google engineers. Now, having chosen not to speak to Google engineers in
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 166 Filed 02/13/19 Page 5 of 18 PageID #: 14655
`
`
`
`discovery, AGIS wants to penalize LG for AGIS’s own failures on an issue for which it bears the
`
`burden of proof.
`
`Mr. Tittel’s reliance on third-party evidence and information obtained from Google
`
`personnel and source code is entirely appropriate. AGIS’s Motion should be denied.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A. Google Source Code
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 “Callagy Decl.” refers to the Declaration of Sean Callagy in Support of Defendant LG
`Electronics Inc.’s Opposition to AGIS’s Motion to Strike the January 11, 2019 Expert Report of
`Edward R. Tittel.
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 166 Filed 02/13/19 Page 6 of 18 PageID #: 14656
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B. Google Witnesses
`
`On November 27, 2017, LG provided AGIS with notice of its reliance on Google
`
`witnesses who have knowledge regarding the accused applications in its motion to dismiss for
`
`lack of personal jurisdiction or, in the alternative, to transfer venue to the Northern District of
`
`California. (Case No. 2:17-cv-513 D.I. 46 at 23 (“Because important third-party witnesses,
`
`including, for instance, the majority of Google witnesses, who LGEKR expects to be key (and
`
`the only) sources of evidence regarding the operation, design, and function of the Google
`
`applications identified in the Complaint, reside in and around NDCA, transfer is appropriate.”).
`
`In its motion, LG relied upon and cited to the Declaration of William Luh, who is the Technical
`
`Lead Manager and Software Engineer at Google responsible for Find My Device. (See, e.g., 513
`
`D.I. 46 at 7-8 (citing 513 D.I. 36-5); see also 513 D.I. 77 at 7 n.3 (citing 513 D.I. 74-9)). LG
`
`also relied upon and cited to the Declaration of Andrew Oplinger, who stated that he had
`
`knowledge related to the Google Maps application and that engineers on his Location Sharing
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 166 Filed 02/13/19 Page 7 of 18 PageID #: 14657
`
`
`
`Team were responsible for Google Location Sharing functionality. (See, e.g., 513 D.I. 46 at 7-8
`
`(citing 513 D.I. 36-4)). Mr. Oplinger’s responsibilities subsequently changed in December 2017.
`
`(See, e.g., 513 D.I. 46 at 8 (citing 513 D.I. 36-4 (stating that he has knowledge of Google Maps
`
`and Location Sharing functionality); 513 D.I. 77 at 7 n.3,4 (citing 513 D.I. 74-8 ¶ 1 (“Until
`
`December 2017, I was a Technical Lead Manager for Google Product Infrastructure . . . .”).)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Importantly, in responding to LG’s Motion to Transfer or Dismiss and LG’s assertion that
`
`Google witnesses would be relevant, AGIS suggested that it had no intention of relying on
`
`Google witnesses or evidence in this matter and argued that transfer should be denied on that
`
`basis. (513 D.I. 68 at 2-3, 7, 19). Regardless, LG served its Initial Disclosures on AGIS on
`
`December 22, 2017. (Lee Decl., Ex. A). LG’s Initial Disclosures identified “[w]itnesses from
`
`Google LLC who may have knowledge related to the functionality implicated in the accused
`
`applications.” (Lee Decl., Ex. A at 4). Prior to the close of fact discovery, LG served
`
`supplemental Initial Disclosures on AGIS on January 17, 2018, August 31, 2018, November 14,
`
`2018, December 7, 2018. (D.I. 110, Exs. K-N). In each of LG’s Supplemental Initial
`
`Disclosures, LG identified “[w]itnesses from Google LLC who may have knowledge related to
`
`the functionality implicated in the accused applications.” (D.I. 110, Ex. K at 4; id., Ex. L at 5; id.,
`
`
`2 “Lee Decl.” refers to the Declaration of Nicholas H. Lee in Support of Defendant LG
`Electronics Inc.’s Opposition to AGIS’s Motion to Strike the January 11, 2019 Expert Report of
`Edward R. Tittel.
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 166 Filed 02/13/19 Page 8 of 18 PageID #: 14658
`
`
`
`Ex. M at 5; id., Ex. N at 5; see also Lee Decl., Ex. D at 5). AGIS never responded to, challenged
`
`or questioned any of these disclosures.
`
`On August 29, 2018, AGIS served deposition subpoenas to Google on topics related to
`
`functionality of Google Maps and Find My Device. (Callagy Decl., Ex. D). On September 13,
`
`2018, Google LLC provided its objections and responses to AGIS’s subpoena, in which Google
`
`indicated that it was willing to meet and confer regarding the scope of the deposition topics.
`
`(Callagy Decl. ¶ 15; id. Ex. F). Counsel for Google telephonically met and conferred with
`
`counsel for AGIS on September 13, 2018, and had several subsequent discussions regarding
`
`AGIS’s document and deposition subpoenas over the course of several months. (Callagy Decl.
`
`¶¶ 16-18). However, the discussions focused on Google’s production of source code. (Callagy
`
`Decl. ¶¶ 17-18; id., Ex. G). Counsel for AGIS never asked to discuss AGIS’s deposition
`
`subpoena topics; never asked for a date for a deposition of any Google witness; and never asked
`
`counsel for Google to identify any potential witnesses who might testify on behalf of Google
`
`should a deposition proceed. (Callagy Decl. ¶ 17). As a result of AGIS’s own failure to pursue
`
`its request for deposition testimony, AGIS never deposed a Google witness with respect to the
`
`instant litigation. (Callagy Decl. ¶ 19).
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`A. The Google Source Code Identified by AGIS In Its Motion Was Timely
`Produced And Inspected By AGIS
`
`The Google source code that Mr. Tittel relies upon in his expert report was timely made
`
`available to both LG and AGIS.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 166 Filed 02/13/19 Page 9 of 18 PageID #: 14659
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AGIS appears to be arguing, without any legal authority3, that source code relied upon by
`
`LG’s expert must be requested by AGIS for printing before the fact discovery deadline even
`
`though that same source code was produced in the case by being made available for inspection.
`
`(D.I. 110 at 5). This assertion is wrong. As it relates to source code, the Protective Order
`
`entered in this case only requires “the producing Party” − in this case Google − “produce
`
`Source Code Material in computer searchable format on the stand-alone computer(s).”
`
`(513 D.I. 119 at 12) (emphasis added). As it relates to printouts of such source code, the
`
`Protective Order permits, as a matter of convenience, a receiving party to request a limited
`
`number of paper copies of source code. (Id. at 14). There is no obligation, however, to provide
`
`printouts of the Source Code Materials, absent a request from the receiving party. (Id.). And,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3 AGIS cites Dkt. 118 at 3-4 and 9 to support the proposition that LG had an obligation to print
`any source code documents received from third-party Google. (D.I. 110 at 6). The cited
`Discovery Order does not require LG to print out any source code materials produced by third-
`party Google. (See D.I. 118 at 3-4 (“produce or permit the inspection of all documents,
`electronically stored information, and tangible things in the possession, custody, or control of
`the party that are relevant to the pleaded claims or defenses involved in this action”); D.I. 118 at
`9 (requiring only that “[a] party receiving documents from a third party will provide copies of
`those documents to each other [ ] within 5 business days of receiving those documents”)
`(emphases added). Here, both AGIS and LG had the same access to the Google source code.
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 166 Filed 02/13/19 Page 10 of 18 PageID #: 14660
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Because AGIS now has in its possession printouts of the source code
`
`file that is the subject of the present motion to strike, AGIS’s complaint is moot.
`
`AGIS’s cited case, ContentGuard Holdings, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:13-CV-
`
`1112- JRG, 2015 WL 6886957 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 7, 2015), is plainly distinguishable to the facts
`
`here. In that case, the court struck certain portions of an expert report under Rule 702 based on a
`
`defendant’s failure to otherwise produce source code that it withheld during fact discovery. Id.
`
`at *2. In contrast, unlike ContentGuard, Google is a third party that produced the challenged
`
`source code file to both parties at the same time prior to the fact discovery cutoff. Stated
`
`differently, all source code challenged in AGIS’s Motion was timely. (See supra §II.A). Mr.
`
`Tittel’s reliance on such source code to support his rebuttal non-infringement opinions was
`
`entirely appropriate.
`
`AGIS further misrepresents LG’s discovery responses related to non-infringement issues
`
`by arguing that LG did not identify Google source code in its discovery response to AGIS’s
`
`Interrogatory Request No. 8. (D.I. 110 at 1, 6).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` AGIS never once complained
`
`about that response until the instant Motion.
`
`The identified Google source was timely produced to AGIS. Mr. Tittel’s reliance on the
`
`Google source code is therefore appropriate and should not be stricken. See Finjan, Inc. v.
`
`Symantec Corp., No. 14-cv-02998-HSG (JSC), 2018 WL 620156, at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 30,
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 166 Filed 02/13/19 Page 11 of 18 PageID #: 14661
`
`
`
`2018) (declining to strike citations to source code file paths in the accused infringer’s expert
`
`supplemental report because the accused infringer had produced the source code for inspection
`
`during fact discovery).
`
`B. AGIS Was Well Aware Of LG’s Reliance On Google Witnesses From The
`Outset Of This Case
`
`AGIS cannot seriously dispute that it was aware of LG’s intent to rely on Google
`
`witnesses for Google Maps and Find My Device well before the close of fact discovery. (See
`
`supra §II.B). Indeed, it is hardly surprising that LG would seek to call Google third party
`
`witnesses since all of the technology at issue in this case is Google technology, and not LG
`
`technology. On November 27, 2017 – more than a year before the close of fact discovery – LG
`
`emphasized the importance of “third-party witnesses, including, for instance, the majority of
`
`Google witnesses, who LGEKR expects to be key (and the only) sources of evidence regarding
`
`the operation, design, and function of the Google applications identified in the Complaint.” (513
`
`D.I. 46 at 23). LG relied upon and cited to declaration testimony from William Luh, the
`
`Technical Lead Manager and Software Engineer at Google responsible for Find My Device, of
`
`whom AGIS now remarkably complains it was unaware. (See, e.g., 513 D.I. 46 at 7-8 (citing
`
`513 D.I. 36-5); see also 513 D.I. 77 at 7 n.3 (citing 513 D.I. 74-9)). LG also relied upon and
`
`cited to declaration testimony from Micah Mason’s predecessor, Andrew Oplinger, regarding
`
`information related to Location Sharing on the Google Maps application. (See § II.B, supra). In
`
`addition, LG served AGIS with its Initial Disclosures and Supplemental Initial Disclosures, in
`
`which LG identified “[w]itnesses from Google LLC who may have knowledge related to the
`
`functionality implicated in the accused applications.” (Lee Decl., Ex. A at 4; D.I. 110, Ex. K at 4;
`
`id., Ex. L at 5; id., Ex. M at 5; id., Ex. N at 5). Until this Motion, AGIS never once complained
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 166 Filed 02/13/19 Page 12 of 18 PageID #: 14662
`
`
`
`that any of LG’s disclosures were unclear. Instead, AGIS took the position that Google
`
`witnesses were irrelevant. (513 D.I. 68 at 2-3, 7, 19).
`
`Now – over a year since LG served its first Initial Disclosure and served declarations
`
`from Google witnesses regarding their relevant knowledge − AGIS argues that LG’s disclosures
`
`were insufficient because the Initial Disclosure form did not identify the Google engineers by
`
`name.4 But AGIS unequivocally cannot show that, if the Initial Disclosure form had the names
`
`of the witnesses (like the transfer documents did), that AGIS would have done anything
`
`different. AGIS served a deposition notice on Google asking for engineers with knowledge of
`
`the accused Find My Device and Google Maps applications. Had AGIS followed through with
`
`the notice, AGIS would have deposed Mr. Luh and Mr. Mason or Mr. Oplinger. But, after
`
`serving the notice, AGIS chose not to seek any depositions of Google and never mentioned the
`
`deposition notice again. (Callagy Decl. ¶¶ 16-19).
`
`To recap, AGIS knew that LG was intending to rely on Google engineers; AGIS
`
`specifically knew of Mr. Luh and his knowledge of Find My Device; AGIS specifically knew of
`
`Mr. Oplinger and his team’s knowledge of Google Maps; AGIS took the position that Google
`
`witnesses were irrelevant; AGIS served a deposition notice on Google seeking depositions of
`
`engineers on Find My Device and Google Maps but chose not to take the depositions. Now,
`
`AGIS is asserting that LG’s expert should not be able to talk to the Google engineers with
`
`knowledge because it was never disclosed to AGIS that Google engineers might have knowledge
`
`of the Google applications that are the accused technology in this matter.
`
`
`4 Of note, AGIS engaged in the very behavior it complains of here. AGIS’s own Initial
`Disclosures to LG only identified corporations generally (e.g., “LG Electronics, Inc.,” “AT&T
`Mobility LLC,” “Verizon Wireless,” and “Sprint Corporation”). (Lee Decl., Ex. B at 18-19).
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 166 Filed 02/13/19 Page 13 of 18 PageID #: 14663
`
`
`
`AGIS’s request to strike should be denied. See Brown v. Chertoff, No. 406cv002, 2009
`
`WL 50163 at *5-6 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 7, 2009) (denying motion to strike where moving party was
`
`aware of the witnesses and that the witnesses had information relevant to the defense during the
`
`discovery period).
`
`a. Under Rule 37, Mr. Tittel’s Reliance On Information Obtained
`From Third-Party Google Fact Witnesses Is “Harmless”
`
`Even if it were true (which it is not) that AGIS received insufficient notice of LG’s
`
`reliance on third party Google witnesses, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1) still allows a
`
`party to use information when reliance on the material at issue is “substantially justified or is
`
`harmless.” The rule is intended to “prevent surprise and prejudice to the opposing party.”
`
`Baltimore Aircoil Co., Inc. v. SPX Cooling Techs. Inc., No. CCB-13-2053, 2016 WL 4426681, at
`
`*17 (D. Md. Aug. 22, 2016), aff’d, 721 F. App’x 983 (Fed. Cir. 2018). “Courts have broad
`
`discretion in determining whether to admit expert submission under Rule 37(c).” Allergan Sales,
`
`LLC v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 2:12-CV-207-JRG, 2016 WL 7209798, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 30,
`
`2016). To determine whether the relied upon material is harmless, courts may look at the
`
`following factors: “(1) the importance of the evidence; (2) the prejudice to the opposing party of
`
`including the evidence; (3) the possibility of curing such prejudice by granting a continuance;
`
`and (4) the explanation for the party’s failure to disclose.” Primrose Operating Co. v. Nat’l Am.
`
`Ins. Co., 382 F.3d 546, 563-64 (5th Cir. 2004). The prejudice inquiry focuses on whether a
`
`party’s failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 “prejudiced [movant’s] ability
`
`to prepare for trial.” See Norton v. Assisted Living Concepts, Inc., 786 F. Supp. 2d 1173, 1189
`
`(E.D. Tex. 2011).
`
`As described above, under the record in this case, AGIS is not prejudiced. LG timely
`
`identified reliance on Google and its witnesses as a key source of evidence for its defense. (See
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 166 Filed 02/13/19 Page 14 of 18 PageID #: 14664
`
`
`
`supra § II.B). AGIS’s own decision to subpoena Google confirms its awareness. And, AGIS’s
`
`own decision not to depose Google also confirms that the identification of William Luh, Andrew
`
`Oplinger, or Micah Mason by name as a more specific supplementation to LG’s identification of
`
`“Google LLC,” after the close of fact discovery was harmless.
`
`i. The Information Obtained from William Luh and Micah
`Mason Is Important
`
`The information that Mr. Tittel obtained from William Luh and Micah Mason is
`
`important to LG’s non-infringement arguments. This is precisely why AGIS seeks to strike it.
`
`Mr. Luh and Mr. Mason possess knowledge regarding the relevant operation, design, and
`
`functionality of the Google applications AGIS accuses of infringement, information that is
`
`proprietary to Google. Hence, these third-party fact witnesses possess authoritative information
`
`relevant to the truth of AGIS’s infringement allegations. Striking the portions of Mr. Tittel’s
`
`expert report that are based on information obtained from those Google witnesses would
`
`therefore significantly hamper LG’s ability to present its non-infringement case and make it
`
`more difficult for the trier of fact to understand the technology to determine the ultimate issue of
`
`infringement.
`
`ii. Any Allegedly Late Identification Of Google Witnesses By
`Name Is Not Prejudicial And Does Not Warrant A
`Continuance
`
`AGIS has not been prejudiced as a result of LG’s allegedly late identification of Google
`
`witnesses. AGIS failed to identify exactly what information it was prevented from investigating
`
`or challenging by the allegedly late identification of William Luh and Micah Mason. Indeed,
`
`AGIS had adequate opportunity to depose Google witnesses but effectively abandoned its pursuit
`
`of Google depositions. (Callagy Decl. ¶¶ 13-19). See Smith v. Ardew Wood Prods., Ltd., No.
`
`C07-5641 FDB, 2009 WL 799679, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 24, 2009) (finding lack of prejudice
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 166 Filed 02/13/19 Page 15 of 18 PageID #: 14665
`
`
`
`where the movant forewent “the very discovery it now argues the supplemental . . . information
`
`necessitates”).
`
`AGIS’s conclusory claims of prejudice are also belied by its own assertions to the Court
`
`where it expressly argued that Google witnesses would not have information relevant to its case.
`
`(See, e.g., 513 D.I. 68 at 2 (“While AGIS has accused functionality related to Google’s Android
`
`Operating System, much of that information is publicly available through either open source
`
`code or public application programming interfaces (‘API’)”); id. at 7 (arguing that evidence or
`
`testimony from Google witnesses will not be relevant to this action); id. at 19 (“Contrary to
`
`LGEKR’s contention that Google’s witnesses are ‘the only[] sources of evidence regarding the
`
`operation, design, and function’ of the relevant Google applications (id. at 23), AGIS’s
`
`infringement contentions rely on Google’s open source code and/or application programming
`
`interfaces, which are publicly available.”)).
`
`Since AGIS has not suffered any prejudice, a continuance is not necessary, and Mr.
`
`Tittel’s reliance upon the information obtained from conversations with William Luh and Micah
`
`Mason should not be struck. See, e.g., Williams v. Toyota Motor Corp., No. 4:08-cv-487, 2009
`
`WL 305183, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 6, 2009) (allowing expert opinion primarily due to no
`
`complaint of prejudice).
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For these reasons, LG respectfully requests that the Court deny AGIS’s Motion to Strike
`
`the January 11, 2019 Expert Report of Edward R. Tittel.
`
`
`
`Dated: February 11, 2019
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Michael Berta
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 166 Filed 02/13/19 Page 16 of 18 PageID #: 14666
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`J. Mark Mann (SBN: 12926150)
`G. Blake Thompson (SBN: 24042033)
`MANN TINDEL THOMPSON
`300 West Main Street
`Henderson, Texas 75652
`Tel: (903) 657-8540
`mark@themannfirm.com
`blake@themannfirm.com
`
`Michael A. Berta
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`Three Embarcadero Center, 10th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111-4024
`Tel: (415) 471-3277
`Michael.Berta@arnoldporter.com
`
`James S. Blackburn
`Nicholas H. Lee
`Justin J. Chi
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`777 South Figueroa Street, 44th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90017-5844
`Tel: (213) 243-4156
`James.Blackburn@arnoldporter.com
`Nicholas.Lee@arnoldporter.com
`Justin.Chi@arnoldporter.com
`
`Bonnie Phan
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`3000 El Camino Real
`Five Palo Alto Square, Suite 500
`Palo Alto, CA 94306-3807
`Tel: (650) 319-4500
`Bonnie.Phan@arnoldporter.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant LG Electronics Inc.
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 166 Filed 02/13/19 Page 17 of 18 PageID #: 14667
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
`
`The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document is authorized to be filed under seal
`
`
`
`pursuant to paragraphs 26 and 27 of the Protective Order entered in this case.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Michael Berta
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 166 Filed 02/13/19 Page 18 of 18 PageID #: 14668
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that counsel of record who are deemed to have
`
`
`
`consented to electronic services are being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s
`
`CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) on February 11, 2019.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Michael Berta
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`