Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 84-1 Filed 02/12/25 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:
`5857
`
`Exhibit A
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 84-1 Filed 02/12/25 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:
`5858
`
`
`
`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 84-1 Filed 02/12/25 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:
`5859
`
`source code under P.R. 3-4.
`
`5.
`
`Attached as Exhibit 4 is an excerpt of a true and correct copy of a letter dated
`
`August 16, 2024 from counsel for Databricks to counsel for R2 responding to R2’s August 6 letter.
`
`6.
`
`Attached as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of email correspondence between
`
`counsel for R2 and counsel for Databricks that took place between August 6, 2024 and August 20,
`
`2024.
`
`7.
`
`Attached as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of email correspondence between
`
`counsel for R2 and counsel for Databricks that took place between August 16, 2024 and September
`
`4, 2024.
`
`8.
`
`Attached as Exhibit 7 is an excerpt of a true and correct copy of R2’s First
`
`Supplemental Infringement Contentions served on September 20, 2024.
`
`9.
`
`Attached as Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of Databricks’ First Supplemental
`
`Objections and Responses to R2’s Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, and 5-8 served on November 1, 2024.
`
`10.
`
`Attached as Exhibit 9 is a true and correct copy of a letter dated November 27, 2024
`
`from counsel for R2 to counsel for Databricks regarding Databricks’ deficient source code
`
`production.
`
`11.
`
`Attached as Exhibit 10 is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the transcript of
`
`the deposition of Joshua Rosen that took place on January 16, 2025.
`
`12.
`
`Attached as Exhibit 11 is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the transcript of
`
`the deposition of Cody Austin Davis that took place on December 13, 2024.
`
`13.
`
`Attached as Exhibit 12 is a true and correct copy of a letter dated January 27, 2025
`
`from counsel for R2 to counsel for Databricks regarding Databricks’ failure to produce relevant
`
`source code.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 84-1 Filed 02/12/25 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:
`5860
`
`14.
`
`Attached as Exhibit 13 is a true and correct copy of email correspondence between
`
`counsel for R2 and counsel for Databricks that took place between January 27, 2025 and January
`
`30, 2025.
`
`15.
`
`On December 9, 2024, Ed Nelson and I participated in a telephonic meet and confer
`
`with counsel for Databricks, including Jessica Kaempf and Michael Sacksteder, primarily to
`
`discuss R2’s demand that Databricks produce additional source as outlined in my November 27,
`
`2024 letter (Exhibit 9 attached hereto). On this meet and confer, R2 reiterated its points made in
`
`the November 27, 2024 letter and demanded that Databricks produce all of the source code
`
`identified therein, including
`
`.
`
`16.
`
`Databricks responded by insisting that open-source Apache Spark code was the
`
`only relevant code of the accused platform, that Databricks had complied with P.R. 3-4 by
`
`producing this open-source code, and that there was no more relevant code to produce within the
`
`scope of what the parties had agreed to.
`
`17.
`
`R2 challenged Databricks’ representations on these issues, pointing out that
`
`Databricks’
`
`Databricks had only produced
`
`,
`
`
`
`18.
`
`Databricks responded by representing that
`
`. Databricks also represented that
`
`
`
` R2 also pointed out that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. Databricks further reiterated that the only code Databricks had that was
`
`relevant to the scope of the patent-in-suit was open-source Apache Spark code.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 84-1 Filed 02/12/25 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:
`5861
`
`
