throbber
Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 172-1 Filed 06/30/14 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 5230
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:12-cv-00799-LED
`
`
`
`INVENSYS SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EMERSON ELECTRIC CO. and
`MICRO MOTION INC., USA,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants,
`
`
`and
`
`MICRO MOTION INC., USA,
`
`
`
`Counterclaim-Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INVENSYS SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`
`
`Counterclaim-Defendant.
`
`DECLARATION OF JASON A. BERTA
`
`I, Jason A Berta, do hereby declare as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`I am an attorney with the firm Foley & Lardner LLP, counsel for Micro Motion
`
`Inc. and Emerson Electric Co. in the above-captioned matter. I submit this declaration in support
`
`of Emerson Electric Co.’s and Micro Motion, Inc.’s Motion to Compel the Production of the
`
`Dickson Presentation and All Other Documents Relating to Invensys License Revenue
`
`Projections (the “Motion”).
`
`2.
`
`Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff
`
`Shore Chan DePumpo’s Response to Invensys’s Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery filed
`
`4847-5183-9516
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 172-1 Filed 06/30/14 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 5231
`
`
`by Shore Chan DePumpo LLP on November 12, 2013 in the state court case captioned as
`
`follows: The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the Univ. of Oxford and Invensys Sys., Inc. v.
`
`Shore Chan Depumpo LLP, Case No. 13-01668, 192nd Judicial Dist., Dallas County, Texas (the
`
`“Shore Chan Lawsuit”).
`
`3.
`
`Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of Defendant’s Fourth Amended
`
`Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims filed by Shore Chan DePumpo LLP on
`
`November 12, 2013 in the Shore Chan Lawsuit.
`
`4.
`
`Attached as Exhibit C (filed under seal) is a true and correct copy of Invensys’s
`
`February 21, 2014 Privilege Log produced in the above-captioned litigation.
`
`5.
`
`Attached as Exhibit D is a true and correct letter dated June 4, 2014 sent by
`
`counsel for Defendants to counsel for Invensys regarding the waiver of privilege issue which is
`
`the subject of the Motion.
`
`6.
`
`I have reviewed the electronic docket of the Shore Chan Lawsuit that is available
`
`at http://courts.dallascounty.org. According to the electronic docket, on April 9, 2014, the 192nd
`
`District Court entered the Parties’ Agreed Motion to Dismiss With Prejudice. Attached as
`
`Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of the April 9, 2014 Order dismissing the Shore Chan
`
`Lawsuit.
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
`
`Dated: June 30, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/s/ Jason A. Berta
`
`
`Jason A. Berta, IL Bar No. 6295888
`
`Foley & Lardner LLP
`
`321 North Clark Street, Suite 2800
`
`Chicago, Illinois 60654
`
`
`Phone: (312) 832-4500
`
`Fax: (312) 832-4700
`
`Email: jberta@foley.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket