`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
` UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
` WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
` AUSTIN DIVISION
`ANCORA TECHNOLOGIES,
`) Docket No. A 20-CA-034 ADA
`INC.
`)
` )
`vs.
` ) Austin, Texas
` )
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`)
`LG ELECTRONICS USA, INC.,)
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`)
`AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG
`)
`ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`) September 3, 2020
`
` TRANSCRIPT OF TELEPHONIC DISCOVERY HEARING
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE ALAN D. ALBRIGHT
`
`APPEARANCES:
`For the Plaintiff:
`
`For LG Electronics:
`
`Mr. Steven M. Seigel
`Susman Godfrey, LLP
`1201 3rd Avenue, Suite 3800
`Seattle, Washington 98101
`Mr. Charles L. Ainsworth
`Mr. Robert Christopher Bunt
`Parker, Bunt & Ainsworth, P.C.
`100 East Ferguson, Suite 418
`Tyler, Texas 75702
`
`Mr. Winstol D. Carter, Jr.
`Ms. Elizabeth M. Chiaviello
`Mr. Thomas R. Davis
`Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP
`1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 4000
`Houston, Texas 77002
`Mr. Collin W. Park
`Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP
`1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20004
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 101 Filed 09/17/20 Page 2 of 19
`
`2
`
`(Appearances Continued:)
`For Samsung Electronics: Mr. Anupam Sharma
`Covington & Burling, LLP
`3000 El Camino Real
`5 Palo Alto Square, 10th Floor
`Palo Alto, California 94306
`Ms. Melissa R. Smith
`Gillam and Smith, LLP
`303 South Washington Avenue
`Marshall, Texas 75670
`
`
`Court Reporter:
`
`
`Ms. Lily Iva Reznik, CRR, RMR
`501 West 5th Street, Suite 4153
`Austin, Texas 78701
`(512)391-8792
`
`Proceedings reported by computerized stenography,
`transcript produced by computer-aided transcription.
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 101 Filed 09/17/20 Page 3 of 19
`
`3
`
`THE COURT: Good afternoon. It's Alan Albright.
`If I could hear Suzanne announce the case,
`please, and then, announcements from counsel for each
`side, please.
`THE CLERK: Sure.
`Telephonic discovery hearing in Civil Action
`1:20-CV-34, Ancora Technologies, Incorporated vs. LG
`Electronics, Incorporated, LG Electronics U.S.A.,
`Incorporated, Samsung Electronics America, Incorporated
`and Samsung Electronics Company, Limited.
`THE COURT: And for defendants?
`MR. CARTER: Winn Carter is here on behalf of LG,
`your Honor, along with Elizabeth Chiaviello, Tom Davis and
`Collin Park.
`THE COURT: Okay.
`MS. SMITH: And Melissa Smith and Anupam Sharma
`for Samsung, your Honor.
`THE COURT: Very good. Thank you.
`Anyone else?
`MR. SEIGEL: Yes --
`MR. AINSWORTH: Your Honor, this is --
`MR. SEIGEL: Oh, sorry, Charley.
`MR. AINSWORTH: No. Go ahead, Mr. Seigel,
`
`please.
`
`MR. SEIGEL: Your Honor, Steve Seigel from Susman
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`15:02:05
`
`15:02:06
`
`15:02:09
`
`15:02:11
`
`15:02:12
`
`15:02:13
`
`15:02:16
`
`15:02:23
`
`15:02:26
`
`15:02:29
`
`15:02:33
`
`15:02:41
`
`15:02:44
`
`15:02:49
`
`15:02:50
`
`15:02:51
`
`15:02:54
`
`15:02:55
`
`15:02:57
`
`15:03:04
`
`15:03:04
`
`15:03:04
`
`15:03:04
`
`15:03:05
`
`15:03:06
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 101 Filed 09/17/20 Page 4 of 19
`
`4
`
`Godfrey and Chris Bunt. We are here on behalf of Ancora.
`THE COURT: Okay.
`MR. AINSWORTH: Mr. Ainsworth is on the call, as
`
`well.
`
`THE COURT: Mr. Ainsworth, good to hear from you.
`Anyone else? Okeydokey.
`I'm happy to take up whatever issues you have.
`I'll start with the plaintiff.
`MR. SEIGEL: Yes. Thank you very much, your
`
`Honor.
`
`Ancora requested this hearing to address some
`issues related to the August 10th hearing and this court's
`order at that hearing that LG quickly collect and produce
`certain ESI. As a brief reminder of the issues that we
`addressed at that hearing, Ancora asks for ESI relating to
`certain third-party servers that LG says is responsible
`for several of the actions that we identified in our
`infringement contentions.
`Ancora has always contended that LG controls the
`process by which it delivers its own software updates to
`LG devices, which are TVs, phones and tablets. But LG has
`said it is going to dispute that position and will argue,
`instead, that third parties other than LG are responsible
`for and control those actions, which include these
`third-party servers.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`15:03:09
`
`15:03:14
`
`15:03:19
`
`15:03:21
`
`15:03:22
`
`15:03:25
`
`15:03:27
`
`15:03:29
`
`15:03:33
`
`15:03:35
`
`15:03:35
`
`15:03:39
`
`15:03:42
`
`15:03:45
`
`15:03:49
`
`15:03:54
`
`15:03:59
`
`15:04:03
`
`15:04:05
`
`15:04:08
`
`15:04:13
`
`15:04:20
`
`15:04:24
`
`15:04:28
`
`15:04:33
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 101 Filed 09/17/20 Page 5 of 19
`
`5
`
`Frankly, we don't see how that can be right. The
`software updates at issue are LGs, and at most, LG simply
`passes their software updates onto a server controlled by
`a different LG entity; and that other LG entity then
`passes on the software updates to third-party content
`servers like Amazon, AWS, or Akamai, which are located in
`the U.S., and pass those software updates along to the
`endusers' phones or tablets.
`But regardless, as we discussed at the last
`hearing, LG has produced almost no information about its
`relationship with these third parties or how LG ensures
`that its software updates get delivered to its customers.
`At that hearing, your Honor directed LG to do two things.
`First, LG was to tell Ancora by August 15th
`whether it would stipulate to agree that it controlled the
`process of delivering its own software updates to LG
`devices; and second, if LG declines to make such a
`stipulation, LG was ordered to work very quickly to
`produce ESI for those certain custodians to be identified
`by LG who are responsible for working with these
`third-party servers that LG says are responsible for
`delivering software updates.
`The long story short is that LG declined to
`stipulate on August 14th, but since that time, it has
`produced no ESI. It hasn't even produced hit counts, even
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`15:04:35
`
`15:04:38
`
`15:04:44
`
`15:04:48
`
`15:04:53
`
`15:04:56
`
`15:05:01
`
`15:05:06
`
`15:05:08
`
`15:05:11
`
`15:05:16
`
`15:05:21
`
`15:05:24
`
`15:05:27
`
`15:05:31
`
`15:05:35
`
`15:05:39
`
`15:05:43
`
`15:05:46
`
`15:05:51
`
`15:05:54
`
`15:05:59
`
`15:06:00
`
`15:06:03
`
`15:06:09
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 101 Filed 09/17/20 Page 6 of 19
`
`6
`
`though we gave them our search terms the same day of the
`hearing. And for the past three weeks, I've spent a good
`deal of my time trying to get hit counts from LG, without
`any success. Even though we immediately approved LG's
`proposed custodians, I won't delve into the various
`objections and issues that LG raised during those
`exchanges, which LG also raised in its e-mail to Dr. Yi
`this morning.
`Because what matters to us is that we're now
`three-and-a-half weeks after the hearing, and we still
`don't have any ESI, and LG still has not even provided us
`hit counts. Even more concerning, however, in what
`prompted us to request this hearing is that on Monday of
`this week, LG informed us that it was having issues
`providing hit counts because the custodians that LG itself
`proposed, quote, have no e-mails or very few e-mails from
`prior to October 1, 2018. This is LG's Exhibit B at page
`1.
`
`Their explanation for this is that those e-mails
`were, quote, not maintained, end quote, when in 2019, LG
`converted to a cloud-computing method of storing e-mail
`and in LG's words, quote, LG personnel began storing their
`information to a cloud-based system, instead of hard
`drives on their laptops, end quote. And again, that's on
`page 1 of LG's Exhibit B.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`15:06:13
`
`15:06:15
`
`15:06:20
`
`15:06:22
`
`15:06:26
`
`15:06:29
`
`15:06:33
`
`15:06:39
`
`15:06:39
`
`15:06:42
`
`15:06:44
`
`15:06:49
`
`15:06:53
`
`15:06:56
`
`15:07:00
`
`15:07:05
`
`15:07:10
`
`15:07:15
`
`15:07:16
`
`15:07:19
`
`15:07:25
`
`15:07:29
`
`15:07:34
`
`15:07:37
`
`15:07:40
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 101 Filed 09/17/20 Page 7 of 19
`
`7
`
`In this e-mail, LG did not give us any hit
`counts, even for those few e-mails they claim to still
`have in their possession. And, frankly, your Honor, we
`find this explanation regarding the missing e-mails
`somewhat suspect. First, we don't really know of any
`sophisticated company that allows its employees to store
`e-mails on laptops without also maintaining an archive or
`a backup.
`And in addition, I've spoken with my colleagues,
`other colleagues in my firm who have repeatedly and
`recently litigated against LG in other matters, and
`they've indicated to me that LG has never claimed an
`inability to produce historical e-mails and has never
`raised the issue of lost or missing e-mails based upon a
`supposed transition to cloud computing.
`So ultimately, where this leaves us, your Honor,
`is that LG has put this defense in issue claiming that it
`has no role in delivering its own software updates to its
`own devices, while also refusing to provide us any
`meaningful discovery that would allow Ancora to test and
`challenge that claim. And with the end of discovery close
`at hand, you know, we're trying to come up with a few
`options that we see that might help resolve this logjam.
`The first one we thought about was, given LG's
`last-minute disclosure about these missing e-mails, we
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`15:07:44
`
`15:07:47
`
`15:07:50
`
`15:07:54
`
`15:07:57
`
`15:08:01
`
`15:08:05
`
`15:08:08
`
`15:08:09
`
`15:08:12
`
`15:08:17
`
`15:08:19
`
`15:08:23
`
`15:08:26
`
`15:08:30
`
`15:08:33
`
`15:08:36
`
`15:08:40
`
`15:08:44
`
`15:08:47
`
`15:08:51
`
`15:08:55
`
`15:08:57
`
`15:09:01
`
`15:09:06
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 101 Filed 09/17/20 Page 8 of 19
`
`8
`
`think it's appropriate for LG to produce a deponent to
`testify about, for example, LG's e-mail and archiving
`practices so we can determine what e-mail we can obtain
`and whether there are other ways of obtaining the same
`information that's relevant to this issue.
`Second, LG needs to provide a much-improved
`supplemental response to the interrogatory we served on LG
`directly addressing this issue, which is Interrogatory No.
`12. We asked LG to explain how each step of the software
`update process for its phones, as we allege in our
`contentions, is performed by a third party. We attached
`this as Exhibit D, but it's not critical if you look at
`it. But what matters is that LG's responses to this
`interrogatory are simply to deny that it performs any step
`and then, to very generically state that if infringement
`is somehow found, then that infringement is attributable
`to one or more third parties.
`This response, frankly, gives us no information,
`even though we think it's very clear that LG understands
`exactly how its own software updates make their way to
`LG's phones and TVs. And then, third, we really need LG
`to do everything in its power to help ensure that these
`third-party LG CNS entities that LG first disclosed to us
`in July provide us with e-mails that between it and LG,
`that LG claims it no longer has.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`15:09:09
`
`15:09:14
`
`15:09:17
`
`15:09:20
`
`15:09:23
`
`15:09:25
`
`15:09:31
`
`15:09:36
`
`15:09:39
`
`15:09:44
`
`15:09:49
`
`15:09:54
`
`15:09:56
`
`15:10:01
`
`15:10:04
`
`15:10:09
`
`15:10:11
`
`15:10:13
`
`15:10:17
`
`15:10:20
`
`15:10:25
`
`15:10:30
`
`15:10:34
`
`15:10:40
`
`15:10:45
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 101 Filed 09/17/20 Page 9 of 19
`
`9
`
`Although we can, of course, subpoena LG CNS, it's
`a Korean entity which requires us to proceed through the
`Hague. And because this entity was only first disclosed
`to us in July, even though LG was ordered to tell us all
`of the relevant third parties in March, we have very
`little time in which to ensure a foreign entity's
`compliance with our subpoena.
`So in short, these are the three things that
`we've come up with. Your Honor may have other ideas, but
`the bottom line is that we really need to get relevant
`discovery on this topic because to date, we have received
`absolutely nothing from LG.
`MR. CARTER: May I respond, your Honor?
`THE COURT: Of course.
`MR. CARTER: This is Winn Carter for LG.
`So during the period of time that we -- that
`after the Court requested that we identify custodians, we
`worked on two different fronts: Number one, to try to
`come up with a proposal on the ESI method by which this
`was going to be done and, also, identify custodians.
`During this period of time, we learned that -- I believe
`it was in 2018, 2019, that this conversion went to the
`cloud, and we sent out this timeline in our e-mail to Josh
`earlier today.
`Of course, the lawsuit, this lawsuit didn't get
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`15:10:47
`
`15:10:51
`
`15:10:54
`
`15:10:58
`
`15:11:03
`
`15:11:07
`
`15:11:12
`
`15:11:13
`
`15:11:15
`
`15:11:18
`
`15:11:20
`
`15:11:25
`
`15:11:31
`
`15:11:32
`
`15:11:34
`
`15:11:39
`
`15:11:44
`
`15:11:49
`
`15:11:53
`
`15:11:59
`
`15:12:04
`
`15:12:08
`
`15:12:16
`
`15:12:21
`
`15:12:25
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 101 Filed 09/17/20 Page 10 of 19
`
`10
`
`filed until late 2019, and so, anything that occurred
`regarding the conversion to the cloud and the removal of
`documents pertaining to these issues occurred before any
`lawsuit was contemplated or filed. So we have asked the
`custodians, we have asked LG to produce the documents.
`This is the response that we had received, and they don't
`have the documents that the plaintiffs are seeking for
`this reason.
`I appreciate Mr. Seigel's speculation as to what
`other companies have done or what other companies do,
`unfortunately, that's the situation we have here. These
`are older phones as we've discussed before; they're not
`current. The patents have expired. So this is what we've
`got at this point in time.
`Now, what we have done, in addition to
`identifying the custodians that would likely have had
`documents that would have been -- were sought, we are also
`going to others who might have been copied on e-mails.
`But based upon our current information, the other people
`that would have had these documents were also involved in
`this conversion, and as a result, their e-mails have been
`deleted, as well.
`I don't know what other cases Mr. Seigel is
`talking about. I've represented LG for over 10 years in
`cases. We're not involved in any other case -- I'm not
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`15:12:28
`
`15:12:36
`
`15:12:43
`
`15:12:48
`
`15:12:57
`
`15:13:03
`
`15:13:09
`
`15:13:15
`
`15:13:21
`
`15:13:24
`
`15:13:30
`
`15:13:33
`
`15:13:37
`
`15:13:45
`
`15:13:48
`
`15:13:51
`
`15:13:55
`
`15:14:01
`
`15:14:06
`
`15:14:12
`
`15:14:20
`
`15:14:27
`
`15:14:30
`
`15:14:34
`
`15:14:42
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 101 Filed 09/17/20 Page 11 of 19
`
`11
`
`involved in any other cases with LG at the moment. This
`is the first time, actually, that I've been involved in a
`case where e-mail discovery or ESI discovery was allowed.
`So what's happened in other cases really doesn't impact
`what's happened here.
`As far as the supplemental response, I don't know
`the answer to Mr. Seigel's question. Unfortunately, that
`issue wasn't raised as an issue in his e-mail to Mr. Yi
`that there were some dispute about it. We've not had any
`discussion, any conference concerning the contents of that
`interrogatory. And as the Court would look at the
`exhibit, if it cares to, it's a very lengthy answer with a
`number of objections.
`So we can be prepared to respond, but that's an
`issue that we're not prepared to respond to completely and
`fully today without -- with effectively being blind-sided
`right now, some lack of information that they're
`complaining about.
`As far as LG CNS, it's a separate company. We
`don't control LG CNS. LG doesn't control LG CNS. We have
`written at the request -- at our request through LG CNS
`Korea to see if they would assist the plaintiffs in
`getting the information that they -- that they are
`requesting. We've not received a response from LG CNS
`Korea.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`15:14:45
`
`15:14:49
`
`15:14:52
`
`15:15:02
`
`15:15:04
`
`15:15:09
`
`15:15:13
`
`15:15:18
`
`15:15:23
`
`15:15:28
`
`15:15:34
`
`15:15:40
`
`15:15:44
`
`15:15:46
`
`15:15:50
`
`15:15:57
`
`15:16:02
`
`15:16:05
`
`15:16:06
`
`15:16:11
`
`15:16:20
`
`15:16:28
`
`15:16:30
`
`15:16:34
`
`15:16:39
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 101 Filed 09/17/20 Page 12 of 19
`
`12
`
`Of course, plaintiffs have a number of options.
`They could do discovery against the third parties that are
`identified, Akamai and others. In fact, they've sent
`subpoenas to these entities so -- for documents, at least
`the ones in the United States. And I don't know what the
`situation is with those subpoenas at this point in time.
`So there is -- there are other options to gain information
`from third parties and from LG CNS Korea.
`And the one thing Mr. Seigel keeps bringing up is
`about that we were required to identify LG CNS Korea back
`in February. We take issue with that. I don't want to
`get into the dispute about it, but we take issue with the
`fact that that's not what the Court required us to do.
`And we fully complied with the Court's order back in
`February.
`The fact that the plaintiffs have not followed
`up, gone ahead and done discovery against LG CNS Korea in
`some way, I can't explain the lack of action on their
`part.
`
`THE COURT: Why don't you -- I don't know that
`you did directly. I was hoping you were going to respond
`individually to the three requests or suggestions that Mr.
`Seigel made and what I should do with them.
`MR. CARTER: The first request was a deposition.
`We've not received any requests for a deposition from Mr.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`15:16:39
`
`15:16:42
`
`15:16:48
`
`15:16:53
`
`15:16:58
`
`15:17:03
`
`15:17:09
`
`15:17:12
`
`15:17:17
`
`15:17:24
`
`15:17:31
`
`15:17:34
`
`15:17:37
`
`15:17:40
`
`15:17:43
`
`15:17:44
`
`15:17:51
`
`15:17:56
`
`15:18:00
`
`15:18:04
`
`15:18:05
`
`15:18:11
`
`15:18:15
`
`15:18:19
`
`15:18:21
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 101 Filed 09/17/20 Page 13 of 19
`
`13
`
`Seigel. He's not brought that up. That's -- so this is
`the first time I've heard of a deposition request. A
`supplemental response to the interrogatory, I touched on
`that. We've not had any discussion about the substance of
`that supplemental response.
`And then, as far as LG CNS Korea is concerned,
`I'm not sure what we're being asked to do to a company
`that is not within our control. Like I say, we've already
`asked for and sought their assistance voluntarily, but
`we've not received a response from them.
`THE COURT: Here's what -- here's what I'm going
`to do. Obviously I'm going to give Mr. Seigel a chance to
`respond. But if it's true that the relief that plaintiff
`is seeking from the Court have not been raised and
`discussed with defendant, Mr. Seigel, why don't you
`address that first, what I just heard.
`MR. SEIGEL: Sure, your Honor.
`So the first that we learned that LG was taking
`the position that it had, in its words, no significant
`repository of e-mails from before October 1, 2018 for any
`potentially relevant custodians, end quote, that's what LG
`wrote to us on Monday at 11:00 p.m. We immediately
`requested the hearing the next day so that we could
`address this with your Honor.
`Because the entire purpose of our requesting ESI
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`15:18:24
`
`15:18:30
`
`15:18:33
`
`15:18:36
`
`15:18:40
`
`15:18:44
`
`15:18:48
`
`15:18:59
`
`15:19:01
`
`15:19:05
`
`15:19:11
`
`15:19:13
`
`15:19:16
`
`15:19:21
`
`15:19:25
`
`15:19:29
`
`15:19:33
`
`15:19:36
`
`15:19:41
`
`15:19:45
`
`15:19:52
`
`15:19:56
`
`15:20:03
`
`15:20:06
`
`15:20:08
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 101 Filed 09/17/20 Page 14 of 19
`
`14
`
`was because LG had failed to produce discovery, non-e-mail
`discovery relevant to its oversight of the contracts that
`it has with certain of these third-party servers. LG took
`the position that it doesn't have any such relevant
`information. And so, our next best suggestion was to get
`it through ESI, and that's what we discussed at the other
`hearing.
`
`So at this point, LG has now come back to us and
`said, we don't have any ESI either, because it's been
`destroyed, and we are now in the position of time to come
`up with creative solutions for how best to respond to LG's
`failure to produce relevant information related to an
`issue what they intend to raise as their own defense.
`So --
`
`THE COURT: Let me articulate I get that. But
`here's where I'm at is, I don't want to get in -- I'm
`happy to help quickly, but I don't want to be the first
`person either side's talked -- either side talks to in
`trying to figure out how to solve something. So what I'm
`going to do is, I'm going to stay this hearing or continue
`this hearing. It's Thursday late, at least -- not that
`late, but it's Thursday afternoon.
`I'm going to give you all all day -- the rest of
`the day today and tomorrow to discuss these issues. If
`you are able to do -- and here's all I'm talking about is,
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`15:20:13
`
`15:20:19
`
`15:20:27
`
`15:20:29
`
`15:20:31
`
`15:20:34
`
`15:20:39
`
`15:20:39
`
`15:20:42
`
`15:20:46
`
`15:20:51
`
`15:20:56
`
`15:21:00
`
`15:21:04
`
`15:21:04
`
`15:21:10
`
`15:21:13
`
`15:21:18
`
`15:21:24
`
`15:21:27
`
`15:21:30
`
`15:21:37
`
`15:21:38
`
`15:21:42
`
`15:21:51
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 101 Filed 09/17/20 Page 15 of 19
`
`15
`
`the LG counsel has now heard your three proposals. I
`think it's fair to give him an opportunity to discuss with
`his client what he's willing to agree or not to agree to,
`and I know that's going to take at least one full turn of
`the sun to happen, given where his clients are.
`So you all either -- you have two choices, Mr.
`Seigel. You have articulated for the Court what it is
`that you'd like the Court to do. You all need to get
`together and you can chat with Mr. Winn, counsel, or any
`counsel for LG and say, what are you willing to do? Or
`you can come up with other alternatives, as well. I don't
`care. I don't care what it is either side wants to do as
`a result of where we're at. But I do want you all to have
`discussed it with each other. I want you -- I want LG
`counsel to have had an opportunity to speak with their
`client.
`
`Unfortunately, Monday -- I guess not
`unfortunately, but Monday is a holiday. So what I'll do
`is, I'll reset this hearing Tuesday afternoon, and
`basically when we get back on, you all can tell me -- I
`can hear from counsel for LG and LG can tell me what
`they're going to agree to do based on what you've said you
`would like to do. They could tell me what they won't
`agree to do that you'd like for them to do. I'll hear
`from you, Mr. Seigel, and then, I'll decide what to do
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`15:21:56
`
`15:22:00
`
`15:22:05
`
`15:22:08
`
`15:22:12
`
`15:22:16
`
`15:22:22
`
`15:22:26
`
`15:22:31
`
`15:22:36
`
`15:22:40
`
`15:22:43
`
`15:22:46
`
`15:22:49
`
`15:22:53
`
`15:22:56
`
`15:22:56
`
`15:22:59
`
`15:23:03
`
`15:23:08
`
`15:23:15
`
`15:23:20
`
`15:23:26
`
`15:23:28
`
`15:23:31
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 101 Filed 09/17/20 Page 16 of 19
`
`16
`
`with anything LG doesn't agree to do. But I want them to
`have the opportunity to talk about these options with
`their client before I take them up.
`Is there anything that will -- I know we're
`losing three days. But other than that, is there any --
`and I appreciate, by the way, on my clerks -- my clerk is
`very complimentary at how quickly the parties and counsel
`could get to the Court and gave us the opportunity to be
`involved. So that's something both sides needed to be
`complimented on.
`But is there anything I need to take up right now
`before Tuesday from either side? I'll hear first from Mr.
`Seigel.
`
`MR. SEIGEL: Thank you, your Honor.
`And that proposal sounds reasonable to us. The
`one thing that we still don't have from LG, which I think
`should not be an issue for them to provide, is the hit
`counts from whatever few e-mails they do have. They did
`mention in their e-mail that they have some e-mails. So
`we would just like to get a sense of how many hit on the
`search terms that we've provided to them, which should be
`a relatively straightforward process. Other than that, I
`think we can -- we are more than happy to discuss these
`with LG and then, reconvene on Tuesday.
`THE COURT: Well, that -- that sounds at a high
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`15:23:36
`
`15:23:39
`
`15:23:43
`
`15:23:47
`
`15:23:49
`
`15:23:53
`
`15:23:58
`
`15:24:02
`
`15:24:05
`
`15:24:09
`
`15:24:09
`
`15:24:14
`
`15:24:18
`
`15:24:19
`
`15:24:20
`
`15:24:23
`
`15:24:28
`
`15:24:31
`
`15:24:35
`
`15:24:39
`
`15:24:43
`
`15:24:46
`
`15:24:48
`
`15:24:52
`
`15:24:55
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 101 Filed 09/17/20 Page 17 of 19
`
`17
`
`level generally reasonable to me. But again, I want to
`make sure that before -- I'm not going to ask Mr. Winn to
`respond at this point only because I want you all to
`discuss it. Generally speaking, that sounds reasonable,
`but he may have a reason if he thinks it's unreasonable.
`So you all can include that in what you discuss.
`If LG decides, for some reason, they don't want to do
`that, I'll take that up Tuesday, as well. But it
`certainly -- at a high level, that sounds reasonable to
`me.
`
`So is there anything else we could take up for
`the plaintiff?
`MR. SEIGEL: No thank you, your Honor.
`THE COURT: Is there anything else for LG?
`MR. CARTER: On behalf of LG, Winn Carter again,
`your Honor, no --
`THE COURT: I'm sorry. Mr. Winn -- I've been
`calling you Mr. Winn. I apologize. I was brain-dead, Mr.
`Carter. I should have said Mr. Carter. One of my best
`friends is named Bob Wynne and I got that in my head. I
`apologize. That's terrible. So.
`MR. CARTER: I understand. No offense, your
`Honor. But we have nothing else.
`THE COURT: Okay. Thank you very much.
`Again, check in with Josh Yi and we'll take this
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`15:24:58
`
`15:25:02
`
`15:25:05
`
`15:25:09
`
`15:25:13
`
`15:25:16
`
`15:25:20
`
`15:25:24
`
`15:25:27
`
`15:25:30
`
`15:25:31
`
`15:25:33
`
`15:25:35
`
`15:25:37
`
`15:25:40
`
`15:25:43
`
`15:25:44
`
`15:25:46
`
`15:25:49
`
`15:25:53
`
`15:25:55
`
`15:25:59
`
`15:26:03
`
`15:26:05
`
`15:26:08
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 101 Filed 09/17/20 Page 18 of 19
`
`18
`
`up on Tuesday afternoon. If there -- and by the way, if
`you all have discussions and you resolve everything, as
`much as it would break my heart not to get to spend time
`with you all, I could live with it. But certainly if you
`need my help at all, we'll find a time for you Tuesday
`afternoon, and we'll work through this stuff.
`So that being said, have a wonderful rest of
`Thursday afternoon and have a great holiday weekend, as
`well. Be safe out there. Bye.
`MR. SEIGEL: Thank you, your Honor.
`MR. CARTER: Thank you, your Honor.
`(End of proceedings.)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`15:26:12
`
`15:26:19
`
`15:26:25
`
`15:26:28
`
`15:26:31
`
`15:26:34
`
`15:26:37
`
`15:26:39
`
`15:26:42
`
`15:26:47
`
`15:26:52
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 101 Filed 09/17/20 Page 19 of 19
`
`19
`
`* * * * * *
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT )
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS )
`
`I, LILY I. REZNIK, Certified Realtime Reporter,
`Registered Merit Reporter, in my capacity as Official
`Court Reporter of the United States District Court,
`Western District of Texas, do certify that the foregoing
`is a correct transcript from the record of proceedings in
`the above-entitled matter.
`I certify that the transcript fees and format comply
`with those prescribed by the Court and Judicial Conference
`of the United States.
`WITNESS MY OFFICIAL HAND this the 11th day of September,
`2020.
`
`/s/Lily I. Reznik
`LILY I. REZNIK, CRR, RMR
`Official Court Reporter
`United States District Court
`Austin Division
`501 W. 5th Street,
`Suite 4153
`Austin, Texas 78701
`(512)391-8792
`SOT Certification No. 4481
`Expires: 1-31-21
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`