throbber
Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 101 Filed 09/17/20 Page 1 of 19
`
`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
`
`

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