throbber
Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 80 Filed 03/10/21 Page 1 of 18
`
`1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`*
`DEMARAY LLC
` *
`* CIVIL ACTION NOS.
`*
`*
`*
`
`VS.
`
`
`INTEL CORPORATION
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS, ET AL
`
`March 4, 2021
`
`W-20-CV-634
`W-20-CV-636
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE ALAN D ALBRIGHT
`TELEPHONIC DISCOVERY HEARING
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`For the Plaintiff:
`
`For Defendant Intel:
`
`For Samsung Defendants:
`
`Crawford Maclain Wells, Esq.
`Irell & Manella LLP
`1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`
`Richard D. Milvenan, Esq.
`McGinnis Lochridge and Kilgore
`600 Congress Avenue, Suite 2100
`Austin, TX 78701
`
`J. Stephen Ravel, Esq.
`Kelly Hart & Hallman LLP
`303 Colorado Street, Suite 2000
`Austin, TX 78701
`
`Claire M. Specht, Esq.
`WilmerHale
`60 State Street
`Boston, Massachusetts 02109
`
`Brian Christopher Nash, Esq.
`Austin Michael Schnell, Esq.
`Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
`401 Congress Avenue, Suite 1700
`Austin, TX 78701-3797
`
`Philip Ou, Esq.
`Yar R. Chaikovsky, Esq.
`Paul Hastings LLP
`1117 South California Avenue
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`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 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 80 Filed 03/10/21 Page 2 of 18
`
`2
`
`Court Reporter:
`
`Kristie M. Davis, CRR, RMR
`PO Box 20994
`Waco, Texas 76702-0994
`(254) 340-6114
`
`Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography, transcript
`
`produced by computer-aided transcription.
`
`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
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 80 Filed 03/10/21 Page 3 of 18
`
`3
`
`DEPUTY CLERK: Discovery hearing in Civil Action
`
`6:20-CV-634, styled Demaray LLC versus Intel Corporation, and
`
`Case No. 6:20-CV-636, styled Demaray LLC versus Samsung
`
`Electronics Company, LTD and others.
`
`THE COURT: If I could hear announcements from counsel,
`
`and while you're doing that, I'm going to grab a tablet real
`
`quick.
`
`MR. WELLS: Your Honor, for the plaintiffs Demaray we have
`
`Maclain Wells from Irell & Manella and Rick Milvenan from
`
`McGinnis Lochridge.
`
`THE COURT: Welcome both.
`
`MR. RAVEL: Your Honor, for defendant Intel our client
`
`representative today is John Edwards. From Paul Hastings we
`
`have Phil Ou and Yar Chaikovsky. From WilmerHale we have
`
`Claire Specht. And Mr. Ou will be our primary speaker today.
`
`THE COURT: Good morning, Mr. Ou.
`
`MR. OU: Good morning, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: And anyone else?
`
`MR. NASH: Your Honor, sorry about that. This is Brian
`
`Nash with Pillsbury here on behalf of the Samsung defendants.
`
`I'm also joined by my colleague Austin Schnell of Pillsbury.
`
`And we will also be deferring to Mr. Ou on behalf of Samsung
`
`for the speaking role today.
`
`THE COURT: Very good. I'm happy to take up your issues.
`
`MR. OU: Thank you, Your Honor. Philip Ou for Intel and
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`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 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 80 Filed 03/10/21 Page 4 of 18
`
`4
`
`Samsung.
`
`Your Honor, just to begin, I know the parties submitted
`
`quite a lengthy submission in terms of background. Hopefully
`
`that's at least helpful in framing the issues.
`
`THE COURT: Yes, sir.
`
`MR. OU: I just wanted to orient Your Honor kind of how we
`
`got here. Intel and Samsung, as you may remember from our
`
`January hearing -- discovery hearing -- we had filed transfer
`
`motions back in November. And over the last few months we've
`
`been dealing with venue discovery that Demaray has been
`
`seeking. That's included, discovery from Applied Materials
`
`who's the supplier to Intel and Samsung.
`
`And we finally completed that process at the beginning of
`
`February when we took the deposition of Applied Materials. And
`
`so the day after that Mr. Wells and I and Mr. Ravel and
`
`Mr. Nash actually met and conferred to come up with a schedule
`
`to make sure we finished venue briefing since we had claim
`
`construction deadlines coming up as well. They committed to
`
`filing their responsive brief on February 23rd.
`
`And on that same day I asked Mr. Wells to look into the
`
`availability of Dr. Demaray, who is, as far as I know, the
`
`principal of Demaray LLC. But more importantly there's a long
`
`history between Dr. Demaray, his predecessor company,
`
`Symmorphix, and Applied Materials. Dr. Demaray used to work at
`
`Applied Materials' joint venture Applied Komatsu over 20 years
`
`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
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 80 Filed 03/10/21 Page 5 of 18
`
`5
`
`ago.
`
`And there's a host of defenses that Intel and Samsung have
`
`raised relating to Dr. Demaray and others' involvement in
`
`Applied Materials and the predecessor company. I won't get
`
`into the details of the merits of those disputes, but there are
`
`those defenses. And we expect there's likely going to be
`
`significant and crucial third-party witnesses that were
`
`involved in the activities that happened 20 years ago.
`
`And so for that reason we noticed, and we asked Mr. Wells
`
`to look into availability of Dr. Demaray shortly after they
`
`filed their responsive brief so that we can take that
`
`deposition and get our reply brief in and get the issue
`
`submitted for Your Honor.
`
`It's been nearly a month and they've refused to even look
`
`into Dr. Demaray's availability. Instead, they've offered at
`
`least what we view as a proxy or consultant for Demaray, Brian
`
`Marcucci. We don't know what Mr. Marcucci's going to say in
`
`the deposition, but we do know that Dr. Demaray has likely
`
`significant knowledge, and many instances probably the only
`
`relevant knowledge about the relevant witnesses, their
`
`involvement and things of that nature.
`
`And respectfully, Your Honor, we don't believe it's proper
`
`for Demaray to dictate the discovery that we take or the
`
`discovery that we seek. They've made an objection. They said
`
`that Dr. Demaray's an apex witness. We actually think he's
`
`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
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 80 Filed 03/10/21 Page 6 of 18
`
`6
`
`quite the opposite apex witness. An apex witness is someone
`
`that doesn't have firsthand knowledge of the issues; he seems
`
`to be the person with the most knowledge. And for efficiency
`
`purposes that's why we noticed his deposition.
`
`The only other concern that Mr. Wells and Demaray has
`
`raised is, they think that we're going to use this as an
`
`opportunity to take merits-based discovery. Your Honor, we
`
`have no intention of doing that. We know the rules, and
`
`discovery's limited to issues that relate to venue.
`
`And, Your Honor, we had a call two days ago where you gave
`
`us guidance on how exactly to handle those situations. If they
`
`think that we're going out of bounds, they can instruct the
`
`witness not to answer. Sometimes the lawyers disagree. I
`
`might think the question is within the bounds and Mr. Wells may
`
`disagree. And he can make the instruction and risk potentially
`
`having the witness come back a second time.
`
`But those potential concerns aren't a reason to preclude
`
`the defendants from taking the deposition that we noticed and
`
`getting the discovery that we need.
`
`And so, Your Honor, with that, I don't think that they've
`
`met their burden. Your standing order on venue discovery says
`
`that it's governed by Rule 26, and I don't think they've made a
`
`showing that we shouldn't be able to proceed with Dr. Demaray's
`
`deposition.
`
`And so, Your Honor, we'd ask that his deposition be
`
`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
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 80 Filed 03/10/21 Page 7 of 18
`
`7
`
`ordered as soon as possible so that we can complete venue
`
`discovery.
`
`There are a number of other issues raised in the
`
`submission, and if Your Honor has any questions about the
`
`details, I'd be happy to answer to answer them.
`
`THE COURT: Why don't you go ahead and articulate -- I'm
`
`sorry. Why don't you go ahead and articulate specifically
`
`the -- what will help me, because I have a feeling I may be
`
`hearing from you all again if I order a deposition. Why don't
`
`you go ahead and outline for me exactly the areas that -- the
`
`question -- the buckets of questions that you'd like to ask
`
`this gentleman?
`
`MR. OU: Yes, Your Honor. I'll give you a few examples.
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`MR. OU: And we did provide a number of topics to
`
`Mr. Wells and Demaray which we can -- I'd be happy to submit to
`
`the Court, Your Honor.
`
`But one example is back in 1998 Dr. Demaray left Applied
`
`Materials' joint venture, Applied Komatsu, and they formed
`
`another company, Symmorphix. As part of that leaving there was
`
`an agreement that was made which granted Applied a license to
`
`what we believe would cover the patents-in-suit.
`
`The parties dispute whether or not that license covers the
`
`patent-in-suit. And we're not going to the merits of that
`
`argument, but certainly we believe that the people that
`
`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
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 80 Filed 03/10/21 Page 8 of 18
`
`8
`
`negotiated that license are going to be relevant witnesses.
`
`We believe Dr. Demaray was involved. We have some claims
`
`of other individuals involved, but we don't know who actually
`
`was involved and who's going to have that relevant knowledge.
`
`That's something that Dr. --
`
`THE COURT: So I get that. I get why you want to talk to
`
`him about that. And with respect to how -- I'm assuming the
`
`point of this is when you're -- when we're trying to allocate
`
`the location of everyone who might be involved for me to weigh
`
`the factors, you're -- I'm making this up, but you're going to
`
`say we have Joe Smith who was at A&D and he's in Austin, but
`
`we've got Mike Taylor and he's going to be involved and he's in
`
`New York. But beyond identifying the location of where people
`
`are, how in-depth do you anticipate going into what these
`
`people might know?
`
`MR. OU: Your Honor, we understand that there's a line
`
`that gets into merits discovery and just the identification of
`
`witnesses. We don't intend to get into the buried details.
`
`But, Your Honor, we expect that Dr. Demaray's going to know,
`
`for example, who is the person that has more knowledge than
`
`others?
`
`For example, the people that left Applied Komatsu that
`
`went to Symmorphix, there's a handful of those names. I have a
`
`feeling that if our reply brief we submit those list of names,
`
`they're going to say when we eventually, you know -- if 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
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 80 Filed 03/10/21 Page 9 of 18
`
`9
`
`argue the motion with Your Honor, they're going to say, well,
`
`they haven't said. They don't know which one of these are
`
`actually going to be critical trial witnesses. And so that's a
`
`point that we need to at least get some understanding from
`
`Dr. Demaray, him having been involved personally. And he's
`
`probably the only person that is able to tell us that
`
`information.
`
`And there's a number of other issues related to this that
`
`go into other defenses, but all of this is centered around
`
`things that happened 20 years ago. There are a large number of
`
`former Applied employees that went to Symmorphix. We think
`
`that there's a potential ownership defense based on using
`
`Applied confidential information. There's also a potential
`
`inventorship issue.
`
`And again, Your Honor, we're not trying to get into the
`
`merits, but I'm sure that if we got too deep into anything that
`
`Mr. Wells believed was the merits, he would instruct the
`
`witness not to answer. And if we thought that it was
`
`inappropriate, we'd potentially raise it with Your Honor. But
`
`we're not intending to get into the detailed merits of those
`
`issues.
`
`THE COURT: Anything else you wanted to add before I hear
`
`from Mr. Wells?
`
`MR. OU: No, Your Honor, unless you had other questions
`
`about those issues.
`
`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
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 80 Filed 03/10/21 Page 10 of 18
`
`10
`
`THE COURT: No. I think I've got a handle on this.
`
`Mr. Wells?
`
`MR. WELLS: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you.
`
`And just to frame the issue one more time, one or two
`
`additional details, there's a transfer motion that was filed on
`
`November 6th, I believe, of last year. And so discovery needs
`
`to be -- a transfer discovery under the Court's standing order
`
`needs to be completed by the beginning of next month.
`
`In their opening brief plaintiffs didn't cite -- or
`
`request any of this discovery. In the opposition brief filed
`
`by Demaray we submitted a declaration from Demaray corporate
`
`designee, Brian Marcucci, who provided a declaration detailing
`
`Demaray documents and witnesses, and stating that Dr. Demaray's
`
`committed to appearing before the Court at trial. And Demaray
`
`as a company will provide documents to the Court in Waco
`
`voluntarily.
`
`There was no declaration submitted by Dr. Demaray in
`
`support of plaintiff's opposition to the motion to transfer.
`
`The defendants submitted a 30(b)(6) notice in addition to
`
`a notice for Dr. Demaray. The 30(b)(6) notice has
`
`approximately -- or has 20 topics. And we designated Brian
`
`Marcucci as the 30(b)(6) witness for Demaray LLC. He's
`
`prepared on those topics. He actually coordinated a trip
`
`dropping his daughter off in Boston to be back for deposition
`
`today, which has been -- and now he's available on March 9th to
`
`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
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 80 Filed 03/10/21 Page 11 of 18
`
`11
`
`testify on the topics noticed.
`
`He has spoken with the relevant witnesses, including
`
`Dr. Demaray and others and probably has the most comprehensive
`
`knowledge of anybody at Demaray regarding those topics and the
`
`locations of evidence related thereto. He's ready to go ahead
`
`with his deposition.
`
`Now, Dr. Demaray is, one, the main named inventor on the
`
`patents that are at issue. Two, he's the head of two companies
`
`that are at issue, Demaray LLC, the plaintiff, as well as
`
`Antropy, which is an ongoing interest of his to continue to
`
`develop technologies related to the patents-in-suit for battery
`
`applications.
`
`And I can't get into the details, but he is -- given that
`
`this is public, but he's very active in both those companies
`
`and very busy as the head of two companies. He's the
`
`definition of an apex witness.
`
`Under the case law in this circuit you can't demand a CEO
`
`or the head of a company to appear where the requested
`
`discovery's readily available from alternative sources.
`
`There's no requirement under the federal rules that a 30(b)(6)
`
`designee have firsthand knowledge of every piece of evidence
`
`they're going to talk about; they prepare for it by speaking
`
`with other witnesses. And Brian Marcucci has done that and
`
`he's prepared to proceed.
`
`The defendants designated individuals for their transfer
`
`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
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 80 Filed 03/10/21 Page 12 of 18
`
`12
`
`discovery at each company that have no firsthand knowledge
`
`whatsoever of the technology. They have no involvement with
`
`PVD --
`
`THE COURT: Mr. Wells?
`
`MR. WELLS: Yes.
`
`THE COURT: Mr. Wells, let me tell you what I'm going to
`
`do. I'm going to give you a choice here. I can understand why
`
`the defendants would like to have a chat with this gentleman
`
`under oath. I can understand your position equally well. I'm
`
`also cognizant of admonitions I've received recently from the
`
`people who grade my papers on the correct timing of when I do
`
`things. So I'm going to give you the choice.
`
`If you believe that the deposition of the corporate
`
`representative that you are going to give -- I think you said
`
`on March 9th -- is going to be sufficient, I'm willing to allow
`
`that as a first step. The defendants can take that deposition.
`
`If they come to me with the deposition though and are able to
`
`establish to me that they should have -- is it Dr. Demaray?
`
`MR. WELLS: Yes.
`
`THE COURT: If they establish that Dr. Demaray is
`
`necessary to be deposed, then I probably will push back some of
`
`these deadlines a little bit to allow that to happen first so I
`
`can get everything in on the motion to transfer. Because I
`
`definitely want to stay -- I want to do that in the way that
`
`I'm trying to be as respectful as I can what the circuit has
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`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 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 80 Filed 03/10/21 Page 13 of 18
`
`13
`
`admonished me.
`
`So if you believe that your corporate representative can
`
`adequately provide the equivalent information that these
`
`defendants need for their motion to transfer, I'm happy to let
`
`you do that first. But I'm -- with no prejudice to Samsung and
`
`Intel coming back to me and saying, you know, we need -- we
`
`still need information that only Dr. -- the Doctor can provide.
`
`So that's what I'm going to do here.
`
`And so the defendants are hearing me. If this winds up
`
`disadvantaging you, then I will make up for it on the timing.
`
`I'll push back the deadlines for the motion to transfer, and
`
`I'm going to push back all the other deadlines too, including
`
`probably the Markman and the briefing for that.
`
`But Mr. Wells, does that satisfy you?
`
`MR. WELLS: Yes, Your Honor. I would simply add that we
`
`have the 20 noticed 30(b)(6) topics for Mr. Marcucci who's
`
`prepared on those. And if defendants have other specific
`
`topics that they want him prepared on, let us know in the next
`
`couple days and we'll get him prepared on those as well.
`
`THE COURT: And, Mr. Wells, have you taken depositions
`
`during this process, either Intel or Samsung, on discovery
`
`depositions?
`
`MR. WELLS: Yes, Your Honor. We have.
`
`THE COURT: And how long -- did I set a deadline for --
`
`whatever the amount of time was that I allowed you or that you
`
`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
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 80 Filed 03/10/21 Page 14 of 18
`
`14
`
`agreed to the 30(b)(6) for the depositions you took of Intel
`
`and Samsung should apply to this gentleman as well.
`
`MR. WELLS: Just to be clear, Your Honor, we didn't have
`
`set deadlines. I believe those 30(b)(6) depositions each
`
`lasted about four hours. But there were three of them because
`
`there was Samsung, Intel and Applied Materials.
`
`THE COURT: Got it. Well, Mr. Wells, I would certainly
`
`not try and win the battle of cutting off the length of time on
`
`30(b)(6) to lose the war of me saying someone else might need
`
`to testify. On the other hand, you know, a 30(b)(6) is a
`
`30(b)(6).
`
`Let me also admonish -- and I'm always careful to do this
`
`with lawyers of this quality, because I know you are so
`
`exceptional. But what I found was very -- and I get it,
`
`there's already been a round of these where the plaintiff got
`
`to take the deposition, so I understand that.
`
`But what might be very helpful for Samsung and Intel to
`
`both get the information that they want, but also to help me
`
`were you to come back to me, is to give Mr. Wells a preview of
`
`the questions that you're going to ask -- I'm not limiting you
`
`to them. He doesn't get to say, oh, you didn't tell me you
`
`were going to ask that. But I'm just saying if you give him in
`
`advance an outline of questions that you're going to want the
`
`30(b)(6) -- not just the topics because then you get a fight
`
`and you say, oh, I said "development" and this has -- this 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
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 80 Filed 03/10/21 Page 15 of 18
`
`15
`
`"development."
`
`If you give him a preview of what you want the 30(b)(6) to
`
`answer, that way when you -- if you have to come back to me,
`
`I'm going to have a roadmap and see which of the questions you
`
`wanted information from this gentleman for that you might then
`
`say, he wasn't able to give it to us. We think this is
`
`necessary for our motion, and we want the Doctor to answer
`
`these questions. So that will save everyone the time of this
`
`30(b)(6) witness saying, oh, I wasn't prepared. I didn't know
`
`you wanted to know that.
`
`The better job the defendants do -- but you don't have to
`
`do this. I mean, you all do it however you want. But I'm
`
`telling you it was something I used to do to avoid the other
`
`side being able to say, we didn't know you were -- I mean, this
`
`isn't a fact witness where you're hoping you can, you know, do
`
`your magic at a deposition.
`
`This is one where you -- I'm assuming, Mr. Ou, you know,
`
`you would tell him now, look, I'm going to want to know this.
`
`And have that witness prepared. And if I find that -- it'll
`
`help me in either direction. If I find that you gave him a
`
`good outline of questions and this witness, as a result of
`
`that, was able to answer all those questions for you, well,
`
`then we might not need the Doctor, because he will have had
`
`that information.
`
`So the better you all cooperate going in, the better job
`
`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
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 80 Filed 03/10/21 Page 16 of 18
`
`16
`
`I'll do of grading the papers of the 30(b)(6) on how he did and
`
`whether there's another deposition. Does that make sense?
`
`MR. WELLS: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`MR. OU: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. But of course you all are -- you know,
`
`it's -- I don't tell my wife how to drive. She's an adult,
`
`and, you know, I would get in trouble. So it's entirely up to
`
`you all what you do. I'm just forecasting for you what I
`
`think, given this unique set of facts -- I understand, Mr. Ou,
`
`why you want this gentleman's deposition. I'm sympathetic to
`
`that.
`
`And you may get, Mr. Wells, I understand why he's very
`
`busy and someone else can provide all the relevant information
`
`and you don't have to schedule him. I'm sympathetic to that.
`
`So if I can do everything I can -- if you can get for
`
`Samsung and Intel all the information that they would be
`
`entitled to from the Doctor through this 30(b)(6), then we'll
`
`move on. If we can't, then we'll deal with it.
`
`And as soon as you're done with the transcript -- the
`
`deposition and you have the transcript, you know, I will be
`
`prepared to hear -- to set another hearing really quickly.
`
`Okay?
`
`MR. WELLS: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Anything else we can take up?
`
`MR. OU: No, Your Honor. Thank you. Appreciate the
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`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 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 80 Filed 03/10/21 Page 17 of 18
`
`17
`
`guidance.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. Very good. You all have a wonderful
`
`day. I hope at least with the Austin people I see you sooner
`
`rather than later in person.
`
`And Mr. Ravel, you don't look much worse for the wear
`
`having worked as hard as I know you did over the past couple of
`
`weeks. So, you know, you're more industrial strength than I
`
`am. I'm still tired.
`
`So you all have a good day and be safe out there. Take
`
`care.
`
`(Hearing adjourned at 9:50 a.m.)
`
`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
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 80 Filed 03/10/21 Page 18 of 18
`
`18
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT )
`
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
`)
`
`I, Kristie M. Davis, Official Court Reporter for 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.
`
`Certified to by me this 10th day of March 2021.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Kristie M. Davis
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS
`Official Court Reporter
`800 Franklin Avenue
`Waco, Texas 76701
`(254) 340-6114
`kmdaviscsr@yahoo.com
`
`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
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

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