Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 70-10 Filed 06/10/22 Page 1 of 14
`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 70-10 Filed 06/10/22 Page 1 of 14
`
`EXHIBIT UU
`EXHIBIT UU
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 70-10 Filed 06/10/22 Page 2 of 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: 6:21-cv-00755-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`GENTEX CORPORATION and INDIGO
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`THALES VISIONIX, INC.,
`
`
`
`Involuntary Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`FACEBOOK, INC. and FACEBOOK
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS GENTEX CORPORATION AND INDIGO TECHNOLOGIES, LLC’S
`OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS’ FIRST SET OF VENUE-
`RELATED REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (NOS. 1-5) TO
`PLAINTIFFS
`
`Pursuant to Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs Gentex
`
`Corporation and Indigo Technologies, LLC (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), by undersigned counsel,
`
`hereby object and respond as follows to Defendants’ First Set of Venue-Related Requests for
`
`Production of Documents.
`
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS & OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS
`
`Plaintiffs provide the following General Objections and Objections to Definitions. These
`
`objections form a part of, and are hereby incorporated into, the response to each and every
`
`request for production set forth below. Nothing in those responses, including any failure to
`
`recite a specific objection in response to a particular request, should be construed as a waiver of
`
`any of these General Objections and Objections to Definitions.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 70-10 Filed 06/10/22 Page 3 of 14
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiffs object to each request for production, definition, and instruction
`
`generally to the extent that it purports to impose obligations or responsibilities different from or
`
`in excess of those imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Order Governing
`
`Proceedings, and the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of
`
`Texas. Plaintiffs will interpret and respond to the requests for production in good faith and in
`
`accordance with the Rules.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiffs object to any part of the requests for production, including the
`
`instructions and definitions contained therein, calling for the disclosure of information or
`
`documents that are privileged or otherwise protected from discovery pursuant to the attorney-
`
`client privilege, the accountant-client privilege, the common-interest privilege, the work product
`
`doctrine, or any other applicable privilege, protection, or immunity. Plaintiffs do not agree to
`
`provide such information or documents protected from discovery and will withhold or redact
`
`information or documents on that basis. If protected information or documents are inadvertently
`
`provided in response to the requests for production, the production of such information or
`
`documents shall not constitute a waiver of Plaintiffs’ rights to assert the applicability of any
`
`privilege, protection, or immunity to the information or documents, to seek the return of such
`
`material, or to object to the use of such material at any stage of the action or in any other action
`
`or proceeding. Plaintiffs will meet and confer with Defendants regarding the appropriate form
`
`for a privilege log, and object to any instruction in these requests for production that purports to
`
`impose on Plaintiffs any obligation to provide information in a privilege log in excess of those
`
`imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Order Governing Proceedings, and the
`
`Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 70-10 Filed 06/10/22 Page 4 of 14
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiffs object to each request for production, including the instructions and
`
`definitions contained therein, to the extent it seeks documents or information that are not in
`
`Plaintiffs’ possession, custody, or control, including to the extent they seek documents or
`
`information that are in the possession, custody, or control of third parties, including the named
`
`inventors of the asserted patents and Thales Visionix, Inc. Plaintiffs will respond only with
`
`documents or information that are currently in their possession, custody, or control.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiffs object to each request for production, including the instructions and
`
`definitions contained therein, to the extent it purports to impose any obligation on Plaintiffs to
`
`provide information regarding any documents not currently in Plaintiffs’ possession, custody, or
`
`control that is in excess of the obligations imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
`
`Order Governing Proceedings, and the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the
`
`Western District of Texas. This includes, but is not limited to, documents that were but are no
`
`longer in Plaintiffs’ possession, custody, or control; documents that may have been lost or
`
`destroyed before the initiation or anticipation of any litigation; and documents believed to be in
`
`the possession of a Third Party.
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiffs object to each request for production, including the instructions and
`
`definitions contained therein, to the extent that it calls for disclosure of trade secret, proprietary,
`
`personal, commercially sensitive, third-party confidential, or other confidential information.
`
`Plaintiffs will only disclose confidential information, including trade secret, proprietary,
`
`personal, commercially sensitive, third-party confidential, or other confidential information, that
`
`is responsive, relevant, and not otherwise protected, pursuant to any Protective Order governing
`
`this action.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 70-10 Filed 06/10/22 Page 5 of 14
`
`
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiffs object to each request for production, including the instructions and
`
`definitions contained therein, to the extent that it seeks “any,” “all,” or “every” document(s)
`
`responsive to the request. Such demands are unduly burdensome and overly broad, and they
`
`seek documents that are not relevant to the claim or defense of any party or proportional to the
`
`needs of the case (in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)). Plaintiffs will conduct a
`
`reasonable and diligent search of reasonably accessible files, limited to the non-custodial sources
`
`and custodians identified by Plaintiffs, agreed to by the parties, or ordered by the Court. Absent
`
`such agreement or order, Plaintiffs will not search for or produce documents from any other
`
`source or location. Similarly, Plaintiffs object to each request for production, definition, and
`
`instruction as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent that it purports to require
`
`Plaintiffs to search for and produce electronic documents without reasonable limitations upon the
`
`scope of information to be searched or the content of the material to be searched for. Plaintiffs
`
`will only produce electronic documents as specifically indicated in their responses and/or in
`
`accordance with an electronically stored information (“ESI”) protocol that the parties eventually
`
`agree to govern this action. To the extent that Defendants’ requests for production conflict with
`
`the ESI protocol, Plaintiffs will comply with the ESI protocol. Plaintiffs further object to each
`
`definition, instruction, and request for production to the extent that it seeks information that is
`
`unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, that is publicly available, that is already known to
`
`Defendants or Defendants’ counsel, that is of no greater burden for Defendants to ascertain than
`
`Plaintiffs, or that is ascertainable from some other source that is more convenient, less
`
`burdensome, or less expensive, that is otherwise more appropriately obtained from another party,
`
`and/or to the extent that compliance would be unduly burdensome, expensive, or oppressive.
`
`Unless otherwise indicated specifically below, Plaintiffs will not provide such information.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 70-10 Filed 06/10/22 Page 6 of 14
`
`
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiffs object to each request for production, including the instructions and
`
`definitions contained therein, incorporating or calling for a legal conclusion. By incorporating
`
`the need to make a legal conclusion, such requests for production are vague and ambiguous.
`
`Such requests for production also intrude upon the attorney-work product protection by seeking
`
`an identification of the information that counsel believes satisfy the legal contention. To the
`
`extent that such requests for production seek “all” documents, they also are overly broad and
`
`unduly burdensome because they fail to account for proportionality.
`
`8.
`
`In furnishing these objections and responses to the requests for production,
`
`Plaintiffs do not admit or concede the relevance, materiality, authenticity, or admissibility in
`
`evidence of any request for production or information. All objections to the use, at trial or
`
`otherwise, of any information provided in response to the requests for production and to any
`
`further disclosure of information are hereby expressly reserved.
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiffs object to Defendants’ definition of “Plaintiffs” as overly broad.
`
`Plaintiffs interpret those terms to encompass Gentex Corporation and Indigo Technologies, LLC
`
`only.
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiffs object to Defendants’ definition of “You” and “Your” as overly broad.
`
`Plaintiffs interpret those terms to encompass Gentex Corporation and Indigo Technologies, LLC
`
`only.
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiffs object to Defendants’ definition of “Set Forth the Complete Basis” as
`
`overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case.
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiffs object to Defendants’ definitions of “Gentex” and “Indigo” as
`
`overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case. Plaintiffs interpret
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 70-10 Filed 06/10/22 Page 7 of 14
`
`
`
`“Gentex” to mean “Gentex Corporation”; Plaintiffs interpret “Indigo” to mean “Indigo
`
`Technologies, LLC.”
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiffs object to Defendants’ definition of “Date” as overbroad, unduly
`
`burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case. Plaintiffs interpret “Date” to mean
`
`“the day, month, and year, if ascertainable, and if not ascertainable a reasonable approximation
`
`thereof.”
`
`14.
`
`Plaintiffs object to Defendants’ instruction purporting to require, where redactions
`
`are made, “a list specifying: (a) the Document and pages redacted; (b) the nature of the material
`
`redacted; and (c) the basis for the redaction,” as unduly burdensome and imposing obligations in
`
`excess of the obligations imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Order Governing
`
`Proceedings, and the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of
`
`Texas. Plaintiffs agree to provide information sufficient for Defendants to identify where a
`
`redaction is made and the basis for the redaction.
`
`15.
`
`Plaintiffs object to Defendants’ instruction purporting to require Plaintiffs to
`
`specify the meaning Plaintiffs attribute to words, terms, or phrases Plaintiffs assert make any
`
`request for production vague and/or ambiguous. If Plaintiffs are able to attribute meaning to
`
`vague and/or ambiguous words, terms, or phrases for purposes of responding to a given request,
`
`Plaintiffs will specify that meaning in any such response.
`
`16.
`
`Plaintiffs object to Defendants’ instruction purporting to require production of
`
`“any available copy or translation of every responsive foreign language Document requested” as
`
`unduly burdensome and imposing obligations on Plaintiffs in excess of the obligations imposed
`
`by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Order Governing Proceedings, and the Local Rules
`
`of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 70-10 Filed 06/10/22 Page 8 of 14
`
`
`
`17.
`
`Plaintiffs object to Defendants’ instruction purporting to require Plaintiffs to
`
`“specify [Plaintiffs’] reasons” why documents cannot be disclosed or produced in full, including
`
`“whatever information, knowledge, or belief [Plaintiffs] have Concerning the unproduced
`
`portion” as unduly burdensome and imposing obligations on Plaintiffs in excess of the
`
`obligations imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Order Governing Proceedings,
`
`and the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
`
`18.
`
`Plaintiffs object that the information sought by these requests is far beyond than
`
`what is relevant to the present venue dispute, and is not properly considered venue discovery.
`
`19.
`
`Plaintiffs expressly reserve the right to supplement these General Objections.
`
`SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES
`
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:
`
`All previous or current Agreements between Plaintiffs and any Person identified in
`
`Plaintiffs’ responses to Defendants’ venue-related interrogatories or between Plaintiffs and any
`
`witness Plaintiffs intend to call as a witness or provide for deposition in this matter.
`
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:
`
`Plaintiffs incorporate their General Objections as though fully set forth herein. Plaintiffs
`
`object to this request on the grounds of relevance. The documents sought by this request are far
`
`beyond what is relevant to the present venue dispute, and this request is not properly considered
`
`venue discovery. Plaintiffs object to this request for production to the extent it seeks information
`
`protected by the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product doctrine, the common interest
`
`privilege and/or any other applicable privilege. Plaintiffs also object to this request for
`
`production to the extent that it prematurely seeks production of information prior to the deadlines
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 70-10 Filed 06/10/22 Page 9 of 14
`
`
`
`ordered by the Court in the Order Governing Proceedings, including the disclosure of expert
`
`witnesses.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Plaintiffs
`
`will produce agreements between Plaintiffs and any potential fact witnesses that relate to
`
`whether a potential fact witness may appear at trial.
`
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:
`
`All Documents that Plaintiffs rely upon or reference in Plaintiffs’ responses to
`
`Defendants’ venue-related interrogatories or that Plaintiffs may rely upon in opposition to
`
`Defendants’ Venue Transfer Motion.
`
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:
`
`Plaintiffs incorporate their General Objections as though fully set forth herein. Plaintiffs
`
`object to this request for production to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-
`
`client privilege, attorney work product doctrine, the common interest privilege and/or any other
`
`applicable privilege.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Plaintiffs
`
`will produce all documents referenced in Plaintiffs’ response to Defendants’ venue-related
`
`interrogatories. Plaintiffs will produce all documents that Plaintiffs cite in its opposition to
`
`Defendants’ Venue Transfer Motion as exhibits to that opposition once it is filed.
`
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:
`
`Documents sufficient to show the name, residence, and work location(s) of each Person
`
`involved in the invention, conception, reduction to practice, and prosecution of each Patent-in-
`
`Suit.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 70-10 Filed 06/10/22 Page 10 of 14
`
`
`
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:
`
`Plaintiffs incorporate their General Objections as though fully set forth herein. Plaintiffs
`
`object to this request as overly broad and seeking irrelevant information as it seeks information
`
`for all Persons “involved in” certain activities without limitation. Plaintiffs object to this request
`
`for production as seeking information that is not in Plaintiffs’ possession, custody, or control,
`
`including information that is in the possession, custody, or control of third parties, including the
`
`named inventors of the asserted patents and Thales Visionix, Inc. Plaintiffs object to this request
`
`for production to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
`
`attorney work product doctrine, the common interest privilege and/or any other applicable
`
`privilege. Plaintiffs also object to this request for production to the extent that it prematurely
`
`seeks production of information and prematurely seeks expert testimony prior to the deadlines
`
`ordered by the Court in the Order Governing Proceedings.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Plaintiffs
`
`will produce documents sufficient to show the name and location of the inventors of and
`
`prosecuting attorneys for the Patents-in-Suit. For clarity, Plaintiffs are not currently aware of
`
`any additional individuals who would be responsive to this request.
`
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:
`
`
`
`Documents sufficient to show the names and locations of any Persons that current has,
`
`has previously had, or has been offered, any rights in the Patents-in-Suit, including the Person’s
`
`name, location, nature of such rights, date such rights were obtained or offered, Persons involved
`
`in negotiations concerning such rights, and where the witnesses and documents associated with
`
`such rights and negotiations are located.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 70-10 Filed 06/10/22 Page 11 of 14
`
`
`
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:
`
`Plaintiffs incorporate their General Objections as though fully set forth herein. Plaintiffs
`
`object to this request as irrelevant and overly broad. The documents sought by this request are
`
`far beyond what is relevant to the present venue dispute, and this request is not properly
`
`considered venue discovery. Plaintiffs object to this request for production as seeking
`
`information that is not in Plaintiffs’ possession, custody, or control, including information that is
`
`in the possession, custody, or control of third parties, including the named inventors of the
`
`asserted patents and Thales Visionix, Inc. Plaintiffs object to this request for production to the
`
`extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product
`
`doctrine, the common interest privilege and/or any other applicable privilege. Plaintiffs also
`
`object to this request for production to the extent that it prematurely seeks production of
`
`information and prematurely seeks expert testimony prior to the deadlines ordered by the Court
`
`in the Order Governing Proceedings. Plaintiffs further object to this request as unnecessarily
`
`burdensome and duplicative of information already provided and/or more easily provided in
`
`response to an interrogatory.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Plaintiffs
`
`have provided this information in responding to Plaintiffs’ Venue-Related Interrogatory No. 4.
`
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5:
`
`
`
`Documents sufficient to show, for each product that any Plaintiff contends, has
`
`contended, or may contend in this matter practices any of the Patents-in-Suit (whether the
`
`product of a Plaintiff or a licensee): the identity of the product, including its name; where the
`
`product was designed, developed, manufactured, and assembled; each Person involved in such
`
`activities, and the location of each such Person.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 70-10 Filed 06/10/22 Page 12 of 14
`
`
`
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5:
`
`Plaintiffs incorporate their General Objections as though fully set forth herein. Plaintiffs
`
`object to this request as irrelevant and overly broad. The documents sought by this request are
`
`far beyond what is relevant to the present venue dispute, and this request is not properly
`
`considered venue discovery. Plaintiffs object to this request for production as seeking
`
`information that is not in Plaintiffs’ possession, custody, or control, including information that is
`
`in the possession, custody, or control of third parties, including the named inventors of the
`
`asserted patents and Thales Visionix, Inc. Plaintiffs object to this request for production to the
`
`extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product
`
`doctrine, the common interest privilege and/or any other applicable privilege. Plaintiffs also
`
`object to this request for production to the extent that it prematurely seeks production of
`
`information and prematurely seeks expert testimony prior to the deadlines ordered by the Court
`
`in the Order Governing Proceedings.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Plaintiffs
`
`will produce documents sufficient to show that various products are or have been marked with at
`
`least one of the Patents-in-Suit and the distributing company’s location. For clarity, these
`
`documents represent Plaintiffs’ current knowledge, and Plaintiffs are not currently aware of any
`
`additional individuals who would be responsive to this request.
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 70-10 Filed 06/10/22 Page 13 of 14
`
` Respectfully Submitted,
`
`Dated: March 28, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
` /s/ Adam D. Harber
`J. Mark Mann
`State Bar No. 12926150
`MANN | TINDEL | THOMPSON
`300 West Main Street
`Henderson, Texas 75652
`Tel: 903-657-8540
`Fax: 903-657-6003
`mark@themannfirm.com
`
`David I. Berl (pro hac vice)
`Adam D. Harber (pro hac vice)
`Elise M. Baumgarten (pro hac vice)
`Melissa B. Collins (pro hac vice)
`D. Shayon Ghosh (pro hac vice)
`Arthur John Argall III (pro hac vice)
`Andrew G. Borrasso* (pro hac vice)
`WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
`725 Twelfth Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`Tel: 202-434-5000
`Fax: 202-434-5029
`dberl@wc.com
`aharber@wc.com
`ebaumgarten@wc.com
`mcollins@wc.com
`sghosh@wc.com
`aargall@wc.com
`aborrasso@wc.com
`
` *
`
` Admitted only in Illinois. Practice in the District
`of Columbia supervised by D.C. Bar members
`pursuant to D.C. Court of Appeals Rule 49(c)(8).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 70-10 Filed 06/10/22 Page 14 of 14
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I, Andrew G. Borrasso, hereby certify that on Monday, March 28, 2022, I caused a copy
`
`of Gentex Corporation and Indigo Technologies LLC’s Objections and Responses to
`
`Defendants’ First Set of Venue-Related Requests for Production of Documents (Nos. 1-5) to
`
`Plaintiffs to be served on the following counsel of record in the manner indicated below:
`
`BY EMAIL
`Jeannie Heffernan
`Bailey Morgan Watkins
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`401 Congress Avenue
`Austin, TX 78701
`jeannie.heffernan@kirkland.com
`bailey.watkins@kirkland.com
`Ellisen Shelton Turner
`Joshua Glucoft
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`2049 Century Park East, Suite 3700
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`ellisen.turner@kirkland.com
`josh.glucoft@kirkland.com
`Akshay S. Deoras
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`555 California Street
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`akshay.deoras@kirkland.com
`Paige Arnette Amstutz
`SCOTT, DOUGLASS & MCCONNICO, LLP
`303 Colorado Street, Suite 2400
`Austin, TX 78701
`pamstutz@scottdoug.com
`
` /s/ Andrew G. Borrasso
`Andrew G. Borrasso*
`WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
`725 Twelfth St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005
`Tel: (202) 434-5000; Fax: (202) 434-5029
`aborrasso@wc.com
`* Admitted only in Illinois. Practice in the District of
`Columbia supervised by D.C. Bar members
`pursuant to D.C. Court of Appeals Rule 49(c)(8).
`
`13
`
`
`
`