Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 70-11 Filed 06/10/22 Page 1 of 4
`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 70-11 Filed 06/10/22 Page 1 of 4
`
`EXHIBIT WW
`EXHIBIT WW
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 70-11 Filed 06/10/22 Page 2 of 4
`
`
`
`2049 Century Park East, 37th Floor,
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`United States
`
`+1 310 552 4220
`
`www.kirkland.com
`
`April 19, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`Josh Glucoft
`To Call Writer Directly:
`+1 310 552 4284
`josh.glucoft@kirkland.com
`
`
`
`
`
`By E-mail
`
`Elise M. Baumgarten
`Williams & Connolly LLP
`ebaumgarten@wc.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Facsimile:
`+1 310 552 5900
`
`
`
`Re: Venue Discovery in Gentex Corp. et al. v. Meta Platforms, Inc. et al., No.
`6:21-cv-00755-ADA (W.D. Tex.)
`
`Dear Elise:
`
`I write in response to your letter dated April 11, 2022 regarding ongoing deficiencies in
`Plaintiffs’ venue discovery responses.
`
`A. Interrogatory 1 / RFP 1
`
`Your representation that “Gentex has produced all documents that are currently in its
`possession, custody, or control, that are responsive to RFP No. 1” is not correct. For example,
`Plaintiffs are withholding Mr. Foxlin’s consulting agreement, which is an “Agreement[] between
`Plaintiffs and any Person identified in Plaintiff’s response to Defendants’ venue-related
`interrogatories” called for by RFP 1 (and that agreement is responsive to RFP 1 regardless of
`Plaintiffs’ incorrect contention that it is not relevant to venue1).
`
`Gentex’s continued refusal to produce this consulting agreement is troubling, particularly
`in view of Plaintiffs’ prior representation that it would produce “a copy of Mr. Foxlin’s agreement
`related to the venue inquiry” and “agreements between Plaintiffs and any potential fact witnesses
`that relate to whether a potential fact witness may appear at trial.” Mr. Foxlin’s fact declaration is
`not an “agreement” and does not satisfy Gentex’s representation that it would produce all
`
`
`1 Your contention that Mr. Foxlin’s consulting agreement is irrelevant to venue is incorrect. For example, if Mr.
`Foxlin was paid in order to provide a declaration that he is purportedly “willing to travel voluntarily” to Texas
`and that it would purportedly not be unduly burdensome for him to do so, Defendants have the right to know the
`amount he is being paid to make such representations, and to show the Court that Mr. Foxlin’s statement regarding
`“voluntary” travel and burden was provided in exchange for such payment.
`
`Austin Beijing Boston Brussels Chicago Dallas Hong Kong Houston
`
`
`London
`
`Los Angeles Munich New York Paris Salt Lake City Shanghai Washington, D.C.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 70-11 Filed 06/10/22 Page 3 of 4
`
`Elise M. Baumgarten
`April 19, 2022
`Page 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`agreements in response to RFP 1. Please confirm whether Mr. Foxlin is being compensated in
`accordance with his consulting agreement and, if so, how much and by whom.
`
`You indicated that Mr. Foxlin’s agreement(s) would be produced by April 1, but it has been
`weeks and it still has not been produced. Please provide what you agreed to provide by April 20—
`not limited to Mr. Foxlin’s consulting agreements and including all “agreements between Plaintiffs
`and any potential fact witnesses that relate to whether a potential fact witness may appear at trial.”
`Otherwise, please provide a time for lead counsel to confer on that date.
`
`Additionally, Gentex’s purported reservation of the right to use information that is not
`disclosed during the venue discovery period is contrary to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1): “A party who
`has made a disclosure under Rule 26(a)—or who has responded to an interrogatory, request for
`production, or request for admission—must supplement or correct its disclosure or response: (A)
`in a timely manner if the party learns that in some material respect the disclosure or response is
`incomplete or incorrect….” Defendants reserve all rights and remedies, including the right to
`move to strike Plaintiffs’ reliance on any improperly withheld information.
`
`B. Interrogatories 2-3
`
`We understand that Plaintiffs’ position is that discovery into people and documents that
`“are located outside of Texas and California” are not “relevant to venue discovery and requests for
`such information are overbroad [and] unduly burdensome.” Please confirm by April 20 that
`Plaintiffs likewise do not seek discovery from Defendants regarding people or documents located
`outside of Texas or California.
`
`C. Interrogatory 4
`
`We understand Plaintiffs to be representing that no individuals or entities based in Texas
`currently have, have previously had, or have ever been offered any rights to any of the asserted
`patents. Please let us know if our understanding is incorrect. Additionally, we understand that
`Plaintiffs are not aware of any individuals associated with the parties listed in Interrogatory 4 that
`are located in California; please confirm whether any such individuals are located within 100 miles
`of the N.D. Cal. courthouses or are located near California generally.
`
`As to those entities that Plaintiffs admit have had or been offered an interest in the asserted
`patents, Plaintiffs continue to refuse to provide any information on specific individuals, instead
`providing only names of companies and law firms. Please let us know the basis for your continued
`refusal to provide information on the identity of individuals responsive to this discovery request
`(while at the same time demanding such granular information from Defendants), and please
`provide times on April 20 for lead counsel to confer on this issue.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 70-11 Filed 06/10/22 Page 4 of 4
`
`Elise M. Baumgarten
`April 19, 2022
`Page 3
`
`
`D. RFP 2
`
`
`
`
`
`As with Interrogatory 1 and RFP 1, Plaintiffs appear to be improperly withholding
`information merely because it is public, contrary to FRCP 26(e). As a result, Meta will not be able
`to provide during the venue discovery period all the information that it may rely on in order to
`rebut the information that Plaintiffs are improperly withholding, and we understand that Gentex is
`willingly foregoing any ability to seek discovery into information that Meta provides outside the
`venue discovery period in rebuttal to such information. And again, Defendants reserve all other
`rights and remedies, including the right to move to strike Plaintiffs’ reliance on any such
`information.
`
`*********
`
`Given the pending close of the venue discovery period and the extended length of time
`
`Plaintiffs have had to respond to Defendants’ discovery requests, please provide the requested
`information and documents by April 20, or provide times for lead counsel to confer on that date,
`as requested above. We look forward to hearing from you.
`
`Sincerely,
`
`/s/ Joshua Glucoft
`
`Joshua Glucoft
`
`
`cc: All counsel of record
`
`
`
`