Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 70-12 Filed 06/10/22 Page 1 of 3
`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 70-12 Filed 06/10/22 Page 1 of 3
`
`EXHIBIT XX
`EXHIBIT XX
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 70-12 Filed 06/10/22 Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`2049 Century Park East, 37th Floor,
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`United States
`
`+1 310 552 4220
`
`www.kirkland.com
`
`May 5, 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 25, 2022 regarding ongoing deficiencies in
`Plaintiffs’ venue discovery responses.
`
`A. Interrogatory 1 / RFP 1
`
`We understand from your response that Mr. Foxlin has a consulting agreement with
`Plaintiffs pursuant to which Mr. Foxlin is being paid for (at least) the time he spends in connection
`with this litigation. Based on this understanding, it appears that, in accordance with his consulting
`agreement, Mr. Foxlin would be paid for his time traveling to and from this forum for trial, and
`that Mr. Foxlin was paid for his time incurred in preparing a declaration stating that he is “willing
`to travel voluntarily” for trial. If that is not correct, please let us know. Please also produce by
`May 10 the agreement(s) that Plaintiffs expressly and repeatedly agreed to produce.
`
`B. Interrogatories 2-3
`
`Plaintiffs’ position appears to be internally inconsistent. Please explain why Plaintiffs do
`not “agree that any individuals or documents located outside of Texas or California are necessarily
`irrelevant,” while simultaneously refusing to provide discovery regarding individuals located
`outside of Texas or California, given that Plaintiffs have asserted that relevant activities occurred
`in Maryland and Massachusetts. Please reconsider your internally inconsistent position and
`provide the requested discovery by May 10.
`
`
`
`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 70-12 Filed 06/10/22 Page 3 of 3
`
`Elise M. Baumgarten
`May 5, 2022
`Page 2
`
`
`C. Interrogatory 4
`
`
`
`
`
`Thank you for confirming 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. 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, and refuse to even
`explain the basis for your refusal. Please provide the requested discovery regarding these relevant
`entities by May 10.
`
`D. RFP 2
`
`Plaintiffs appear to be improperly withholding public information as allegedly protected
`by the work product doctrine, rather than timely disclosing admittedly public information that it
`has already identified as relevant to venue issues in this matter. As I previously explained, this is
`contrary to FRCP 26(e)(1), which requires timely disclosure during the venue discovery period:
`“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….” Plaintiffs’ improper withholding has prevented Meta from
`providing during the venue discovery period all the information that it may rely on in order to rebut
`the information that Plaintiffs are withholding, so 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, including the ability to depose any witnesses that might
`provide declarations in support of Defendants’ reply.
`
`*********
`
`Sincerely,
`
`/s/ Joshua Glucoft
`
`Joshua Glucoft
`
`
`cc: All counsel of record
`
`
`
`