Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 451 Filed 09/16/24 PageID.22392 Page 1 of 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 3
`FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 451 Filed 09/16/24 PageID.22393 Page 2 of 7
`
`Michael Milea
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`
`Subject:
`
`Polka, Michael M. <MPolka@gibsondunn.com>
`Friday, November 17, 2023 8:04 PM
`Michael Milea; Jenna Deneault
`*** GDC - EagleView - Nearmap; Nearmap EV; hatch@hatchpc.com; pace@hatchpc.com; Juliette
`Palmer White (JWhite@parsonsbehle.com); Sarah Jenkins-Dewey
`RE: EagleView v. Nearmap: EagleView Productions
`
`Follow Up Flag:
`Flag Status:
`
`Follow up
`Flagged
`
` 
`
`Dear Mike, 
` 
`EagleView is preparing to produce any agreements with OpenSolar in addition to responding to Interrogatories 14 and 
`15, however, it is EagleView’s position that this dispute is not amenable to the summary procedure you identify below, 
`especially considering the other discovery disputes ongoing between the parties. 
` 
`Best, 
`‐Michael 
` 
`Michael M. Polka
`Associate Attorney
`
`T: +1 650.849.5370 | M: +1 929.412.3952
`MPolka@gibsondunn.com
`
`GIBSON DUNN
`Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
`310 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301-1744
` Not admitted to practice in California; admitted to practice only in New York 
`
` *
`
` 
`From: Michael Milea <mike.milea@groombridgewu.com>  
`Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2023 5:20 PM 
`To: Polka, Michael M. <MPolka@gibsondunn.com>; Jenna Deneault <jenna.deneault@groombridgewu.com> 
`Cc: *** GDC ‐ EagleView ‐ Nearmap <GDC‐EagleView‐Nearmap@gibsondunn.com>; Nearmap EV <nearmap‐
`ev@groombridgewu.com>; hatch@hatchpc.com; pace@hatchpc.com; Juliette Palmer White 
`(JWhite@parsonsbehle.com) <JWhite@parsonsbehle.com>; Sarah Jenkins‐Dewey <SDewey@parsonsbehle.com> 
`Subject: RE: EagleView v. Nearmap: EagleView Productions 
` 
`[WARNING: External Email]
`Counsel, 
` 
`As mentioned in prior emails and on our November 3 and 13, 2023 meet and confers, you have produced to us a 
` 
` Agreement and amendments thereto and the 
`Agreements, but you have failed to produce anything from the timeframe between what we understand to be the last 
`amendment to the 
` Agreement and the execution of an edited final version of the 
` 
` Agreements. 
`
` 
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 451 Filed 09/16/24 PageID.22394 Page 3 of 7
`
`The Court previously ordered the production of similar negotiation documents related to EagleView’s agreements with 
`another third party, finding that those documents were relevant and proportional to the needs of the case.  Dkt. 93 at 
`1–2, 4–5.  The same is true with respect to non‐privileged negotiation documents related to EagleView’s agreement with 
`CoreLogic, and there is no justifiable basis to refuse to search for and produce such documents, which are relevant at 
`least to patent misuse and damages.  See Dkt. 93 at 4–5 (“Documents regarding the underlying settlement negotiations 
`are also relevant and discoverable where they ‘could aid defendant in its calculations concerning a reasonable royalty 
`amount and damages.’ Kajeet, Inc. v. Qustodio, LLC, No. 18‐1519, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 227979, at *23 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 
`2019) (unpublished);see also Clear with Computers, LLC v. Bergdorf Goodman, Inc., 753 F.Supp.2d 662, 664 (E.D. Tex. 
`2010) (finding settlement‐related communications could ‘be key in determining whether the settlement agreements 
`accurately reflect the inventions’ value or were strongly influenced by a desire to avoid or end full litigation).”).  We 
`raised this previous ruling on the meet and confer.  You raised no distinction between it and the parties’ current dispute. 
` 
`With respect to Nearmap’s RFP Nos. 47‐49 and 51 addressing EagleView’s transactions, agreements, and 
`communications with OpenSolar, you have not produced EagleView’s agreements with OpenSolar and have refused to 
`produce communications with OpenSolar on the basis that they are not relevant because they were not included 
`previously in Nearmap’s invalidity contentions.  We disagree.  It is not reasonable to expect Nearmap to include 
`documents in its invalidity contentions that you have not and now refuse to produce.  Nearmap is entitled to review 
`such documents to determine whether to include them in its contentions and you have no justifiable basis to withhold 
`them. 
` 
`As discussed on our meet and confer, so as to avoid burdening the Court with motion practice regarding the above‐
`discussed documents, Nearmap proposes utilizing the dispute resolution procedures set forth in DUCivR 37‐1(d).  Please 
`let us know by close of business on November 17 whether you agree to that process.  We would be agreeable to 
`submitting a joint request for a discovery dispute conference before the Magistrate Judge.  That request could include a 
`short description of the disputes.  We suggest no more than 500 words per side. 
` 
`Regards, 
` 
`Mike 
` 
`Michael F. Milea 
`Groombridge, Wu, Baughman & Stone LLP 
`565 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900 
`New York, NY 10017 
`332‐269‐0029 (office) | 908‐868‐5633 (mobile) 
`mike.milea@groombridgewu.com 
` 
`From: Polka, Michael M. <MPolka@gibsondunn.com>  
`Sent: Friday, November 10, 2023 8:13 PM 
`To: Jenna Deneault <jenna.deneault@groombridgewu.com>; Michael Milea <mike.milea@groombridgewu.com> 
`Cc: *** GDC ‐ EagleView ‐ Nearmap <GDC‐EagleView‐Nearmap@gibsondunn.com>; Nearmap EV <nearmap‐
`ev@groombridgewu.com>; hatch@hatchpc.com; pace@hatchpc.com; Juliette Palmer White 
`(JWhite@parsonsbehle.com) <JWhite@parsonsbehle.com>; Sarah Jenkins‐Dewey <SDewey@parsonsbehle.com> 
`Subject: RE: EagleView v. Nearmap: EagleView Productions 
` 
`Dear Jenna,  
` 
`As stated at our meet and confers, it is EagleView’s position that the CoreLogic agreements speak for themselves and 
`EagleView will not be conducting further searches for irrelevant communications between EagleView and CoreLogic. 
`Regarding OpenSolar, it appears that Nearmap’s Interrogatories 14 and 15 have eclipsed the prior RFPs. EagleView will 
`respond to those Interrogatories in the ordinary course. Lastly EagleView confirms that there have been no further 
`agreements or amendments with Verisk responsive to RFP 40. 
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 451 Filed 09/16/24 PageID.22395 Page 4 of 7
`
` 
`Michael M. Polka
`Associate Attorney
`
`T: +1 650.849.5370 | M: +1 929.412.3952
`MPolka@gibsondunn.com
`
`GIBSON DUNN
`Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
`310 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301-1744
` Not admitted to practice in California; admitted to practice only in New York 
`
` *
`
` 
`From: Jenna Deneault <jenna.deneault@groombridgewu.com>  
`Sent: Monday, November 6, 2023 8:16 PM 
`To: Polka, Michael M. <MPolka@gibsondunn.com>; Michael Milea <mike.milea@groombridgewu.com> 
`Cc: *** GDC ‐ EagleView ‐ Nearmap <GDC‐EagleView‐Nearmap@gibsondunn.com>; Nearmap EV <nearmap‐
`ev@groombridgewu.com>; hatch@hatchpc.com; pace@hatchpc.com; Juliette Palmer White 
`(JWhite@parsonsbehle.com) <JWhite@parsonsbehle.com>; Sarah Jenkins‐Dewey <SDewey@parsonsbehle.com> 
`Subject: RE: EagleView v. Nearmap: EagleView Productions 
` 
`[WARNING: External Email]
`Dear Michael, 
`
`  
`Thank you for discussing the outstanding discovery issues with us on Friday.  As discussed, you have agreed to serve a 
`supplemental response to Nearmap’s Interrogatory No. 1 this week identifying the products EagleView will be relying on 
`for lost profits and you have agreed to produce updated financial information later this month.  
`
`  
`We also discussed Nearmap’s discovery requests addressing Verisk, CoreLogic, and OpenSolar, which are relevant to 
`Nearmap’s patent misuse claim.  Please confirm the following by November 9: 
`  
`
` Agreement 
` With respect to Nearmap’s RFP Nos. 41‐46 addressing CoreLogic, we have a 
` Agreements, but 
`and amendments thereto and the 
`nothing from the timeframe between what we understand to be the last amendment to the 
` 
`Agreement and the execution of the 
` Agreements.  We now understand 
`that EagleView has not attempted to look for those documents (including communications relating to the 
`negotiation of the 
` Agreements) in the places they would most likely be 
`located, such as with EagleView’s outside counsel.  That falls short of a reasonable search.  Please confirm 
`whether EagleView will be producing additional responsive documents. 
` With respect to Nearmap’s RFP Nos. 47‐49 and 51 addressing OpenSolar, you stated that EagleView intends to 
`withhold its agreements, draft agreements, and communications with OpenSolar on the basis that they are not 
`relevant because they were not included previously in Nearmap’s invalidity contentions.  We disagree.  It is not 
`reasonable to expect Nearmap to include documents in its invalidity contentions that you have not and now 
`refuse to produce.  Nearmap is entitled to review such documents to determine whether to include them in its 
`contentions and you have no justifiable basis to withhold them.  Please confirm that you will be producing 
`documents responsive to Nearmap’s RFP Nos. 47‐49 and 51. 
` With respect to Nearmap’s RFP No. 40 addressing Verisk, please confirm that there are no agreements or 
`amendments entered into after 
` between EagleView and Verisk. 
`
`  
`
`Consistent with your email below and as you noted on the call, EagleView’s search and collection for certain discovery 
`requests is ongoing and there may be additional documents produced that are relevant to Nearmap’s invalidity 
`contentions.  Nearmap’s final invalidity contentions were due on August 25, 2023 for certain patents and tomorrow for 
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 451 Filed 09/16/24 PageID.22396 Page 5 of 7
`
`other patents.  Any belated production by EagleView of documents relevant to invalidity may require Nearmap to move 
`to amend its contentions. 
`
`  
`Best, 
`Jenna 
` 
` 
`Jennifer Rea Deneault 
`Groombridge, Wu, Baughman & Stone LLP 
`565 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900 
`New York, NY 10017 
`332‐269‐0037 (office) | 703‐965‐5545 (mobile) 
`jenna.deneault@groombridgewu.com 
` 
`From: Polka, Michael M. <MPolka@gibsondunn.com>  
`Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2023 10:47 PM 
`To: Jenna Deneault <jenna.deneault@groombridgewu.com>; Michael Milea <mike.milea@groombridgewu.com> 
`Cc: *** GDC ‐ EagleView ‐ Nearmap <GDC‐EagleView‐Nearmap@gibsondunn.com>; Nearmap EV <nearmap‐
`ev@groombridgewu.com>; hatch@hatchpc.com; pace@hatchpc.com; Juliette Palmer White 
`(JWhite@parsonsbehle.com) <JWhite@parsonsbehle.com>; Sarah Jenkins‐Dewey <SDewey@parsonsbehle.com> 
`Subject: EagleView v. Nearmap: EagleView Productions 
` 
`Dear Jenna and Mike, 
`
`  
`We expect to tomorrow make production of documents responsive to the requests you identified in emails sent October 
`16 and 23, and which we discussed on October 23 and 30 via helpful meet‐and‐confers. In advance of tomorrow’s meet‐
`and‐confer, I wanted to respond specifically to each issue you raised. 
`
`  
`Per your first October 16 email, EagleView has produced documents responsive to RFPs 34–36, before November 8, 
`2002, notwithstanding its relevance objection, located after a reasonable search. 
`
`  
`Per your second October 16 email: 
` EagleView has produced documents responsive to RFPs 5 and 17, located after a reasonable search, and 
`investigation continues. 
` EagleView has produced documents responsive to RFPs 9, 12, 13, and 15, located after a reasonable search. 
` Regarding RFPs 8, 10, 16, and 18, no responsive documents were located after a reasonable search. 
` EagleView confirms that the searches it performed responsive to the identified RFPs were of the entirety of the 
`documents it has collected to date.  
`
` 
`Per your October 23 email: 
` EagleView has produced documents responsive to RFPs 41–46, including agreements produced on October 23, 
`which you acknowledged in our latest meet‐and‐confer. EagleView has not identified any further 
`communications responsive to these RFPs after a reasonable search. 
` Documents responsive to RFPs 37 and 39 will be included in the forthcoming production. 
`
` 
`We will be prepared to discuss at tomorrow’s meet‐and‐confer. 
`
`  
`Best, 
`‐Michael 
` 
`Michael M. Polka
`Associate Attorney
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 451 Filed 09/16/24 PageID.22397 Page 6 of 7
`
`
`T: +1 650.849.5370 | M: +1 929.412.3952
`MPolka@gibsondunn.com
`
`GIBSON DUNN
`Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
`310 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301-1744
` Not admitted to practice in California; admitted to practice only in New York 
`
` *
`
` 
`
`This message may contain confidential and privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipient.
`Any review, disclosure, distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If
`it has been sent to you in error, please reply to advise the sender of the error and then immediately delete this
`message.
`
`Please see our website at https://www.gibsondunn.com/ for information regarding the firm and/or our privacy
`policy.
`
`
`This message is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain confidential and privileged
`information. Any review, use, or dissemination by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you
`received this message in error, please notify us and delete all copies of this message.
`
`This message is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain confidential and privileged
`information. Any review, use, or dissemination by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you
`received this message in error, please notify us and delete all copies of this message.
`
`This message may contain confidential and privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipient.
`Any review, disclosure, distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If
`it has been sent to you in error, please reply to advise the sender of the error and then immediately delete this
`message.
`
`Please see our website at https://www.gibsondunn.com/ for information regarding the firm and/or our privacy
`policy.
`
`
`This message is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain confidential and privileged
`information. Any review, use, or dissemination by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you
`received this message in error, please notify us and delete all copies of this message.
`
`This message is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain confidential and privileged
`information. Any review, use, or dissemination by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you
`received this message in error, please notify us and delete all copies of this message.
`
`This message may contain confidential and privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipient.
`Any review, disclosure, distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If
`it has been sent to you in error, please reply to advise the sender of the error and then immediately delete this
`message.
`
`Please see our website at https://www.gibsondunn.com/ for information regarding the firm and/or our privacy
`policy.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 451 Filed 09/16/24 PageID.22398 Page 7 of 7
`
`
`This message is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain confidential and privileged
`information. Any review, use, or dissemination by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you
`received this message in error, please notify us and delete all copies of this message.
`
`6
`
`