throbber
Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 586 Filed 05/03/21 Page 1 of 15 PageID# 13283
`
`1
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`
`RAI STRATEGIC HOLDINGS, INC.
`et al.,
`Plaintiffs,
`v.
`ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES, LLC,
`et al.,
`Defendants.
`TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION HEARING PROCEEDINGS
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE THERESA C. BUCHANAN,
`(Via Zoom Conference)
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`)))))))))))))
`
`Civil Action
`No. 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB
`
`April 16, 2021
`10:00 a.m.
`
`APPEARANCES:
`For the Plaintiffs:
`
`For the Defendants:
`
`Charles Bennett Molster, III, Esq.
`The Law Offices of Charles B.
`Molster III, PLLC
`2141 Wisconsin Ave NW, Suite M
`Washington, DC 20007
`703.346.1505
`Email: Cmolster@molsterlaw.com
`J. Thomas Vitt, Esq.
`JONES DAY
`90 South Seventh Street Suite 4950
`Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
`612.217.8858
`Email: Tvitt@jonesday.com
`Maximilian Antony Grant, Esq.
`Latham & Watkins LLP (DC)
`555 11th St NW, Suite 1000
`Washington, DC 20004-1304
`202.637.2200
`Fax: 202.637.2201
`Email: Max.grant@lw.com
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 586 Filed 05/03/21 Page 2 of 15 PageID# 13284
`
`2
`
`APPEARANCES: (Cont.)
`
`For the Defendants:
`
`
`
`Official Court
`Reporter:
`
`Lawrence J. Gotts, Esq.
`Lathan & Watkins, LLP
`555 Eleventh Street, Suite 1000
`Washington, D.C. 20004
`202.637.2200
`Email: Lawrence.gotts@lw.com
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, RMR, CRR
`Official Court Reporter
`United States District Court
`401 Courthouse Square
`Alexandria, VA 2231-5798
`202.277.3739
`scottwallace.edva@gmail.com,
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 586 Filed 05/03/21 Page 3 of 15 PageID# 13285
`
`3
`
`MORNING SESSION, APRIL 16, 2021
`
`(9:01 a.m.)
`THE COURTROOM CLERK: RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc., et al.
`versus Altria Client Services, LLC, et al., Case Number
`20-cv-393.
`Counsel, please note your appearances for the record.
`MR. MOLSTER: Good morning, Your Honor, Charles Molster on
`behalf of the plaintiffs. With me on the Zoom is Thomas Vitt
`Jones Day. With Your Honor's permission, he will handle the
`motion the morning.
`THE COURT: All right. Good morning.
`MR. GRANT: Your Honor, this is Max Grant from Philip
`Morris, Altria representing, I guess, the putative plaintiffs in
`the case as they currently exist.
`THE COURT: Right.
`MR. VITT: With me is my partner Larry Gotts. He'll
`handle the motion to compel issues, and I'll do my best to deal
`with the scheduling issues and the pretrial scheduling.
`THE COURT: All right. Good morning, everyone. This is
`on the defendant's counterclaim motion to compel. I read the
`pleadings, and I read your reply brief as well. Do you have
`anything to add to that?
`MR. GOTTS: Your Honor, Larry Gotts here. I don't have
`anything in particular to add, Your Honor. The four forms of
`relief tie primarily to issues of relevance, and we do believe
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 586 Filed 05/03/21 Page 4 of 15 PageID# 13286
`
`4
`
`that, frankly, all four categories we request, that the
`information is undisputably relevant.
`We would be happy to address, Your Honor, any particular
`concerns or questions that derive from that or from our papers.
`THE COURT: Did you request documents related to Issue 28,
`Topic 28?
`MR. GOTTS: I'm sure we did, Your Honor. I haven't pulled
`those requests, but given the scope and breadth of the requests,
`I'm sure there are document requests that would encompass that.
`THE COURT: Okay. Let me hear from the defendants -- from
`the plaintiffs, rather.
`Can I hear from RAI, please?
`You're muted, Mr. Gotts.
`MR. VITT: Yes, Your Honor. I'm sorry. I had a Zoom quip
`and had to restart. I apologize.
`THE COURT: That's okay.
`MR. VITT: Can you all hear me and see me okay now?
`THE COURT: I can hear you. I'm not sure which box you
`are, but.....
`Okay. I see you now, Mr. Vitt.
`Did you have anything to add to your opposition?
`MR. VITT: Your Honor, I would like to address the reply,
`if the Court -- I missed the conversation you had with Mr. Grant,
`so I would like to address the reply, if the Court has any
`questions.
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 586 Filed 05/03/21 Page 5 of 15 PageID# 13287
`
`5
`
`THE COURT: I don't really have any questions, but I did
`read the reply. But go ahead and add anything that you would
`like.
`MR. VITT: Sure. So, on -- I would like to focus, I
`think, primarily on Topic 28, Your Honor, and the key issue there
`is there are really three legal principles that ought to drive
`this. The question we're looking at is, is there anything
`relevant about the negotiations and the lead up to that font in
`RJ Reynolds' agreement.
`The first legal principle, Your Honor, is we all agree
`that a settlement agreement can be a comparable license. And
`then the Federal Circuit's kind of instructed us to look at, is
`the settlement agreement about valuing the patents or is it about
`settling litigation? But here we don't have to worry about that.
`We agree that its about value of the patent.
`And then the second legal principle is, Rule 408 says that
`the settlement negotiations are not admissible for exactly the
`purpose that Philip Morris wants to use them for; that is, to
`prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim,
`just not admissible for that purpose.
`And then that leads to the third legal principle. If you
`look at the cases that we cited and they cited, there's a general
`rule that the settlement negotiations are not discoverable.
`There's not a broad discovery privilege, but there's a general
`rule that those negotiations are not discoverable unless the
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 586 Filed 05/03/21 Page 6 of 15 PageID# 13288
`
`6
`
`party to the settlement agreement that has a comparable license
`has opened the door, and we have not opened the door in any way.
`Both parties' experts agree that we look at the terms of the
`agreement. They agree about how to apportion between the font
`and the agreement, which is the comparable license, and the
`hypothetical negotiation. They agree about that. Their
`disagreement is just about which agreement to use. We have not
`opened the door to the background of the negotiations.
`The last point I would like to make, Your Honor, is the
`reply makes it clear that they would really like to dig into our
`own internal deliberations. This -- it bears noting that this
`didn't come up for months and months as we discussed this. This
`raises significant issues of attorney-client privilege and work
`product on this exact issue, which is why courts don't allow
`discovery into this unless the party to the settlement agreement
`opens the door.
`Thank you, Your Honor.
`THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Did you have anything
`else to add Mr. Gotts? You're muted. Sorry.
`MR. GOTTS: You would think by now we would all have
`learned to push unmute. But in any event, Your Honor, the --
`just a few quick points. Number one, there's no 408 privilege,
`and the very case that Plaintiff Reynolds cites in their brief,
`the MTSG case, shows exactly otherwise, namely that we should be
`entitled to test the underlying negotiations for the purposes of
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 586 Filed 05/03/21 Page 7 of 15 PageID# 13289
`
`7
`
`the agreement.
`Second, the notion that this is a privilege issue makes --
`is clearly not viable as an argument here. First of all, if
`there's a privilege objection, they can make it, but the actual
`testimony at page 214 of the transcript of Mr. Gilly {sp} makes
`clear that the negotiations were handled by the leadership team,
`not by the lawyers in terms of the assessment and evaluation and
`analysis, and that's the very same leadership team that Mr. Gilly
`had no conversations with.
`So, we are entitled to, we believe, the underlying
`information used to evaluate and analyze the $79 million
`agreement which both parties agree upon. So we think the
`relevance is quite clear.
`THE COURT: All right.
`MR. VITT: You're mute now, Your Honor.
`THE COURT: Sorry. I was trying to talk off screen. So,
`I think that the -- as far as the other discovery that the
`parties had done with regard to the plaintiff/counter-defendant,
`I don't really think that's relevant here.
`As to Number 28, I believe that it's not appropriate to
`get into negotiations or the considerations that they made
`internally as to this. I think the document speaks for itself.
`As to 54, I am going to allow that, and I am going to allow 78 as
`well. I think that those are within the scope of what -- Well, I
`think that what's communicated to the expert in Number 54 should
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 586 Filed 05/03/21 Page 8 of 15 PageID# 13290
`
`8
`
`definitely be disclosed, and I think that 78 is relevant to
`valuing everything here.
`Now, let's go on and deal -- so, the motion is granted in
`part. Let's go on and deal with the --
`MR. VITT: Your Honor, if I might. One point of
`clarification. Sorry. We did have one additional request in our
`motion, which is to have the short deposition regarding
`the conversation --
`THE COURT: -- And I am going to allow that. I am going
`to allow that. Okay. Now, let's deal with the scheduling order
`status. I have your joint motion. Did you all want to address
`that at all?
`MR. GRANT: Your Honor, just very briefly. This is Max
`Grant for PMI. As you know, the parties jointly requested that
`the Court convert this pretrial conference into a status
`conference to discuss pretrial preparations and scheduling. It
`won't be lost on the Court that this is a very important lawsuit,
`as between these parties. There's a lot of litigation going on,
`but this is unquestionably the most relevant and important
`component of that, and the one that may drive a potential
`resolution between the business persons.
`I think it's extremely important to my client that we try
`to get as early a trial date as possible. I know the Court had
`had a criminal jury trial set for next week. The doors appear to
`be back opening up to the halls of justice --
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 586 Filed 05/03/21 Page 9 of 15 PageID# 13291
`
`9
`
`THE COURT: -- yeah --
`MR. GRANT: -- in Alexandria. I realize that COVID has
`created lots of scheduling complications, but I also would say
`that many parties are okay with the delays that resulted from the
`COVID pandemic that we've been dealing with. Philip Morris and
`Altria, the putative plaintiffs here, would request that they get
`a trial date from the Court as soon as possible. My view,
`respectfully, Your Honor, is we can go as early as July 26th,
`keeping in mind Judge O'Grady's standing order that Dauberts and
`Mills be completed two weeks before trial but that, because of
`the commercial importance of this litigation, I would ask that
`the Court set a date no later than September, if it's possible.
`The client has expressly asked me to make that request to the
`Court.
`THE COURT: When you asked for a status today, frankly I
`didn't think you were going to be asking me to set the trial
`date, and Judge O'Grady is the one who needs to do that. But
`what I can do is go ahead and set you for the final pretrial
`conference, and I don't think -- I mean, is there any reason why
`we can't do the final pretrial conference in May?
`MR. GRANT: No, Your Honor, absolutely no reason.
`THE COURT: Is that all right with both parties?
`MR. VITT: Your Honor, this is Tom Vitt, and I have a
`problem with my camera. I'm trying to look at it. I apologize.
`THE COURT: That's okay.
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 586 Filed 05/03/21 Page 10 of 15 PageID# 13292
`
`10
`
`MR. VITT: All right.
`THE COURT: It's not --
`MR. VITT: So, Your Honor, there are some outstanding
`depositions that the parties are working on, fact depositions
`related to the nonpermanent injunction issues that still need to
`be taken. One of them is of the Inventor Reeker on the '265
`patent. He's in Germany. To accommodate his personal situation
`and the COVID situation, we agreed with the other side to take
`that out of time.
`THE COURT: When are you planning to take that?
`MR. VITT: Well, we don't have a date. We've asked for a
`date. The ball is in their court to provide us a date.
`The other thing Your Honor should know just in terms of
`the overall scheduling is there are two fact witnesses who are
`their fact witness, Maura Gilchrist, the only witness they
`identified as a business witness for PMP, the party PMP that owns
`three of the patents. We haven't taken her deposition yet
`either.
`And they have a deposition of our witness, Mr. Feigler
`{sp}, on some business topics as well. And the parties agreed in
`the last couple of days to delay those depositions in order that
`they could be taken just once because those two witnesses are
`both pertinent to the permanent injunction discovery that is
`ongoing and that is really just getting started. And so we have
`this issue where we have three witnesses related to the
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 586 Filed 05/03/21 Page 11 of 15 PageID# 13293
`
`11
`
`noninjunction issues that have yet to be taken, yet to be
`scheduled. We've proposed dates for Gilchrist, and we also have
`the situation where the parties have agreed that they can cite to
`those depositions to support already-expressed expert opinions.
`And so it creates this log jam in terms of timing that
`Mr. Grant's proposal doesn't really take into account because
`yesterday there was talk from Philip Morris' side about delaying
`the expert depositions until those citations get in, which may be
`a very good idea, and the parties are still discussing these
`logistics, but we're not in a place where we can say by May 21st
`we will have completed those fact depositions, inserted the cites
`into the expert reports, taken the expert depositions, and done
`the pretrial filings that were contemplated by the Court in the
`schedule we just agreed to, because all of that is kind of up in
`the air based on the last couple of discussions we've had with
`the other side.
`THE COURT: Well --
`MR. GRANT: Very briefly, Your Honor, very briefly.
`THE COURT: Just let me ask a question. Is there any
`reason that all that can't be done by the end of May?
`MR. GRANT: No, Your Honor. In fact, it's scheduled to be
`done. Ms. Gilchrist's deposition, which includes most of the
`injunctive relief topics, is scheduled for one week from today.
`The only other remaining party fact witness, Mr. Feigler, was due
`to be deposed today and they delayed his deposition. It will
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 586 Filed 05/03/21 Page 12 of 15 PageID# 13294
`
`12
`
`occur next week, I anticipate. All the expert depositions are
`currently scheduled to be completed by May 12th.
`THE COURT: Okay. So here's what I'm going to do. I'm
`going to go ahead and set the final pretrial conference for May
`21. I believe that Judge O'Grady wants that at 2:00. I'm going
`to double-check. When I enter the order today, I'll double-check
`the date and time and put it in there, but I'll allow you all to
`work out these deposition dates as you wish during the next
`couple of months, and I don't really have a problem with you even
`finishing the deposition after the final pretrial conference
`date. I assume that it will be done closely within that date.
`And then what I would like you all to do is -- you've got in here
`the date for witness lists, exhibit lists -- I mean, you've got,
`basically, your pretrial submissions are already scheduled for
`May 21, and the objection -- all those dates work with the May 21
`date for a final pretrial conference. If you want -- if, based
`on your deposition dates, you need to move back those dates a
`couple of weeks or something like that in order to finalize your
`pretrial submissions, I don't have any problem with that. It
`doesn't have to be contemporaneous, as long as it's close to the
`time of the final pretrial conference, and I'll explain all of
`that to Judge O'Grady, but we'll --
`MR. GRANT: -- that's perfect --
`THE COURT: -- we'll file with him so you can pick a trial
`date on May 21. I don't know what his schedule is like at this
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 586 Filed 05/03/21 Page 13 of 15 PageID# 13295
`
`13
`
`point. You know, at this -- all the judges are doing the felony
`trials first. They come first. So, you know, if you get to
`trial in 2021, I think you'll be lucky, but we'll see what he
`says.
`MR. GRANT: The only reason I am where I am is because
`I've been lucky, so I appreciate that.
`MR VITT: Understood, Your Honor. I do need to make one
`correction. Mr. Grant said that Ms. Gilchrist is scheduled for
`next week. That's not correct. Maybe he hasn't had a chance to
`catch up.
`THE COURT: That's all right. You guys work out these
`deposition dates. You've been working cooperatively on that, and
`I assume you can work cooperatively on adjusting these final
`pretrial submission dates and objection dates as needed to
`accommodate those. As I said, I don't have any problem with
`these depositions finishing at the end of May or even the
`beginning of June if you have to, but if you need to modify these
`dates, just let me know in the next week, and otherwise we'll
`just have a final pretrial conference and you can submit
`everything else when it's ready, okay.
`MR. GRANT: Thank you, Your Honor.
`MR. VITT: Your Honor, what -- if I --
`MR. GRANT: Thank you.
`THE COURT: I'm sorry, go ahead.
`MR. VITT: If I could raise one more thing, Your Honor.
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 586 Filed 05/03/21 Page 14 of 15 PageID# 13296
`
`14
`
`The subject of injunction discovery, the parties are supposed to
`work out a schedule for that. We've raised that with him. We
`don't have that worked out. We're going to have to work that out
`as well.
`MR. GRANT: So I guess --
`THE COURT: Go ahead.
`MR. GRANT: Sorry, Your Honor. Look, I was going to say
`I've done this a few times, been the prevailing plaintiff.
`Injunction discovery is the fact discovery that occurs.
`Generally, there are no expert reports, certainly no expert
`reports that are done pre-jury trial regarding injunctive relief.
`Typically that's briefed with, potentially, declarations, but it
`doesn't require a set of expert reports.
`THE COURT: I don't think it does either, and you can ask
`Judge O'Grady about that since he's the one who is going to
`determine that, what kind of briefing schedule he would like as
`to that.
`MR. GRANT: Thank you.
`MR. VITT: Thank you, Your Honor. I would just say that's
`not my experience. They want to force us off the market. We're
`going to do what we need to do to try to stay on the market. If
`that includes expert reports, we're going to offer expert
`reports.
`THE COURT: Okay.
`MR. VITT: I've tried a few cases myself, too, and been on
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 586 Filed 05/03/21 Page 15 of 15 PageID# 13297
`
`15
`
`both sides of the --
`THE COURT: I know you're all experienced, and you can
`make -- you can make that argument to Judge O'Grady and see if he
`allows it.
`MR. VITT: All right. Thank you.
`MR. GRANT: Thank you, Your Honor.
`THE COURT: Thank you.
`(Proceedings adjourned at 9:19 a.m.)
`
` C E R T I F I C A T E
`
` I, Scott L. Wallace, RDR-CRR, certify that
`the foregoing is a correct transcript from the record of
`proceedings in the above-entitled matter.
`
`4/16/21
` /s/ Scott L. Wallace
` ---------------------------- ----------------
` Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR
` Date
` Official Court Reporter
`
`
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter
`
`

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