Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 614-2 Filed 05/14/21 Page 1 of 26 PageID# 13961
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 614-2 Filed 05/14/21 Page 1 of 26 Page|D# 13961
`
`EXHIBIT 2
`
`EXHIBIT 2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 614-2 Filed 05/14/21 Page 2 of 26 PageID# 13962
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
`
`RAI STRATEGIC HOLDINGS, INC. and
`R.J. REYNOLDS VAPOR COMPANY
`
`
`Plaintiffs and Counterclaim
`Defendants,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; PHILIP
`MORRIS USA INC.; and PHILIP MORRIS
`PRODUCTS S.A.
`
`Defendants and Counterclaim
`Plaintiffs.
`
`Case No. 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB
`
`
`PHILIP MORRIS PRODUCTS S.A.’S OBJECTIONS TO
`REYNOLDS’ SECOND 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION NOTICE
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 614-2 Filed 05/14/21 Page 3 of 26 PageID# 13963
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant/Counterclaim
`
`Plaintiff Philip Morris Products S.A. (“Philip Morris”), by and through its undersigned attorneys,
`
`Latham & Watkins LLP, hereby provide its objections and responses to Plaintiffs/Counterclaim
`
`Defendants RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. and R.J. Reynolds Vapors Company’s (collectively
`
`“Reynolds”) Second Notice of Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition of Philip Morris.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`Philip Morris objects to the Topics to the extent that they seek or impose requirements or
`
`obligations on Philip Morris that are inconsistent with those set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure, the Local Civil Rules for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, or
`
`any other applicable rules or orders governing this case, including the scope of discovery agreed
`
`to by the parties in any procedural or discovery stipulation, written or otherwise. Philip Morris
`
`also objects to the Topics to the extent they seek information protected from disclosure by the
`
`attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, the common interest privilege, any other
`
`evidentiary or discovery privilege, or are otherwise protected from disclosure.
`
`Nothing in these responses should be construed as waiving rights or objections that might
`
`otherwise be available to Philip Morris, nor should Philip Morris’s responses to any of these Topics
`
`be deemed an admission of relevancy, materiality, or admissibility in evidence of the Topic or the
`
`response thereto. Further, any agreement to produce a witness on a particular Topic should not be
`
`construed as an admission that information responsive to that Topic exists or is in the possession,
`
`custody, or control of Philip Morris in its ordinary course of business. Philip Morris reserves the
`
`right to supplement and/or amend these responses as further information becomes available and/or
`
`after responsive, non-privileged documents are otherwise produced.
`
` 1
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 614-2 Filed 05/14/21 Page 4 of 26 PageID# 13964
`
`
`
`OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS
`
`Philip Morris incorporates by reference its objections to definitions and instructions in its
`
`responses to Reynolds’ First Notice of Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition, and Reynolds’ Requests for
`
`Production and Interrogatories, as if fully set forth herein.
`
`1.
`
`Philip Morris objects to Reynolds’ definition of the term “ACS” and “PM USA” as
`
`vague, ambiguous, indefinite, overbroad, unduly burdensome, seeking the production of
`
`information that is not relevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
`
`admissible evidence, and seeking the production of information that is not within Philip Morris’s
`
`possession, custody, or control and is not reasonably accessible to Philip Morris upon reasonable
`
`diligence. In particular, Philip Morris objects to these definitions to the extent they seek to require
`
`Philip Morris to answer on behalf of any other person or entity. Philip Morris responds to these
`
`Topics on its own behalf only.
`
`2.
`
`Philip Morris objects to Reynolds’ definition of the terms “Altria Accused Product”
`
`and “Altria Accused Products” as vague, ambiguous, indefinite, overbroad, unduly burdensome,
`
`seeking the production of information that is not relevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead
`
`to the discovery of admissible evidence, and seeking the production of information that is not
`
`within Philip Morris’s possession, custody, or control and is not reasonably accessible to Philip
`
`Morris upon reasonable diligence. Philip Morris objects to Reynolds’ definition of the term “Altria
`
`Asserted Patents” as encompassing patents asserted by Altria Client Services LLC and Philip
`
`Morris USA Inc., which are separate entities from Philip Morris Products, S.A. The definition
`
`improperly conflates Philip Morris Products, S.A.; Altria Client Services; and Philip Morris USA,
`
`Inc. Philip Morris’s responses are limited to the ’265, ’556, and ’911 Patents.
`
` 2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 614-2 Filed 05/14/21 Page 5 of 26 PageID# 13965
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Philip Morris objects to Reynolds’ definition of the terms “Communication” and
`
`“Communications” as vague, ambiguous, indefinite, overbroad, unduly burdensome, seeking the
`
`production of information that is not relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to
`
`the needs of the case, seeking the production of information protected from disclosure by the
`
`attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, or another applicable privilege, and/or
`
`immunity, and seeking the production of information that is not within Philip Morris’s possession,
`
`custody, or control and is not reasonably accessible to Philip Morris upon reasonable diligence.
`
`4.
`
`Philip Morris objects to Reynolds’ definition of the terms “PMP,” “Defendants,”
`
`“Counterclaim Plaintiffs,” “You,” and “Your,” as vague, ambiguous, indefinite, overbroad, unduly
`
`burdensome, seeking the production of information that is not relevant and is not reasonably
`
`calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and seeking the production of
`
`information that is not within Philip Morris’s possession, custody, or control and is not reasonably
`
`accessible to Philip Morris upon reasonable diligence. In particular, Philip Morris objects to these
`
`definitions to the extent they seek to require Philip Morris to answer on behalf of any other person
`
`or entity. Philip Morris responds to these Topics on its own behalf only.
`
`5.
`
`Philip Morris objects to Reynolds’ definition of the terms “document” or
`
`“documents” and “person” or “persons,” as vague, ambiguous, indefinite, overbroad, unduly
`
`burdensome, seeking the production of information that is not relevant to any party’s claim or
`
`defense and proportional to the needs of the case, seeking the production of information protected
`
`from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, or another applicable
`
`privilege and/or immunity, and seeking the production of information that is not within Philip
`
`Morris’s possession, custody, or control and is not reasonably accessible to Philip Morris upon
`
`reasonable diligence.
`
` 3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 614-2 Filed 05/14/21 Page 6 of 26 PageID# 13966
`
`
`
`6.
`
`Philip Morris objects to Reynolds’ definition of the terms “Product” or “Products”
`
`as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent that it seeks to encompass any “composition
`
`of matter,” “manufacture,” “mechanism,” “process,” and “method.”
`
`7.
`
`Philip Morris objects to Reynolds’ definition of the terms “identify,” “identifying,”
`
`“identity,” and “identification” as applied to a natural person as overly broad and unduly
`
`burdensome to the extent it seeks information that is irrelevant to the present action, protected by
`
`a right of privacy, and/or is outside Philip Morris’s possession, custody or control in its ordinary
`
`course of business.
`
`8.
`
`Philip Morris objects to Reynolds’ definition of the terms “identify,” “identifying,”
`
`“identity,” and “identification” as applied to any legal entity as overly broad and unduly
`
`burdensome to the extent it seeks information that is irrelevant to the present action, protected by
`
`a right of privacy, and/or is outside Philip Morris’s possession, custody or control in its ordinary
`
`course of business.
`
`9.
`
`Philip Morris objects to Reynolds’ definition of the terms “infringe,” “infringing,”
`
`infringed,” and “infringement” as vague, ambiguous, indefinite, overbroad, unduly burdensome,
`
`seeking the production of information that is not relevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead
`
`to the discovery of admissible evidence, and seeking the production of information that is not
`
`within Philip Morris’s possession, custody, or control and is not reasonably accessible to Philip
`
`Morris upon reasonable diligence.
`
`10.
`
`Philip Morris objects to Reynolds’ definitions of the phrases “relating to,” “related
`
`to,” and “concerning” as vague, ambiguous, indefinite, overbroad, unduly burdensome, seeking
`
`the production of information that is not relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional
`
`to the needs of the case, seeking the production of information protected from disclosure by the
`
` 4
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 614-2 Filed 05/14/21 Page 7 of 26 PageID# 13967
`
`
`
`attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, or another applicable privilege, and/or
`
`immunity, and seeking the production of information that is not within Philip Morris’s possession,
`
`custody, or control, and is not reasonably accessible to Philip Morris upon reasonable diligence.
`
`SPECIFIC TO OBJECTIONS TO TOPICS
`
`TOPIC NO. 68:
`
`The factual bases underlying PMP’s contention, including PMP’s response to Interrogatory
`
`Nos. 23–24, that (i) PMP has suffered irreparable injury, (ii) remedies available at law, such as
`
`monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury, (iii) considering the balance of
`
`hardships between PMP and Reynolds, a remedy in equity is warranted, and (iv) the public interest
`
`would be properly served by a permanent injunction.
`
`OBJECTIONS TO TOPIC NO. 68:
`
`Philip Morris objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks information more appropriately
`
`sought via other discovery requests (e.g. contention interrogatories) and thus needlessly increasing
`
`the burden and cost of discovery in this case. Philip Morris objects to this Topic to the extent it
`
`seeks fact discovery beyond Philip Morris’ request for injunctive relief outside of the time for fact
`
`discovery. Philip Morris objects to this Topic to the extent it is unduly burdensome. Philip Morris
`
`objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-
`
`client privilege, the work-product doctrine, the common interest privilege, any other evidentiary
`
`or discovery privilege, or is otherwise protected from disclosure. Philip Morris objects to this
`
`Topic to the extent the information requested is not within the possession, custody, and/or control
`
`of Philip Morris. Philip Morris objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks information from other
`
`Defendants. Philip Morris objects to this Topic to the extent it is cumulative and/or duplicative.
`
`Philip Morris objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks expert testimony, analysis, and/or opinions.
`
` 5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 614-2 Filed 05/14/21 Page 8 of 26 PageID# 13968
`
`
`
`Philip Morris objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks legal conclusions. Philip Morris objects
`
`to this Topic to the extent it seeks to impose obligations that are not required by the Federal Rules
`
`of Civil Procedure. Philip Morris objects to this Topic as duplicative of testimony already provided
`
`in Certain Tobacco Heating Articles and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1199.
`
`RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 68:
`
`Subject to and without waiving any objections, Philip Morris will produce one or more
`
`witnesses reasonably prepared to testify about the non-objectionable scope of this Topic about
`
`non-privileged information within Philip Morris’s possession, custody, or control with respect to
`
`the factual bases for PMP’s responses to Interrogatory Nos. 23-24.
`
`TOPIC NO. 69:
`
`Each fact that PMP alleges supports PMP’s request for a permanent injunction and that
`
`was not present and/or known to PMP on or before June 29, 2020, including when each such fact
`
`became known to PMP.
`
`OBJECTIONS TO TOPIC NO. 69:
`
`Philip Morris objects to this Topic’s use of the terms “[e]ach fact,” “not present,” “known,”
`
`and “became known” as vague, ambiguous, and/or incapable of reasonable ascertainment. Philip
`
`Morris objects to this Topic as it requests information that is not relevant to Philip Morris’ request
`
`for injunctive relief or to the claim or defense of any party and is not reasonably calculated to lead
`
`to the discovery of admissible evidence or proportional to the needs of this case. Philip Morris
`
`objects to this Topic as seeking fact discovery beyond Philip Morris’ request for injunctive relief
`
`outside of the time for fact discovery. Philip Morris objects to this Topic as harassing and as
`
`leading to unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of this case. Philip Morris objects to
`
`this Topic as it is unduly burdensome. Philip Morris objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks
`
` 6
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 614-2 Filed 05/14/21 Page 9 of 26 PageID# 13969
`
`
`
`information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine,
`
`the common interest privilege, any other evidentiary or discovery privilege, or is otherwise
`
`protected from disclosure. Philip Morris objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks information
`
`from other Defendants. Philip Morris objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks legal conclusions.
`
`Philip Morris objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks expert testimony, analysis, and/or opinions.
`
`Philip Morris objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks to impose obligations that are not required
`
`by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Philip Morris objects to this Topic as duplicative of
`
`testimony already provided in Certain Tobacco Heating Articles and Components Thereof, Inv.
`
`No. 337-TA-1199. Philip Morris objects to this Topic as contrary to the Court’s ruling granting
`
`PMP leave to amend its pleadings to include a request for injunctive relief.
`
`RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 69:
`
`Subject to and without waiving any objections, Philip Morris will not produce a witness on
`
`this Topic.
`
`TOPIC NO. 70:
`
`Any and all harms or injury PMP alleges PMP has suffered or will suffer from Reynolds’s
`
`alleged infringement, absent entry of an injunction.
`
`OBJECTIONS TO TOPIC NO. 70:
`
`Philip Morris objects to this Topic’s use of the terms “[a]ny and all,” “harms or injury,”
`
`and “suffered or will suffer” as vague, ambiguous, and/or incapable of reasonable ascertainment.
`
`Philip Morris objects to this Topic to the extent it is unduly burdensome. Philip Morris objects to
`
`this Topic to the extent it requests information that is not relevant to Philip Morris’ request for
`
`injunctive relief. Philip Morris objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks fact discovery beyond
`
`Philip Morris’ request for injunctive relief outside of the time for fact discovery. Philip Morris
`
` 7
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 614-2 Filed 05/14/21 Page 10 of 26 PageID# 13970
`
`
`
`objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-
`
`client privilege, the work-product doctrine, the common interest privilege, any other evidentiary
`
`or discovery privilege, or is otherwise protected from disclosure. Philip Morris objects to this
`
`Topic to the extent the information requested is not within the possession, custody, and/or control
`
`of Philip Morris. Philip Morris objects to this Topic to the extent it is cumulative and/or
`
`duplicative. Philip Morris objects to this Topic as seeking legal conclusions. Philip Morris objects
`
`to this Topic to the extent it seeks expert testimony, analysis, and/or opinions.
`
`RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 70:
`
`
`
`Subject to and without waiving any objections, Philip Morris will produce one or more
`
`witnesses reasonably prepared to testify about the non-objectionable scope of this Topic about
`
`non-privileged information within Philip Morris’s possession, custody, or control with respect to
`
`the factual bases for the irreparable injury to PMP if a permanent injunction is not entered in this
`
`case.
`
`TOPIC NO. 71:
`
`Each and every remedy PMP contends would be appropriate to compensate PMP, in full
`
`or in part, for any and all harms PMP contends PMP has suffered or will suffer from Reynolds’s
`
`alleged infringement.
`
`OBJECTIONS TO TOPIC NO. 71:
`
`Philip Morris objects to this Topic’s use of the terms “[e]ach and every remedy,” “harms,”
`
`“has suffered,” and “will suffer” as vague, ambiguous, and/or incapable of reasonable
`
`ascertainment. Philip Morris objects to this Topic as seeking information more appropriately
`
`sought via other discovery requests (e.g. contention interrogatories) and thus needlessly increasing
`
`the burden and cost of discovery in this case. Philip Morris objects to this Topic to the extent it
`
` 8
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 614-2 Filed 05/14/21 Page 11 of 26 PageID# 13971
`
`
`
`requests information that is not relevant to Philip Morris’ request for injunctive relief. Philip
`
`Morris objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks fact discovery beyond Philip Morris’ request for
`
`injunctive relief outside of the time for fact discovery. Philip Morris objects to this Topic to the
`
`extent it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the work-
`
`product doctrine, the common interest privilege, any other evidentiary or discovery privilege, or is
`
`otherwise protected from disclosure. Philip Morris objects to this Topic to the extent the
`
`information requested is not within the possession, custody, and/or control of Philip Morris. Philip
`
`Morris objects to this Topic to the extent it is cumulative and/or duplicative. Philip Morris objects
`
`to this Topic to the extent it seeks expert testimony, analysis, and/or opinions. Philip Morris
`
`objects to this Topic as seeking legal conclusions. Philip Morris objects to this Topic to the extent
`
`it seeks to impose obligations that are not required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 71:
`
`Subject to and without waiving any objections, Philip Morris will not produce a witness on
`
`this Topic, but instead refers Reynolds to its Prayer for Relief in Philip Morris’s Second Amended
`
`Counterclaims (Dkt. 473).
`
`TOPIC NO. 72:
`
`All equitable considerations applicable to PMP’s request for injunctive relief.
`
`OBJECTIONS TO TOPIC NO. 72:
`
`Philip Morris objects to this Topic’s use of the terms “equitable considerations” as vague,
`
`ambiguous, and/or incapable of reasonable ascertainment. Philip Morris objects to this Topic as
`
`seeking information more appropriately sought via other discovery requests (e.g. contention
`
`interrogatories) and thus needlessly increasing the burden and cost of discovery in this case. Philip
`
`Morris objects to this Topic to the extent it requests information that is not relevant to Philip
`
` 9
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 614-2 Filed 05/14/21 Page 12 of 26 PageID# 13972
`
`
`
`Morris’ request for injunctive relief. Philip Morris objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks fact
`
`discovery beyond Philip Morris’ request for injunctive relief outside of the time for fact discovery.
`
`Philip Morris objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks information protected from disclosure by
`
`the attorney-client privilege the work-product doctrine, the common interest privilege, any other
`
`evidentiary or discovery privilege, or is otherwise protected from disclosure. Philip Morris objects
`
`to this Topic to the extent the information requested is not within the possession, custody, and/or
`
`control of Philip Morris. Philip Morris objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks information from
`
`other Defendants. Philip Morris objects to this Topic to the extent it is cumulative and/or
`
`duplicative. Philip Morris objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks expert testimony, analysis,
`
`and/or opinions. Philip Morris objects to this Topic as seeking legal conclusions. Philip Morris
`
`objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks to impose obligations that are not required by the Federal
`
`Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 72:
`
`Subject to and without waiving any objections, Philip Morris will not produce a witness on
`
`this Topic.
`
`TOPIC NO. 73:
`
`Manufacture, distribution and sale of IQOS products, including any activities PMP
`
`performs relating to such products and any revenues or compensation PMP is paid relating to such
`
`activities.
`
`OBJECTIONS TO TOPIC NO. 73:
`
`Philip Morris objects to this Topic’s use of the terms “activities,” “performs,” “relating,”
`
`“products,” “revenues,” “compensation,” “IQOS products,” and “paid” as vague, ambiguous,
`
`and/or incapable of reasonable ascertainment. Philip Morris objects to this Topic as seeking
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 614-2 Filed 05/14/21 Page 13 of 26 PageID# 13973
`
`
`
`information more appropriately sought via other discovery requests (e.g. requests for production)
`
`and thus needlessly increasing the burden and cost of discovery in this case. Philip Morris objects
`
`to this Topic to the extent it requests information that is not relevant to Philip Morris’ request for
`
`injunctive relief. Philip Morris objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks fact discovery beyond
`
`Philip Morris’ request for injunctive relief outside of the time for fact discovery. Philip Morris
`
`objects to this Topic to the extent the information requested is not within the possession, custody,
`
`and/or control of Philip Morris. Philip Morris objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks
`
`information from other Defendants. Philip Morris objects to this Topic to the extent it is
`
`cumulative and/or duplicative. Philip Morris objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks to impose
`
`obligations that are not required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Philip Morris objects to
`
`this Topic as duplicative of testimony already provided in Certain Tobacco Heating Articles and
`
`Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1199.
`
`RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 73:
`
`Subject to and without waiving any objections, Philip Morris already has produced one or
`
`more witnesses reasonably prepared to testify about the non-objectionable scope of this Topic
`
`about non-privileged information within Philip Morris’s possession, custody, or control.
`
`TOPIC NO. 74:
`
`The identity of any and all potentially reduced risk products or PRRPs currently available
`
`in the U.S. market.
`
`OBJECTIONS TO TOPIC NO. 74:
`
`Philip Morris objects to this Topic’s use of the terms “identity,” “any and all,” “potentially
`
`reduced risk products or PRRPs,” “available,” and “U.S. market” as vague, ambiguous, and/or
`
`incapable of reasonable ascertainment. Philip Morris objects to this Topic as seeking information
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 614-2 Filed 05/14/21 Page 14 of 26 PageID# 13974
`
`
`
`more appropriately sought via other discovery requests (e.g. contention interrogatories) and thus
`
`needlessly increasing the burden and cost of discovery in this case. Philip Morris objects to this
`
`Topic to the extent it requests information that is not relevant to Philip Morris’ request for
`
`injunctive relief. Philip Morris objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks fact discovery beyond
`
`Philip Morris’ request for injunctive relief outside of the time for fact discovery. Philip Morris
`
`objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-
`
`client privilege the work-product doctrine, the common interest privilege, any other evidentiary or
`
`discovery privilege, or is otherwise protected from disclosure. Philip Morris objects to this Topic
`
`to the extent the information requested is not within the possession, custody and/or control of
`
`Philip Morris. Philip Morris objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks expert testimony, analysis,
`
`and/or opinions. Philip Morris objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks legal conclusions. Philip
`
`Morris objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks to impose obligations that are not required by the
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Philip Morris objects to this Topic as duplicative of testimony
`
`already provided in Certain Tobacco Heating Articles and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-
`
`1199.
`
`RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 74:
`
`Subject to and without waiving any objections, Philip Morris already has produced one or
`
`more witnesses reasonably prepared to testify about the non-objectionable scope of this Topic
`
`about non-privileged information within Philip Morris’s possession, custody, or control.
`
`TOPIC NO. 75:
`
`The identity of any and all PRRPs currently available in the U.S. market that PMP contends
`
`are substitutable for the Reynolds Accused Products.
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 614-2 Filed 05/14/21 Page 15 of 26 PageID# 13975
`
`
`
`OBJECTIONS TO TOPIC NO. 75:
`
`Philip Morris objects to this Topic’s use of the terms “identity,” “any and all,” “PRRPs,”
`
`“available,” and “U.S. market” as vague, ambiguous, and/or incapable of reasonable
`
`ascertainment. Philip Morris objects to this Topic as seeking information more appropriately
`
`sought via other discovery requests (e.g. contention interrogatories) and thus needlessly increasing
`
`the burden and cost of discovery in this case. Philip Morris objects to this Topic to the extent it
`
`requests information that is not relevant to Philip Morris’ request for injunctive relief. Philip
`
`Morris objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks fact discovery beyond Philip Morris’ request for
`
`injunctive relief outside of the time for fact discovery. Philip Morris objects to this Topic to the
`
`extent it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege the work-
`
`product doctrine, the common interest privilege, any other evidentiary or discovery privilege, or is
`
`otherwise protected from disclosure. Philip Morris objects to this Topic to the extent the
`
`information requested is not within the possession, custody, and/or control of Philip Morris. Philip
`
`Morris objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks expert testimony, analysis, and/or opinions.
`
`Philip Morris objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks legal conclusions. Philip Morris objects
`
`to this Topic to the extent it seeks to impose obligations that are not required by the Federal Rules
`
`of Civil Procedure. Philip Morris objects to this Topic as duplicative of testimony already provided
`
`in Certain Tobacco Heating Articles and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1199. Philip
`
`Morris objects to this Topic as improper, irrelevant, and moot pursuant to Reynolds’ responses to
`
`Philip Morris’s Seventh Set of Requests for Admission (Nos. 337-359).
`
`RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 75:
`
`Subject to and without waiving any objections, Philip Morris will not produce a witness on
`
`this Topic.
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 614-2 Filed 05/14/21 Page 16 of 26 PageID# 13976
`
`
`
`TOPIC NO. 76:
`
`The drivers of demand for the Reynolds Accused Products.
`
`OBJECTIONS TO TOPIC NO. 76:
`
`Philip Morris objects to this Topic’s use of the terms “drivers” and “demand” as vague,
`
`ambiguous, and/or incapable of reasonable ascertainment. Philip Morris objects to this Topic to
`
`the extent it is unduly burdensome. Philip Morris objects to this Topic to the extent it requests
`
`information that is not relevant to Philip Morris’ request for injunctive relief. Philip Morris objects
`
`to this Topic to the extent it seeks fact discovery beyond Philip Morris’ request for injunctive relief
`
`outside of the time for fact discovery. Philip Morris objects to this Topic to the extent the
`
`information requested is not within the possession, custody, and/or control of Philip Morris. Philip
`
`Morris objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks information from Reynolds and/or other
`
`Defendants. Philip Morris objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks expert testimony, analysis,
`
`and/or opinions. Philip Morris objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks legal conclusions. Philip
`
`Morris objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks to impose obligations that are not required by the
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Philip Morris objects to this Topic as duplicative of testimony
`
`already provided in Certain Tobacco Heating Articles and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-
`
`1199.
`
`RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 76:
`
`Subject to and without waiving any objections, Philip Morris will not produce a witness on
`
`this topic.
`
`TOPIC NO. 77:
`
`The factual bases underlying PMP’s contention that consumers will or are likely to turn to
`
`another PRRP if the Reynolds Accused Products were removed from the market.
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 614-2 Filed 05/14/21 Page 17 of 26 PageID# 13977
`
`
`
`OBJECTIONS TO TOPIC NO. 77:
`
` Philip Morris objects to this Topic’s use of the terms “consumers,” “will or are likely,”
`
`“PRRP,” and “the market” as vague, ambiguous, and/or incapable of reasonable ascertainment.
`
`Philip Morris objects to this Topic as seeking information more appropriately sought via other
`
`discovery requests (e.g. contention interrogatories) and thus needlessly increasing the burden and
`
`cost of discovery in this case. Philip Morris objects to this Topic to the extent it requests
`
`information that is not relevant to Philip Morris’ request for injunctive relief. Philip Morris objects
`
`to this Topic to the extent it seeks fact discovery beyond Philip Morris’ request for injunctive relief
`
`outside of the time for fact discovery. Philip Morris objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks
`
`information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege the work-product doctrine,
`
`the common interest privilege, any other evidentiary or discovery privilege, or is otherwise
`
`protected from disclosure. Philip Morris objects to this Topic to the extent the information
`
`requested is not within the possession, custody, and/or control of Philip Morris. Philip Morris
`
`objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks information from Reynolds and/other Defendants. Philip
`
`Morris objects to this Topic to the extent it is cumulative and/or duplicative. Philip Morris objects
`
`to this Topic to the extent it seeks expert testimony, analysis, and/or opinions. Philip Morris
`
`objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks to impose obligations that are not required by the Federal
`
`Rules of Civil Procedure. Philip Morris objects to this Topic as duplicative of testimony already
`
`provided in Certain Tobacco Heating Articles and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1199.
`
`Philip Morris objects to this Topic as improper, irrelevant, and moot pursuant to Reynolds’
`
`responses to Philip Morris’s Seventh Set of Requests for Admission (Nos. 337-359).
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 614-2 Filed 05/14/21 Page 18 of 26 PageID# 13978
`
`
`
`RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 77:
`
`Subject to and without waiving any objections, Philip Morris will produce one or more
`
`witnesses reasonably prepared to testify about the non-objectionable scope of this Topic about
`
`non-privileged information within Philip Morris’s possession, custody, or control with respect to
`
`the availability of other e-cigarettes besides Reynolds’ VUSE e-cigarettes in the U.S. market as
`
`they relate to Philip Morris’s request for a permanent injunction in this case.
`
`TOPIC NO. 78:
`
`PMP’s contentions regarding whether a permanent injunction is justified, in whole or in
`
`part, based on the legal status of the Reynolds Accused Products before FDA.
`
`OBJECTIONS TO TOPIC NO. 78:
`
`Philip Morris objects to this Topic’s use of the terms “justified” and “legal status” as vague,
`
`ambiguous, and/or incapable of reasonable ascertainment. Philip Morris objects to this Topic as
`
`seeking information more appropriately sought via other discovery requests (e.g. contention
`
`interrogatories) and thus needlessly increasing the burden and cost of discovery i