Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 520 Filed 05/01/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 52473
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No. 13-919-JLH
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`)))))))))
`
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`LETTER TO THE HONORABLE JENNIFER L. HALL FROM DAVID E. MOORE
`REGARDING UPDATED DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`
`David E. Moore (#3983)
`Bindu A. Palapura (#5370)
`Andrew L. Brown (#6766)
`Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor
`1313 N. Market Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Tel: (302) 984-6000
`dmoore@potteranderson.com
`bpalapura@potteranderson.com
`abrown@potteranderson.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Google LLC
`
`Robert W. Unikel
`John Cotiguala
`Matt Lind
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`71 South Wacker Drive, Suite 4500
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Tel: (312) 449-6000
`
`Robert R. Laurenzi
`Chad J. Peterman
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10166
`Tel: (212) 318-6000
`
`Ginger D. Anders
`MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
`601 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Suite 500E
`Washington, D.C. 20001
`Tel: (202) 220-1100
`
`Vincent Y. Ling
`MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
`350 S. Grand Avenue, 50th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Tel: (213) 683-9100
`
`Dated: April 23, 2023
`
`Public Version Dated: May 1, 2023
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 520 Filed 05/01/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 52474
`
`Dear Judge Hall:
`
`April 23, 2023
`
`In the parties’ prior letter (D.I. 475), the parties jointly requested the Court’s assistance in
`resolving objections relating to the Anind Dey and James Miller deposition designations,
`counter-designations, proposed exhibits, and related objections. The parties have further
`streamlined the issues for resolution, and so wish to provide the court with an updated joint
`submission reflecting their pending disputes. There are no longer any disputes with respect to the
`Miller designations. Some remain as to the Dey designations and exhibits.
`
`Accordingly, please find attached the updated Anind Dey deposition transcript, indicating
`Google’s designations, Arendi’s counter-designations, and the parties’ objections and positions
`(Exhibit 1); a spreadsheet listing the parties’ current deposition designations, counter-
`designations, objections, and positions (Exhibit 2); and a spreadsheet listing Google’s proposed
`exhibits, Arendi’s objections, and the parties’ positions (Exhibit 3). Google also includes a key
`for its various objections (Appendix A).
`
`Notably, many, though not all, of the parties’ objections are common across various
`deposition designations and exhibits. To avoid burdening the Court with repetitive objections,
`the parties provide the following positions on those repeated objections:
`
`Google
`
`Arendi
`
`
`
`IPR Estoppel and associated 401, 402, 403, and Relevance objections: IPR
`estoppel does not apply to CyberDesk or Apple Data Detectors – this is no basis
`to exclude the designated testimony or related exhibits, especially as Arendi has
`not asserted IPR estoppel as to Apple Data Detectors and thus has waived any
`basis to object on that ground. Moreover, this issue has already (again) been
`presented by Arendi to the Court as to CyberDesk.
` Leading: Arendi did not raise this objection at deposition, either by not raising
`any form objection or by not specifying a “leading” objection giving counsel the
`opportunity to correct any deficiency, and the questions were proper.
`
`
`
`IPR Estoppel and associated 401, 402, 403, and Relevance objections: Arendi
`objects to Anind Dey’s designated testimony as estopped under 35 U.S.C. §
`315(e) because Google’s designations cover testimony cumulative of printed
`publications about CyberDesk that Google knew about when it filed its IPR
`petition. Dr. Dey’s testimony was specifically about those publications—not a
`“system” that he actually presented at his deposition or that the jury will see at
`trial. No such system exists. To any extent Dr. Dey’s testimony expands upon the
`printed publications, it is improper as uncorroborated and more prejudicial than
`probative under Rule 403.
` Leading: Google’s designations include leading questions that had a major impact
`on the testimony. Rule 611 is clear that leading questions can only be used with a
`witness who is adverse to or hostile to the questioning party. Mr. Dey is not
`
`Public Version Dated: May 1, 2023
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 520 Filed 05/01/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 52475
`
`The Honorable Jennifer L. Hall
`April 23, 2023
`Page 3
`
`adverse to Google, much less hostile. Arendi objected to Google’s leading
`questions in the record, and they should be excluded as improper.
`
`Respectfully,
`
`/s/ David E. Moore
`
`David E. Moore
`
`DEM:nmt/10770813/12599.00040
`
`Enclosures
`cc:
`Clerk of the Court (via hand delivery)
`Counsel of Record (via electronic mail)
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 520 Filed 05/01/23 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 52476
`
`APPENDIX A
`
`Objection Key
`
`Objection Code
`
`Objection
`
`INQA
`
`L
`
`Incomplete question or answer
`
`Leading
`
`