throbber
1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`ANCORA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`
`VS.
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC., ET AL
`
`*
`*
`*
`*
`
`January 26, 2021
`
`* *
`
` CIVIL ACTION NO. AU-20-CV-34
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD, *
` ET AL
`*
`
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE ALAN D ALBRIGHT, JUDGE PRESIDING
`DISCOVERY HEARING (via Zoom)
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`For the Plaintiff:
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`For Defendant LG:
`
`For Defendant Samsung:
`
`Charles L. Ainsworth, Esq.
`Parker, Bunt & Ainsworth, P.C.
`100 East Ferguson, Suite 418
`Tyler, TX 75702
`
`Andres Healy, Esq.
`Nicholas S. Crown, Esq.
`Susman Godfrey L.L.P.
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800
`Seattle, WA 98101
`
`Elizabeth M. Chiaviello, Esq.
`Winstol D. Carter, Jr., Esq.
`Thomas R Davis, Esq.
`Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP
`1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 4000
`Houston, TX 77002
`
`Collin W. Park, Esq.
`Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP
`1111 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
`Washington, DC 20004-2541
`
`Robert T. Haslam, Esq.
`Covington & Burling LLP
`3000 El Camino Real
`5 Palo Alto Square, 10th Floor
`Palo Alto, CA 94306
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1016 - 1/20
`
`

`

`2
`
`Eric T. O'Brien, Esq.
`Covington & Burling LLP
`850 Tenth Street, NW, One City Center
`Washington, DC 20001-4956
`
`Melissa Richards Smith, Esq.
`Gillam & Smith, LLP
`303 South Washington Avenue
`Marshall, TX 75670
`
`Andrew Thompson Gorham, Esq.
`Gillam & Smith LLP
`102 N. College, Suite 800
`Tyler, TX 75702
`
`Jared Frisch, Esq.
`Covington & Burling LLP
`One CityCenter, 850 Tenth Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20001-4956
`
`Kristie M. Davis
`United States District Court
`PO Box 20994
`Waco, Texas 76702-0994
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`Court Reporter:
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography, transcript
`
`15
`
`produced by computer-aided transcription.
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1016 - 2/20
`
`

`

`3
`
`(January 26, 2021, 2:35 p.m.)
`
`DEPUTY CLERK: Discovery hearing in Civil Action
`
`1:20-CV-34, styled Ancora Technologies, Incorporated versus
`
`LG Electronics, Incorporated, and others.
`
`THE COURT: If I could have announcements from counsel
`
`starting with plaintiff.
`
`MR. HEALY: Thank you. This is Mr. Healy on behalf of
`
`Ancora.
`
`MS. CHIAVIELLO: Good afternoon, Your Honor. You also
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`02:35
`
`02:36
`
`02:36
`
`02:36
`
`02:36
`
`02:36
`
`02:36
`
`02:36
`
`02:36
`
`02:36
`
`10
`
`have Elizabeth Chiaviello from Morgan Lewis on behalf of LG.
`
`02:36
`
`11
`
`With me I have Winn Carter, Collin Park, Tom Davis, and
`
`02:36
`
`12
`
`observing from Morgan Lewis is Melissa Navin.
`
`02:36
`
`13
`
`THE COURT: And who will be speaking today?
`
`02:36
`
`14
`
`MS. CHIAVIELLO: Today you actually have me, Your Honor.
`
`02:36
`
`15
`
`THE COURT: Well, what an honor. That's great. I -- it
`
`02:36
`
`16
`
`certainly was worth coming into the office to get to do that.
`
`02:37
`
`17
`
`So we have a couple of issues to take up. The first one
`
`02:37
`
`18
`
`we need to take up is defendant is seeking relief with respect
`
`02:37
`
`19
`
`to the OTA update. I'm happy to hear from LG on that.
`
`02:37
`
`20
`
`MR. HEALY: And, Your Honor, it's actually plaintiff
`
`02:37
`
`21
`
`that's seeking relief, but I'm happy to go in whatever order
`
`02:37
`
`22
`
`you like.
`
`02:37
`
`23
`
`THE COURT: Plaintiff's seeking relief and defendant is
`
`02:37
`
`24
`
`opposing. I'm sorry. I got that backwards.
`
`02:37
`
`25
`
`Happy to hear -- let me hear then from the plaintiff as to
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1016 - 3/20
`
`

`

`4
`
`what it is that you want, and I'll hear from the defendant as
`
`to why you should not get it.
`
`MR. HEALY: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you.
`
`And I know we have limited time so I'll try and be very
`
`brief.
`
`Your Honor knows that we've raised the issue of the
`
`download statistics several times with the Court. We've been
`
`appreciative of the help that the Court has given us, including
`
`most recently ordering LG to produce some ESI and also make
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`02:37
`
`02:37
`
`02:37
`
`02:37
`
`02:37
`
`02:37
`
`02:37
`
`02:37
`
`02:37
`
`02:38
`
`10
`
`some certain witnesses available. And I say that only because
`
`02:38
`
`11
`
`at the most recent hearing Your Honor told us, look, go depose
`
`02:38
`
`12
`
`the witnesses. Find out if there is statistics to be had, if
`
`02:38
`
`13
`
`there are and LG won't give those to you, you know, come back
`
`02:38
`
`14
`
`to me and we'll talk about it.
`
`02:38
`
`15
`
`And, frankly, that's the situation we're now in, Your
`
`02:38
`
`16
`
`Honor. We deposed a number of LG witnesses. Two in particular
`
`02:38
`
`17
`
`testified that LG retains OTA statistics of the kind that we're
`
`02:38
`
`18
`
`looking for for at least two years. These are sort of detailed
`
`02:38
`
`19
`
`OTA statistics.
`
`02:38
`
`20
`
`And so they had those for at least two years.
`
`02:38
`
`21
`
`And we also in the course of the ESI have located various
`
`02:38
`
`22
`
`documents that show, you know, they're called take-rate reports
`
`02:38
`
`23
`
`that were being sent by LG to various U.S. carriers that
`
`02:38
`
`24
`
`include similar information.
`
`02:38
`
`25
`
`So we said to LG, "Look, your own witnesses, your own
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1016 - 4/20
`
`

`

`5
`
`documents show that you have this data for at least two years.
`
`Please produce that data at least to us."
`
`LG said, "Well, why is it relevant, you know. If we go
`
`back two years from today, you know, we're outside of the
`
`infringement period," and we said, "Fair enough."
`
`You know, again, our understanding is that LG is going to
`
`argue in this case, you know, that we have an obligation to
`
`show some -- provide information, you know, evidence with
`
`respect to the frequency of which the updates were actually
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`02:38
`
`02:38
`
`02:38
`
`02:38
`
`02:39
`
`02:39
`
`02:39
`
`02:39
`
`02:39
`
`02:39
`
`10
`
`installed or not installed. And so we said, "Look, you know,
`
`02:39
`
`11
`
`your position is you don't have any of this information, you
`
`02:39
`
`12
`
`know, back beyond December of 2018. If you're, nevertheless,
`
`02:39
`
`13
`
`going to make this argument, you know, we'd like whatever
`
`02:39
`
`14
`
`information you have so that our expert can look at it. He can
`
`02:39
`
`15
`
`compare it to the -- you know, the few examples of within
`
`02:39
`
`16
`
`infringing time period evidence we have and see if he can do
`
`02:39
`
`17
`
`some sort of analysis to come up with a historical take rate or
`
`02:39
`
`18
`
`historical OTA update rate."
`
`02:39
`
`19
`
`You know, there's also publicly-available information that
`
`02:39
`
`20
`
`their expert's been relying on. So he just wanted to compare,
`
`02:39
`
`21
`
`you know, that general information with whatever specific
`
`02:39
`
`22
`
`information we could get and see if we can, you know, come up
`
`02:39
`
`23
`
`with the best evidence we can under the circumstances, you
`
`02:39
`
`24
`
`know, again accepting LG's representations at face value.
`
`02:39
`
`25
`
`We also told LG: If you're not intending to make this
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1016 - 5/20
`
`

`

`6
`
`argument, fine. Just tell us that and we'll drop the issue.
`
`You know, we don't need to fight about something where it's not
`
`going to be an issue.
`
`LG's response was that it isn't going to -- it is going to
`
`make that argument and no, it won't produce the data.
`
`So that's the basis for our first request, Your Honor. We
`
`just want whatever information they have. We'll take it in
`
`that format, and then our expert can look at it, you know, and
`
`do what he can.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`02:40
`
`02:40
`
`02:40
`
`02:40
`
`02:40
`
`02:40
`
`02:40
`
`02:40
`
`02:40
`
`02:40
`
`10
`
`The other just side issue, you know, we have sort of
`
`02:40
`
`11
`
`three, and the e-mail we sent unfortunately has three sort of
`
`02:40
`
`12
`
`requests. The other two are largely the same issue. Basically
`
`02:40
`
`13
`
`what we said is: Let's just accept everything LG has said at
`
`02:40
`
`14
`
`face value, take it as the gospel. You know, they have two
`
`02:40
`
`15
`
`years worth of data. After two years they delete the data, and
`
`02:40
`
`16
`
`I'm sure you're going to hear today, you know, it's our fault.
`
`02:40
`
`17
`
`We took too long to file the case and so they deleted the data.
`
`02:40
`
`18
`
`You know, that's an issue for a different day, but we
`
`02:40
`
`19
`
`filed this case in June of 2019. We served LG four days later.
`
`02:40
`
`20
`
`So if you take everything they said as true, they only have two
`
`02:40
`
`21
`
`years worth of data and that's it. They should still have,
`
`02:41
`
`22
`
`when we filed the case, 16 months worth of the data within the
`
`02:41
`
`23
`
`infringing time period. And so our question has been
`
`02:41
`
`24
`
`consistently, you know, again, we're taking everything you're
`
`02:41
`
`25
`
`saying as true, where's the 16 months worth of data that you --
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1016 - 6/20
`
`

`

`7
`
`your own witnesses say you had, or should have had, and where
`
`is that now?
`
`You know, and if it's a matter of it wasn't preserved, I
`
`think we're entitled to know that information because if LG,
`
`like I said, is going to argue that we have a failure of proof
`
`because we don't have this information, I think we're entitled
`
`to tell both the Court and ultimately a jury at trial the
`
`reason we don't have this information is because LG didn't take
`
`proper steps to preserve it, because their witnesses say they
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`02:41
`
`02:41
`
`02:41
`
`02:41
`
`02:41
`
`02:41
`
`02:41
`
`02:41
`
`02:41
`
`02:41
`
`10
`
`should have it.
`
`02:41
`
`11
`
`And so those are our two requests, Your Honor, on the
`
`02:41
`
`12
`
`first issue. Again I want to be brief. I know Your Honor has
`
`02:41
`
`13
`
`limited time today.
`
`02:41
`
`14
`
`THE COURT: And let me -- thank you, and you were brief
`
`02:41
`
`15
`
`and that was very informative.
`
`02:41
`
`16
`
`Let me hear from counsel for LG, and I am very sympathetic
`
`02:41
`
`17
`
`to LG's position. They've gone through two rounds and they've
`
`02:41
`
`18
`
`done what they've done to try and get information, and they
`
`02:42
`
`19
`
`don't want to be put upon; but I am also concerned about
`
`02:42
`
`20
`
`allowing LG to make any argument at trial that could be
`
`02:42
`
`21
`
`rebutted if I were to allow this discovery, if that makes
`
`02:42
`
`22
`
`sense.
`
`02:42
`
`23
`
`So let me hear from LG.
`
`02:42
`
`24
`
`MS. CHIAVIELLO: And, Your Honor -- sorry, Your Honor. I
`
`02:42
`
`25
`
`didn't mean to interrupt.
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1016 - 7/20
`
`

`

`8
`
`THE COURT: No.
`
`MS. CHIAVIELLO: I think the answer to Your Honor's
`
`question can be summed up by just saying there's a difference
`
`between "can't produce" and "won't produce."
`
`LG is not saying that it won't produce this information.
`
`We have routinely said: We can't produce this information.
`
`We don't have it. The only place that it exists is in
`
`this ESI, and we told this to Ancora multiple times, multiple
`
`hearings, multiple meet and confers; and which is why Your
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`02:42
`
`02:42
`
`02:42
`
`02:42
`
`02:42
`
`02:42
`
`02:42
`
`02:42
`
`02:42
`
`02:42
`
`10
`
`Honor did end up ordering two rounds of ESI.
`
`02:42
`
`11
`
`Specifically this latest round of ESI was targeted to this
`
`02:43
`
`12
`
`types of -- this type of data.
`
`02:43
`
`13
`
`Ancora picked its witnesses that it wanted and the
`
`02:43
`
`14
`
`custodians that it wanted the ESI search. It chose ten search
`
`02:43
`
`15
`
`terms targeting this type of data.
`
`02:43
`
`16
`
`We went through over a million documents from this latest
`
`02:43
`
`17
`
`round of ESI and produced, at Ancora's self-imposed cap -- I
`
`02:43
`
`18
`
`think it was 4,500 documents related to this.
`
`02:43
`
`19
`
`This round of ESI included hundreds of take-rate reports.
`
`02:43
`
`20
`
`I'd like to clarify that these take reports are only
`
`02:43
`
`21
`
`available for mobile devices. They are not available for TVs.
`
`02:43
`
`22
`
`The last point of distinction that I would like to make is
`
`02:43
`
`23
`
`that these -- Ancora is misconstruing what is available.
`
`02:43
`
`24
`
`LGE is permitted to see the uploads -- I mean -- hopefully
`
`02:43
`
`25
`
`I can phrase this correctly. LGE is only able to see the
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1016 - 8/20
`
`

`

`9
`
`number of uploads for the updates. It cannot distinguish
`
`between models. There's no way for LGE to ascertain if the
`
`product that it is updating is an accused product, nonaccused
`
`product from -- or what device, and it cannot run reports on
`
`this data.
`
`That is all in the possession of third parties, which
`
`Ancora is aware of these third parties. They sought
`
`third-party discovery, and I know we have some third-party
`
`discovery issues later, but that's the sum of it.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`02:44
`
`02:44
`
`02:44
`
`02:44
`
`02:44
`
`02:44
`
`02:44
`
`02:44
`
`02:44
`
`02:44
`
`10
`
`LGE is not in possession of this information.
`
`02:44
`
`11
`
`THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Healy, I'm going to take LG's
`
`02:44
`
`12
`
`counsel at their word that they don't have any more information
`
`02:44
`
`13
`
`than what they've given you, and I'm going to deny the relief
`
`02:44
`
`14
`
`you're seeking.
`
`02:44
`
`15
`
`If you think that at trial they're making an argument that
`
`02:45
`
`16
`
`is inappropriate because of a refusal to produce something
`
`02:45
`
`17
`
`during discovery, you can take it up at that time and I'll fix
`
`02:45
`
`18
`
`it at that time.
`
`02:45
`
`19
`
`So the other issue we have is --
`
`02:45
`
`20
`
`MR. HEALY: I think it's the third-party discovery, Your
`
`02:45
`
`21
`
`Honor.
`
`02:45
`
`22
`
`THE COURT: For third-party discovery. Okay.
`
`02:45
`
`23
`
`Let me hear from counsel for defendant first, because I
`
`02:45
`
`24
`
`have limited time, and my inclination at this time is to grant
`
`02:45
`
`25
`
`the plaintiff's request for relief, but let me hear from
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1016 - 9/20
`
`

`

`10
`
`counsel for LG why I shouldn't.
`
`MS. CHIAVIELLO: Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`With respect to Nokia, I'm not sure if this issue is still
`
`live. This may be moot with this recent production that I
`
`believe Ancora provided to Your Honor's law clerk. But our
`
`main concern is we don't want to be in the position of having
`
`to serve multiple rebuttal reports. It's really an issue of
`
`timing.
`
`Our -- my understanding of Ancora's proposal is that they
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`02:45
`
`02:45
`
`02:45
`
`02:45
`
`02:45
`
`02:46
`
`02:46
`
`02:46
`
`02:46
`
`02:46
`
`10
`
`want to be able to supplement with any third party received up
`
`02:46
`
`11
`
`until pretrial, and it's our position that being able to do --
`
`02:46
`
`12
`
`supplement that late in the game is going to be prejudicial to
`
`02:46
`
`13
`
`our case. So we're just hoping to have --
`
`02:46
`
`14
`
`THE COURT: I got it.
`
`02:46
`
`15
`
`MS. CHIAVIELLO: Sorry.
`
`02:46
`
`16
`
`THE COURT: Tell me when the expert depositions start.
`
`02:46
`
`17
`
`MS. CHIAVIELLO: Opening reports were last Friday, Your
`
`02:46
`
`18
`
`Honor, and I believe rebuttal reports are February 28th. It
`
`02:46
`
`19
`
`would be helpful if we could have a cutoff of three weeks,
`
`02:46
`
`20
`
`which would be February 5th.
`
`02:46
`
`21
`
`THE COURT: Mr. Healy?
`
`02:46
`
`22
`
`MR. HEALY: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`02:46
`
`23
`
`So the Nokia issue is moot. With respect to Limelight,
`
`02:47
`
`24
`
`you know, we provided the Court with the other judge's order.
`
`02:47
`
`25
`
`Obviously Limelight's not been a very good citizen.
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1016 - 10/20
`
`

`

`11
`
`We have been told and they have been ordered to produce
`
`all document discovery by Thursday, two days from today. We
`
`have been told that they are intending to comply with that.
`
`You know, if you've read that order, you can understand why.
`
`And then they -- we have been told that they will make a
`
`deponent available by the end of next week. So we don't have
`
`any issue going beyond the end of next week barring something
`
`unforeseen as of today.
`
`THE COURT: So is this one largely resolved?
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`02:47
`
`02:47
`
`02:47
`
`02:47
`
`02:47
`
`02:47
`
`02:47
`
`02:47
`
`02:47
`
`02:47
`
`10
`
`MR. HEALY: I'm sorry, Your Honor?
`
`02:47
`
`11
`
`THE COURT: It sounds like it's resolved to me that you
`
`02:47
`
`12
`
`can make the -- I know that at core here is that it will be
`
`02:47
`
`13
`
`past the deadline, but it sounds to me like there's no -- you
`
`02:47
`
`14
`
`don't foresee at the moment a problem with being able to meet
`
`02:47
`
`15
`
`the deadline counsel for LG just suggested; is that correct?
`
`02:47
`
`16
`
`MR. HEALY: If the deadline is February 5th, then no, Your
`
`02:47
`
`17
`
`Honor.
`
`02:47
`
`18
`
`THE COURT: Anything else from LG about that?
`
`02:48
`
`19
`
`MS. CHIAVIELLO: Not about that, Your Honor. Thank you.
`
`02:48
`
`20
`
`THE COURT: Is there anything else?
`
`02:48
`
`21
`
`I'll start with you since I'm chatting with you. Is there
`
`02:48
`
`22
`
`anything else that we need to take up with LG?
`
`02:48
`
`23
`
`MS. CHIAVIELLO: I believe Your Honor's law clerk e-mailed
`
`02:48
`
`24
`
`about trial setting, but nothing as far as these discovery
`
`02:48
`
`25
`
`issues.
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1016 - 11/20
`
`

`

`12
`
`THE COURT: Do we not have a trial setting?
`
`MS. CHIAVIELLO: Well, there's multiple issues with that.
`
`LG and Ancora have a pending notice in to enter an amended
`
`scheduling order to move out our trial date to -- in the June
`
`time frame pending your availability.
`
`I understand that setting's different from Ancora -- from
`
`Samsung, but I don't want to speak on behalf of Samsung.
`
`THE COURT: Well, I'll tell you what, since I was unaware
`
`that that was an issue, why don't we do this. I'm not trying
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`02:48
`
`02:48
`
`02:48
`
`02:48
`
`02:48
`
`02:48
`
`02:48
`
`02:48
`
`02:48
`
`02:49
`
`10
`
`to just slip you guys. I want to be helpful.
`
`02:49
`
`11
`
`Why don't you all do what you can to work it out with my
`
`02:49
`
`12
`
`law clerk whatever we're going to do, and if for some reason
`
`02:49
`
`13
`
`because of your schedule or Mr. Healy's schedule, or you just
`
`02:49
`
`14
`
`can't get it done, have whoever it is that's -- Jun or whoever,
`
`02:49
`
`15
`
`you need to have -- set a hearing, and I'll work through with
`
`02:49
`
`16
`
`you -- I'll work through it with you when I know a little bit
`
`02:49
`
`17
`
`more -- when it's a little more firm about what the discrete
`
`02:49
`
`18
`
`issue is; but if you all -- we will -- as you know, we'll
`
`02:49
`
`19
`
`certainly do whatever we can to accommodate y'all's schedule
`
`02:49
`
`20
`
`about having the trial. And then --
`
`02:49
`
`21
`
`MR. HEALY: Your Honor.
`
`02:49
`
`22
`
`THE COURT: Yes, sir.
`
`02:49
`
`23
`
`MR. HEALY: I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Your Honor.
`
`02:49
`
`24
`
`THE COURT: Is this -- and this is a Waco case? I think?
`
`02:49
`
`25
`
`MR. HEALY: Yes. So just briefly, Your Honor, so there is
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1016 - 12/20
`
`

`

`13
`
`a pending stipulation as far as the schedule. So we -- the
`
`party, at least LG and plaintiff have agreed to a schedule
`
`really just if it meets Your Honor's requirements.
`
`The Samsung schedule is set. We are currently set for
`
`trial I believe on April 12th. We forwarded your clerk's
`
`e-mail to Samsung, and Mr. Haslam was on the call here, and we
`
`have met and conferred with everyone with respect to Your
`
`Honor's questions.
`
`So if Your Honor would like, we're happy to discuss at
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`02:49
`
`02:49
`
`02:49
`
`02:50
`
`02:50
`
`02:50
`
`02:50
`
`02:50
`
`02:50
`
`02:50
`
`10
`
`least the Samsung Ancora issues.
`
`02:50
`
`11
`
`THE COURT: Sure.
`
`02:50
`
`12
`
`MR. HEALY: And Your Honor's -- the Court's question was
`
`02:50
`
`13
`
`simply whether -- so then again, briefly, I know you have a lot
`
`02:50
`
`14
`
`of cases and we have one, but this case admittedly was filed in
`
`02:50
`
`15
`
`Waco. It was transferred to Austin by agreement of the parties
`
`02:50
`
`16
`
`to avoid some motion practice.
`
`02:50
`
`17
`
`Plaintiff's addition, in response to Your Honor's question
`
`02:50
`
`18
`
`is we're happy to have the trial in Waco. We're happy to have
`
`02:50
`
`19
`
`the whole case transferred back to Waco. You know, we
`
`02:50
`
`20
`
`understand, I think Samsung feels otherwise, but I won't speak
`
`02:50
`
`21
`
`for Mr. Haslam.
`
`02:50
`
`22
`
`THE COURT: Well, and so here's -- and that case is an
`
`02:50
`
`23
`
`April case?
`
`02:50
`
`24
`
`MR. HEALY: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`02:50
`
`25
`
`MR. HASLAM: Yes.
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1016 - 13/20
`
`

`

`14
`
`THE COURT: So here's the reality -- and I'll hear from
`
`Mr. Haslam in a second. But here's the reality, is I would bet
`
`everything in my kids' college trust fund that Austin's not
`
`going to be open in April. You know, obviously I just faced
`
`this with the VLSI case.
`
`So what I'm going to do, unless persuaded otherwise, which
`
`is unlikely, is you all -- by "you all," I mean the plaintiff
`
`has the -- will have the discretion here.
`
`If the plaintiff wants to move forward with the trial date
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`02:50
`
`02:51
`
`02:51
`
`02:51
`
`02:51
`
`02:51
`
`02:51
`
`02:51
`
`02:51
`
`02:51
`
`10
`
`that is currently set and they want the case to be transferred
`
`02:51
`
`11
`
`to Waco so that that can be accomplished, you are free to file
`
`02:51
`
`12
`
`a motion.
`
`02:51
`
`13
`
`I would say -- I would file it no later than the end of
`
`02:51
`
`14
`
`February. And we'll take a look at it. Because by the end of
`
`02:51
`
`15
`
`February I'll know whether or not there are trials going in
`
`02:52
`
`16
`
`Austin or not in April.
`
`02:52
`
`17
`
`If the trial -- let me be clear. I don't think there's
`
`02:52
`
`18
`
`any disagreement about this. If I can hold the trial in
`
`02:52
`
`19
`
`Austin, I'll keep it in Austin. The only way I would transfer
`
`02:52
`
`20
`
`it to Waco is if they tell me that they're not going to be
`
`02:52
`
`21
`
`going to trial in April in Austin.
`
`02:52
`
`22
`
`So Mr. Haslam?
`
`02:52
`
`23
`
`MR. HASLAM: Let me first state my appearance. I don't
`
`02:52
`
`24
`
`think I got to it. So this is Bob Haslam on behalf of Samsung.
`
`02:52
`
`25
`
`With me, I think, is Jared Frisch.
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1016 - 14/20
`
`

`

`15
`
`Well, I think I'll save my powder until the motion is
`
`filed. But just as Mr. Healy said, the agreement to transfer
`
`it from Waco to Austin was to avoid motion practice. So we
`
`gave up the right for motion practice by transferring it to
`
`Austin.
`
`And just as one point to point out, it seems to me that we
`
`lose the total benefit of that bargain if it's transferred back
`
`to Waco.
`
`THE COURT: Well, as opposed to being transferred where?
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`02:52
`
`02:52
`
`02:52
`
`02:52
`
`02:52
`
`02:52
`
`02:52
`
`02:53
`
`02:53
`
`02:53
`
`10
`
`I mean, were you going to ask to be transferred to California
`
`02:53
`
`11
`
`or somewhere that was inter-district?
`
`02:53
`
`12
`
`MR. HASLAM: It was the -- that was a possibility that
`
`02:53
`
`13
`
`existed. And I understand the Court's views on 1404(a)
`
`02:53
`
`14
`
`transfers.
`
`02:53
`
`15
`
`THE COURT: Well, let me be clear. Yeah. Let me be
`
`02:53
`
`16
`
`clear. My views on transfers in this situation are just -- you
`
`02:53
`
`17
`
`know, we got -- I got to keep getting things to trial. And so
`
`02:53
`
`18
`
`certainly it -- but for the problems with COVID, I would not
`
`02:53
`
`19
`
`let the plaintiff come in and retrade -- and say, hey, you
`
`02:53
`
`20
`
`know, we're happy to be in Waco, let's move it back there. I
`
`02:53
`
`21
`
`get that.
`
`02:53
`
`22
`
`And so, you know, all I want to do is get cases to trial.
`
`02:53
`
`23
`
`And so, you know, if I -- to me -- I think I made this clear in
`
`02:54
`
`24
`
`the stuff we did in the Intel case. You know, it's hard to say
`
`02:54
`
`25
`
`that Austin is convenient if Austin's not having trials.
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1016 - 15/20
`
`

`

`16
`
`And let me add one thing if it wasn't clear. If, for
`
`example, the way I handled the Intel case, which will probably
`
`be similar here, if they told me -- if Austin -- the Austin
`
`judges said, we're not going to be open in April, but we will
`
`give you a date certain, for example, May or June, when you
`
`absolutely can go to trial in Austin, that's something else I
`
`will take into consideration.
`
`The problem I'm having with handling cases in Austin is
`
`that not only can I not do them right now, I'm uncertain I can
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`02:54
`
`02:54
`
`02:54
`
`02:54
`
`02:54
`
`02:54
`
`02:54
`
`02:54
`
`02:54
`
`02:54
`
`10
`
`do them in 2021. And I think the Austin judges, if they were
`
`02:54
`
`11
`
`here -- I've talked to them. I think they would tell you
`
`02:55
`
`12
`
`they're not -- and so really it's -- my biggest concern is not
`
`02:55
`
`13
`
`getting -- you know, it's not getting to trial on April X. It
`
`02:55
`
`14
`
`is getting to trial. And that's the problem I'm having.
`
`02:55
`
`15
`
`And I know you know that. I'm just saying I would very
`
`02:55
`
`16
`
`much prefer for your -- because you all had this agreement, I
`
`02:55
`
`17
`
`would love for this case to go to trial in Austin. That would
`
`02:55
`
`18
`
`be absolutely fine with me.
`
`02:55
`
`19
`
`If within a reasonable time, either in April, or a
`
`02:55
`
`20
`
`reasonable time after that, barring any horrible calamity, I
`
`02:55
`
`21
`
`was -- I could tell you all we can go to trial in Austin,
`
`02:55
`
`22
`
`that's where we'll go to trial. I'm not going to move it to
`
`02:55
`
`23
`
`Waco unless the alternative to moving it to Waco is it might
`
`02:55
`
`24
`
`not get tried this year.
`
`02:55
`
`25
`
`MR. HASLAM: Okay.
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1016 - 16/20
`
`

`

`17
`
`THE COURT: And so -- because I want you to be able to
`
`tell your clients that as well. It's not to hold it in April.
`
`It is to hold it in 2021, which I don't think is an unfair
`
`aspiration.
`
`MR. HASLAM: No. I understand, Your Honor.
`
`And the only other thing I will just raise, the Court may
`
`recall that when the issue of remote source code review came up
`
`in this case, and we proposed providing a source code review
`
`computer at one of Samsung's counsel in Boston, the COVID
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`02:55
`
`02:55
`
`02:56
`
`02:56
`
`02:56
`
`02:56
`
`02:56
`
`02:56
`
`02:56
`
`02:56
`
`10
`
`situation was such that their expert wouldn't travel across
`
`02:56
`
`11
`
`town, and so we had to provide a remote source code computer at
`
`02:56
`
`12
`
`his house.
`
`02:56
`
`13
`
`So I just point out that when the shoe was on the other
`
`02:56
`
`14
`
`foot for the plaintiff, they made us go to that length because
`
`02:56
`
`15
`
`of COVID. And I don't know what the situation is, but I
`
`02:56
`
`16
`
`believe it is no better now in Texas than it was back then.
`
`02:57
`
`17
`
`So this just -- I raised this at the time, and I said I
`
`02:57
`
`18
`
`assume we're not going to see experts in trial if they won't
`
`02:57
`
`19
`
`travel across town in Boston to go to source code review.
`
`02:57
`
`20
`
`And so that's another reason why I think we ought to wait
`
`02:57
`
`21
`
`until it's safe enough to hold -- if it's safe enough to hold
`
`02:57
`
`22
`
`trials in Austin, then theoretically the COVID situation should
`
`02:57
`
`23
`
`be tamped down enough that people like myself who are 74 years
`
`02:57
`
`24
`
`old, in the high risk category, won't have to play Russian
`
`02:57
`
`25
`
`roulette with going to trial.
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1016 - 17/20
`
`

`

`18
`
`And I understand that has nothing to do with what the
`
`Court can control, nor can I control. But I do not yet -- and
`
`I'm not on the list to get the vaccine yet. I hope to be. And
`
`I'll turn 75 in May, and then I guess I do get to take the
`
`vaccine at that time.
`
`But, you know, in the final analysis we're obviously going
`
`to try this case wherever the Court wants to try it. But we'd
`
`prefer to try it in Austin.
`
`THE COURT: Does it make you feel better if I tell you I
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`02:57
`
`02:57
`
`02:57
`
`02:57
`
`02:57
`
`02:57
`
`02:57
`
`02:58
`
`02:58
`
`02:58
`
`10
`
`have a hard time believing you're 74?
`
`02:58
`
`11
`
`(Laughter.)
`
`02:58
`
`12
`
`MR. HASLAM: I've been told that before, but it's true. I
`
`02:58
`
`13
`
`can show you my birth certificate.
`
`02:58
`
`14
`
`THE COURT: Ordinarily I am the oldest person on any call
`
`02:58
`
`15
`
`I have. So it's good to have you on the call, I guess.
`
`02:58
`
`16
`
`(Laughter.)
`
`02:58
`
`17
`
`THE COURT: Okay. Is there anything else we need to take
`
`02:58
`
`18
`
`up?
`
`02:58
`
`19
`
`MR. HEALY: Your Honor, if you can indulge me, I just had
`
`02:58
`
`20
`
`one clarification on the first issue.
`
`02:58
`
`21
`
`THE COURT: Sure.
`
`02:58
`
`22
`
`MR. HEALY: Certainly I understand Your Honor's order, and
`
`02:58
`
`23
`
`I just want to make sure there was no -- later on if we -- if
`
`02:58
`
`24
`
`and when we maybe have this fight again, that there was no room
`
`02:58
`
`25
`
`for ambiguity.
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1016 - 18/20
`
`

`

`19
`
`I understand counsel to represent that they -- LG doesn't
`
`have access to the statistics now. So they don't have two
`
`years back from today. I'm not disputing that they've told us
`
`for a long time they don't have, you know, long-time-ago
`
`statistics. You know, if that's counsel's representation, you
`
`know, certainly Your Honor said you'd take her at her word.
`
`I wonder, though, I mean, we have spent a lot of time
`
`deposing witnesses who, at least in our opinion, have testified
`
`differently. Is there an opportunity where we could provide
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`02:58
`
`02:58
`
`02:58
`
`02:58
`
`02:59
`
`02:59
`
`02:59
`
`02:59
`
`02:59
`
`02:59
`
`10
`
`that, you know, just the transcript to Your Honor or the
`
`02:59
`
`11
`
`courts -- or the clerk, and just if that in any way moves the
`
`02:59
`
`12
`
`needle. I just don't want there to be a difference of opinion
`
`02:59
`
`13
`
`of, you know, when we have transcripts of witnesses testifying
`
`02:59
`
`14
`
`differently.
`
`02:59
`
`15
`
`THE COURT: You can send whatever you want to the Court.
`
`02:59
`
`16
`
`MR. HEALY: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`02:59
`
`17
`
`THE COURT: Anything else from anyone?
`
`02:59
`
`18
`
`MS. CHIAVIELLO: No, Your Honor.
`
`02:59
`
`19
`
`THE COURT: Okay. Thank you all. Have a good day. Be
`
`02:59
`
`20
`
`safe out there.
`
`02:59
`
`21
`
`(Hearing adjourned at 2:59 p.m.)
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1016 - 19/20
`
`

`

`20
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT )
`
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
`)
`
`I, Kristie M. Davis, Official Court Reporter for the
`
`United States District Court, Western District of Texas, do
`
`certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the
`
`record of proceedings in the above-entitled matter.
`
`I certify that the transcript fees and format comply with
`
`those prescribed by the Court and Judicial Conference of the
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`United States.
`
`Certified to by me this 26th day of January 2021.
`
`11
`
`12
`
`/s/ Kristie M. Davis
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS
`Official Court Reporter
`800 Franklin Avenue
`Waco, Texas 76701
`(254) 340-6114
`kmdaviscsr@yahoo.com
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1016 - 20/20
`
`

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