throbber
Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 79 Filed 07/08/20 Page 1 of 33
`
`1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`ANCORA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`
`*
`*
`*
`*
`
`*
`* CIVIL ACTION NO. AU-20-CV-34
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD, *
` ET AL
`*
`
`VS.
`
`July 7, 2020
`
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC., ET AL
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE ALAN D ALBRIGHT, JUDGE PRESIDING
`TELEPHONIC DISCOVERY HEARING
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`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.
`Robert Christopher Bunt, Esq.
`Parker, Bunt & Ainsworth, P.C.
`100 East Ferguson, Suite 418
`Tyler, TX 75702
`
`Andres Healy, 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
`
`Anupam Sharma, 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)
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 79 Filed 07/08/20 Page 2 of 33
`
`2
`
`Eric T. O'Brien, Esq.
`Covington & Durling 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
`
`Kristie M. Davis
`United States District Court
`PO Box 20994
`Waco, Texas 76702-0994
`
`Court Reporter:
`
`Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography, transcript
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`produced by computer-aided transcription.
`
`11
`
`12
`
`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)
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 79 Filed 07/08/20 Page 3 of 33
`
`3
`
`(July 7, 2020, 2:01 p.m.)
`
`MS. MILES: Telephonic discovery hearing in Civil Action
`
`1:20-CV-34, styled Ancora Technologies, Incorporated versus LG
`
`Electronics, Incorporated and others.
`
`THE COURT: If I could hear from counsel for plaintiff
`
`first and then counsel for defendants, and then we'll take up
`
`the issues that brought us together.
`
`MR. HEALY: Thank you, Your Honor. This is Mr. Healy on
`
`behalf of the plaintiff. I believe Charley Ainsworth is also
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`on the line.
`
`11
`
`12
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`MR. BUNT: This is also Chris Bunt, Your Honor, on for
`
`13
`
`Ancora as well.
`
`14
`
`15
`
`THE COURT: Very good. Thank you, sir.
`
`MR. DAVIS: And, Your Honor, this is Tom Davis for Morgan
`
`16
`
`Lewis for LG. On the line also are Elizabeth Chiaviello,
`
`17
`
`Collin Park and Win Carter.
`
`18
`
`THE COURT: Very good. I have gone through -- and Josh is
`
`19
`
`sitting here with me to try and help me get through this. I've
`
`20
`
`gone through the e-mails and I know you guys have worked pretty
`
`21
`
`hard to get this resolved. I'm glad for that and I'm glad that
`
`22
`
`you've come to me, and hopefully we'll get through this today.
`
`23
`
`I'm not sure exactly which side would be best starting off
`
`24
`
`telling me what needs to be done. So I'll allow you all to
`
`25
`
`decide who should go first and we'll just work our way through
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 79 Filed 07/08/20 Page 4 of 33
`
`4
`
`trying to get this source code produced.
`
`MR. HEALY: Yes, Your Honor. This is Mr. Healy. I'm
`
`happy to start if Your Honor desires.
`
`THE COURT: Fine.
`
`MR. HEALY: Okay. So two issues today, Your Honor.
`
`Number one, as you may recall at the last hearing on June 17th,
`
`one of the issues we raised with the Court was that during our
`
`first code review, which started in May, we had told LG that
`
`there were a number of missing code modules. In particular of
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`concern to us were the code associated with what's called a CU
`
`11
`
`or C update API and the update center functionality. To make a
`
`12
`
`long story short, rather than producing the source code for
`
`13
`
`these modules, LG appears to have perhaps inadvertently
`
`14
`
`produced the programs themselves. Given that we've been unable
`
`15
`
`to get sort of a direct answer from LG as to when that code
`
`16
`
`would be made available, we raised that issue with the Court,
`
`17
`
`and in response the Court directed LG to let us know by the
`
`18
`
`following Monday whether LG actually had that code, which was a
`
`19
`
`bit of a question mark at that point, and if so, when it would
`
`20
`
`be made available.
`
`21
`
`The following Monday LG responded, and that's Exhibit 1 at
`
`22
`
`Pages 3 through 4, and what LG told us was that it did have the
`
`23
`
`code but then said that it would be too burdensome to collect
`
`24
`
`and produce that code, and instead LG proposed to load onto the
`
`25
`
`source code computer something called a decompiler so that,
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 79 Filed 07/08/20 Page 5 of 33
`
`5
`
`according to LG, our expert could decompile the relevant
`
`programs into source code.
`
`I'll have to admit, Your Honor, that I did not know what a
`
`decompiler was or what was entailed, so I reached out to my
`
`experts to sort of get the scoop as to what -- if that was a
`
`viable option. They explained to me that basically decompiling
`
`takes an executable program and a table to successfully
`
`decompile it, basically breaks it down and translates it back
`
`into source code. So I thought, well, maybe this is a viable
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`option.
`
`11
`
`My experts further explained to me, however, that
`
`12
`
`decompiling has some fairly significant drawbacks. Number one,
`
`13
`
`and I think most importantly for our discussion today, the
`
`14
`
`decompiler that LG proposed to use does not work with code
`
`15
`
`written in C or C plus plus, and it's -- according to my
`
`16
`
`expert, the modules we are interested in, the two in
`
`17
`
`particular, are written in C or C plus plus. So in short, it
`
`18
`
`won't work with -- for the very purpose we're asking for it
`
`19
`
`for.
`
`20
`
`Number two, my experts told me that decompiled code won't
`
`21
`
`include any of the programming comments that source code
`
`22
`
`normally includes which are helpful to understand how the code
`
`23
`
`works. Decompiled code also is known to exclude something
`
`24
`
`called variable names which my expert explained was also
`
`25
`
`problematic.
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 79 Filed 07/08/20 Page 6 of 33
`
`6
`
`And then, frankly, number three, Your Honor, decompiled
`
`code can be very inaccurate. Mr. Martin sent me an article
`
`explaining that decompiled code typically at best is in the
`
`neighborhood of 50 percent accurate, and in fact the study that
`
`he sent me included the exact decompiler that LG is proposing
`
`to use and reported -- the study reported that that decompiler
`
`was over 60 percent accurate in only nine percent of cases.
`
`So obviously these gave us substantial concerns. We
`
`relayed this to LG. We told them -- and, again, chief among
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`all the issues was that the decompiler would not work with the
`
`11
`
`coded issue here. We also pointed out the other issues that I
`
`12
`
`mentioned. And, frankly, you know, what LG told us was it
`
`13
`
`actually understood it didn't contest that the decompiler
`
`14
`
`wouldn't work with the code that we are most interested in, but
`
`15
`
`we did try and make some efforts to, nevertheless, streamline,
`
`16
`
`I mean, and of particular note, if Your Honor read the e-mail,
`
`17
`
`you can see we told LG, you know, we'd be happy and willing to
`
`18
`
`accept -- to limit the code we're looking for, let's agree up
`
`19
`
`front to request from a certain subset of the accused products,
`
`20
`
`and if LG will agree to treat that code as representative
`
`21
`
`either all the products or some subset of the products, you
`
`22
`
`know, that's fine with us. We don't have any interest in
`
`23
`
`reviewing unnecessary code or putting people to the burden if
`
`24
`
`we can reach a reasonable compromise to avoid the need to do
`
`25
`
`that.
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 79 Filed 07/08/20 Page 7 of 33
`
`7
`
`Again, in response, LG told us that it had actually
`
`understood that a decompiler would not work with the main coded
`
`issues here, but it rejected our proposal and told us instead
`
`that we had to use the decompiler and that was the route they
`
`wanted to take and that if for some reason later on down the
`
`road we thought it was not going to be sufficient, we could
`
`discuss it then. And, frankly, Your Honor, as we told them in
`
`the e-mails more politely, but, you know, we just don't see
`
`that this makes any sense. We already know that this program
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`is not going to work with the two modules of most interest to
`
`11
`
`us, and we don't understand what kicking the can down the road
`
`12
`
`accomplishes other than delaying this case, and that's frankly
`
`13
`
`where we still are, Your Honor. LG hasn't located or produced
`
`14
`
`the code as far as we understand it. It's still insisting that
`
`15
`
`we use the program we know won't work.
`
`16
`
`And in sum, Your Honor, with respect to the first issue,
`
`17
`
`at least from plaintiff's perspective, we just can't afford to
`
`18
`
`continue having these delays. If LG's still willing to accept
`
`19
`
`our proposed compromise, great. We're happy to work with them
`
`20
`
`to identify the subsets at issue and get this accomplished and
`
`21
`
`get this done. And if they're not or they, you know, don't
`
`22
`
`want to agree to representative products, then we would ask the
`
`23
`
`Court to order them to very quickly collect and produce the
`
`24
`
`requested code so that we can adhere to the Court's schedule.
`
`25
`
`Unless the Court has any questions, I'm happy to turn it
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 79 Filed 07/08/20 Page 8 of 33
`
`8
`
`over to LG or whatever the Court prefers.
`
`THE COURT: Yeah. I was sitting here talking to my law
`
`clerk as you were talking as well, and basically you were
`
`reading off the same concerns about the -- the decompiler that
`
`he was, and so it doesn't sound to me like that is a viable
`
`option for us to get this resolved. So that being said, let me
`
`hear from counsel for LG and let's see if we can come up with a
`
`solution of how we are going to get this done.
`
`MR. DAVIS: Understood, Your Honor. Good afternoon. This
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`is Tom Davis for LG. And on the decompile issue, maybe the
`
`11
`
`parties were talking a little past each other. The majority of
`
`12
`
`the files that were identified to us for APK files -- and we
`
`13
`
`submitted to you in an e-mail confidential information --
`
`14
`
`source code confidential that illustrates the decompile for the
`
`15
`
`APK files were accurate, and I understand from today's
`
`16
`
`conversation that there are two specific files that plaintiff
`
`17
`
`is interested in, and I was only aware of one specific file,
`
`18
`
`the C update file -- C update API file. And the issue is, Your
`
`19
`
`Honor, they've identified pads where this is supposed to exist,
`
`20
`
`and I personally did over ten hours of independent research
`
`21
`
`myself. I have to confess that the source code issue is not
`
`22
`
`something that I'm very adept at, but I went to the source code
`
`23
`
`computer and researched and I couldn't find the file. In
`
`24
`
`the images that I -- we submitted on behalf of LG, those files
`
`25
`
`don't exist.
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 79 Filed 07/08/20 Page 9 of 33
`
`9
`
`And just for the record, if we get into any great detail
`
`on any additional source code matters, you know, I would note
`
`that Samsung is also on the call, and we'd -- before we get
`
`into that, you know, we'd make a request that they either drop
`
`from the call or we can somehow avoid that.
`
`But getting directly to the issue of the files on the C
`
`plus plus issue, the code that our client collected, Your
`
`Honor, is over 20 terrabytes or almost 20 terrabytes of code.
`
`It's a huge code base. The client did not restrict the code.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`They didn't pull out or in any way carve out binary versus
`
`11
`
`non-binary code. In some instances the code is provided by
`
`12
`
`third parties in executable binary format.
`
`13
`
`With respect to whether the code exists within LG or not,
`
`14
`
`we went back to the client and asked them a number of times,
`
`15
`
`one, is the code relevant? So in the first instance we've
`
`16
`
`indicated to Ancora that the code is not relevant. These are
`
`17
`
`related to apps, and the code that they've accused in the case
`
`18
`
`that we believe is at issue is related to over the air updates
`
`19
`
`for the devices and for the operating system.
`
`20
`
`So in the first instance we don't believe it's relevant.
`
`21
`
`We understand that they would like to do their diligence to
`
`22
`
`confirm that. And so what we've informed them is this code, as
`
`23
`
`collected by the client and put onto the computer, is in the
`
`24
`
`form that is representative for all of the products.
`
`25
`
`And when we did the searches for these particular code
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 79 Filed 07/08/20 Page 10 of 33
`
`10
`
`files, we couldn't identify them to even determine where --
`
`which products these related to, and when I say we, Your Honor,
`
`that's myself. I couldn't find the files. I couldn't figure
`
`out if I could decompile them, and I couldn't ask my client
`
`where they were.
`
`And as a point of reference, the client doesn't have the
`
`code in the format that plaintiff's expert reviewed it in.
`
`They have a product manager and then they have individual
`
`engineers. So for each product for them to find a specific
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`file would take at least, from the client's perspective, three
`
`11
`
`to five hours for each file because they would have to go to
`
`12
`
`each product manager and to each engineer and then down the
`
`13
`
`chain to figure out if they have any source code for these
`
`14
`
`binary files. Our understanding presently, as we've confirmed
`
`15
`
`with the client, is that the code that they -- that's collected
`
`16
`
`and produced is in the format that they have. If the
`
`17
`
`underlying source code is not in the production, it would
`
`18
`
`require significant amount of effort and time to go back and
`
`19
`
`figure out if they have it.
`
`20
`
`So with respect to plaintiff's possible solution of
`
`21
`
`representative code, we don't have a position on that. We've
`
`22
`
`been unable to figure out if that's viable, given the over 150
`
`23
`
`products in the individual code bases for across time. But we
`
`24
`
`would be willing to -- if plaintiff would be amenable to
`
`25
`
`this -- figuring out if they can identify specifically where
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 79 Filed 07/08/20 Page 11 of 33
`
`11
`
`these files exist, we'd be able to go back to the client and
`
`have the client pick for -- a representative number of
`
`products, two, three, maybe four. If Ancora would say, these
`
`number of products, we can go back to the client and say, for
`
`these products and these folders, please research, and we can
`
`limit the burden on LG, one, because we don't think these files
`
`are relevant, but at least we can go back and determine if we
`
`have the source code for these files, and if we don't have the
`
`source code for the files, we'll need to figure out at that
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`point if Ancora needs to collect those from -- or seek those
`
`11
`
`from the third parties who provided those to LG in that format,
`
`12
`
`and we'd be willing to at least accommodate that, but to go
`
`13
`
`through an entire source code recollection and reproduction for
`
`14
`
`150 products using multiple engineers for each of those, it
`
`15
`
`seems the burden outweighs the need, given that we believe that
`
`16
`
`they're not relevant.
`
`17
`
`And unless Your Honor has any further questions, that is
`
`18
`
`really the summary of the issues for point one.
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`THE COURT: I'll hear from counsel for plaintiff.
`
`MR. HEALY: Yes, Your Honor. This is Mr. Healy again.
`
`You know, I would say up front I have some substantial
`
`22
`
`concerns here. You know, we have been raising this issue with
`
`23
`
`LG since May. You know, if you -- and I certainly appreciate
`
`24
`
`that counsel, you know, has now done an independent search, but
`
`25
`
`if you look at the screenshot they provided the Court, which,
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 79 Filed 07/08/20 Page 12 of 33
`
`12
`
`you know, we never saw before but they provided them about ten
`
`minutes ago, his search results reflect that they performed
`
`these searches yesterday. And so if we've been raising these
`
`issues since May and then counsel -- and, again, I appreciate
`
`his candor. He said he's not well versed in source code. I
`
`think that's another issue here, but why is it that we've been
`
`raising these issues for so long, we've been exchanging
`
`e-mails, we've had meet and confers, we've had hearings, and
`
`yet LG's -- the first time that their counsel or anyone at LG
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`apparently does a search was yesterday evening. I mean, to us
`
`11
`
`that's symptomatic of the problem here. We are having a
`
`12
`
`substantial amount of issues getting discovery from LG, and
`
`13
`
`particular defendants in general, and, again, with respect to
`
`14
`
`LG in particular, we only get any movement at all, any
`
`15
`
`compromises, any work product that's demonstrating to us that
`
`16
`
`something's actually being done the day that we have a hearing
`
`17
`
`or the day before we have a hearing, and that's -- and, again,
`
`18
`
`it's problematic for us. We have -- you know, as the e-mails,
`
`19
`
`Your Honor, we sent Your Honor reflect, you know, we're waiting
`
`20
`
`for substantial volumes of source code. This is all material
`
`21
`
`that should have been produced months ago, if not earlier. And
`
`22
`
`so I do have some substantial concerns about, you know,
`
`23
`
`receiving it, you know, photographic evidence that nothing has
`
`24
`
`been done the day before our hearing.
`
`25
`
`With respect to the specific questions, again, we
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 79 Filed 07/08/20 Page 13 of 33
`
`13
`
`provided, you know, file paths from Mr. Martin who's our source
`
`code expert. Mr. Martin was in, you know, LG's or counsel's
`
`office last week conducting more research trying to find -- you
`
`know, reviewing the source code. And certainly, as LG's
`
`counsel had, you know, conducted a search or LG I would say
`
`conducted these searches previously, Mr. Martin would have been
`
`well equipped in order to hopefully get them some answers that
`
`that's what they actually need, and that's why this timing is
`
`even more problematic.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`With respect to the actual substance of the issues, Mr.
`
`11
`
`Martin is very -- you know, at least -- I have to defer to him.
`
`12
`
`He's the expert, and as was explained to you, I certainly am
`
`13
`
`not. He has told us that this is relevant. It's something
`
`14
`
`that we pointed out to LG back in May. This is, you know, in
`
`15
`
`the last week or so the first we're beginning to hear that they
`
`16
`
`have any questions about that. But I have to defer to my
`
`17
`
`expert and what he told me was relevant. And, again, we've
`
`18
`
`made a lot of efforts here to try and answer their questions.
`
`19
`
`We respond to their e-mails, you know, within a day. I speak
`
`20
`
`to my experts to make sure that we're giving them the proper
`
`21
`
`information. But it's beginning to feel a little bit, you
`
`22
`
`know, like whack a mole. Every time that we give them an
`
`23
`
`answer, they come up with a new question, and, you know, again,
`
`24
`
`the photographic evidence that we have now confirms that they
`
`25
`
`didn't even conduct a search until yesterday, and to us that's,
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 79 Filed 07/08/20 Page 14 of 33
`
`14
`
`frankly, inexcusable. It's suggesting that all the e-mail
`
`exchanges we've had with them over the past month have been,
`
`you know, a bit of gamesmanship. And if this is a question
`
`that they had raised immediately had they sent us to perform
`
`these searches, certainly we would take them seriously and like
`
`to take them seriously now, but my expert is no longer in their
`
`office reviewing code. And so, you know, we think that they
`
`now need to be held to the consequences of their failure to do
`
`a search previously and they need to be held to, you know, the
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`burden and the discovery obligations that they have.
`
`11
`
`Again, I'm more than happy to agree to a reasonable
`
`12
`
`compromise and try and narrow the amount of code that needs to
`
`13
`
`be produced, but in some respects my hands are now tied, and
`
`14
`
`they're tied because LG didn't conduct a search until
`
`15
`
`yesterday, and I just really don't know how I can overcome that
`
`16
`
`issue. When we are desperately trying to keep the Court's
`
`17
`
`schedule, we've sent our experts, you know, they've agreed,
`
`18
`
`graciously, to fly during these COVID times, and it's just --
`
`19
`
`it's a lot of imposition to now require them to return to
`
`20
`
`Houston, which is obviously having a sort of a COVID flare-up,
`
`21
`
`you know, under these circumstances. It's just very -- I don't
`
`22
`
`really know how to say it other than it's very frustrating,
`
`23
`
`Your Honor.
`
`24
`
`THE COURT: I got it. That's why I took this job. I
`
`25
`
`hated dealing with -- when I was in your position. I'm
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 79 Filed 07/08/20 Page 15 of 33
`
`15
`
`empathetic to both sides and what you all are trying to
`
`accomplish.
`
`I'm going to put you on hold for one second. I have a
`
`proposal I think I'm going to make, but I'm going to run it by
`
`my clerk. I'll be right back.
`
`If I were to allow the plaintiff to have a number of
`
`representative products that you want code from with the
`
`understanding that if once you get in there you needed to
`
`expand, I would be sympathetic, what is the minimum number that
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`you think that plaintiff believes they could live with?
`
`11
`
`MR. HEALY: Your Honor, this is Mr. Healy. I'd certainly
`
`12
`
`say five would be sufficient. I guess the only caveat I would
`
`13
`
`say is certainly, you know, I would -- we would want some
`
`14
`
`understanding from LG, you know, that those -- that those five
`
`15
`
`products, you know, would actually cover the span of the entire
`
`16
`
`product base. And so in some respects, you know, we would
`
`17
`
`defer to them. If they obviously believe we need six in order
`
`18
`
`to cover the full product base, I don't have any issue with
`
`19
`
`that, but I just want to make sure that we have enough to span
`
`20
`
`the entire accused product scope.
`
`21
`
`THE COURT: Five sounds about the same number I was going
`
`22
`
`to pick and that my clerk and I were discussing. Let me hear
`
`23
`
`from counsel for LG what they think about that proposal.
`
`24
`
`MR. DAVIS: Your Honor, we're happy to use five to
`
`25
`
`facilitate this discovery; however, given the sheer number of
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 79 Filed 07/08/20 Page 16 of 33
`
`16
`
`products and the time period to how many products have existed,
`
`it's unclear at this point if five can be representative of all
`
`products, but what we can endeavor to do is select five that
`
`plaintiff can review to ensure that the code is in and of
`
`itself relevant and it covers the aspects of the claims that
`
`they think are at issue. And then to the extent that the
`
`parties need to compartmentalize or group products based on
`
`families or based on timing, we're more than willing to
`
`accommodate that, but at this stage I think from our
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`perspective would be too early to pick five products to
`
`11
`
`represent the entire base, but we are definitely willing to
`
`12
`
`facilitate plaintiff's evaluation of the code that we think is
`
`13
`
`not relevant, and if five products will enable them to have
`
`14
`
`their expert review the code to make that assessment and then
`
`15
`
`the parties can move forward from that point, I think that's a
`
`16
`
`viable solution.
`
`17
`
`THE COURT: I'm going to put you on hold again for just
`
`18
`
`one second.
`
`19
`
`Okay. Here's what I'm going to do. Here's what I'm going
`
`20
`
`to suggest we do, and I'll hear first from -- after I say this
`
`21
`
`from the plaintiff and then from the defendant. I am trying to
`
`22
`
`work out something that's hopefully best for everyone. I'm
`
`23
`
`going to order the defendant and their counsel to pick out the
`
`24
`
`five products -- the five representative products that
`
`25
`
`represent the most of the -- of the accused products that they
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 79 Filed 07/08/20 Page 17 of 33
`
`17
`
`can reasonably pick, and I want them to produce the source code
`
`and make it available for inspection by plaintiff's experts no
`
`later than next Wednesday, and I think you said, but I could be
`
`wrong, you said that the experts went to Houston to see it.
`
`Listen. I don't want the perfect to be the enemy of the
`
`good if it's Thursday or something. I just -- it needs to get
`
`done next week. I would prefer Wednesday, but, you know, for
`
`all I know, your experts won't be able to travel to Houston by
`
`then, but -- and if there's some logistic problem on LG getting
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`this that is going to make it outside of the lawyers' control
`
`11
`
`make it impossible for this to happen, let me know right away
`
`12
`
`just so I can -- we can stay on top of this. I'll understand
`
`13
`
`if -- you know, with the virus and everything that's going on,
`
`14
`
`I know there are problems, but the goal is to get it -- make it
`
`15
`
`available to plaintiff's experts by next Wednesday no later
`
`16
`
`than the end of the week, barring some very serious problem
`
`17
`
`that you can -- you can make clear to me.
`
`18
`
`Then the plaintiff's experts can go and look at what has
`
`19
`
`been presented to them and the plaintiff's experts I'm going to
`
`20
`
`rely on. Unless the plaintiff's counsel tells me that this
`
`21
`
`isn't wise for me to do and for the plaintiff to do, the
`
`22
`
`plaintiff's counsel can go through what has been produced, and
`
`23
`
`if the experts believe that there are certain buckets -- and by
`
`24
`
`buckets I mean different kinds of products that are not
`
`25
`
`represented by what's been produced, I want the expert to be
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 79 Filed 07/08/20 Page 18 of 33
`
`18
`
`able to tell counsel who can then tell me exactly what types of
`
`products those are so you can tell -- you can -- plaintiff's
`
`counsel can tell LG, but if there's an issue, plaintiff's
`
`counsel can tell me.
`
`And then also if there are -- if there's source code that
`
`plaintiff's expert believes is necessary to be produced beyond
`
`what has been produced by -- because there are variations
`
`within the same kind of product group, again, I'm going to rely
`
`on plaintiff's counsel and their experts to be as specific as
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`possible. So either LG can agree to produce it or plaintiff's
`
`11
`
`counsel can explain to me why it needs to be produced and I can
`
`12
`
`assist, but that seems to me to be a big first step getting
`
`13
`
`plaintiff what they need as quickly as possible and making the
`
`14
`
`burden as reasonable on LG as I can, given everything that's
`
`15
`
`going on with the virus.
`
`16
`
`So let me start with the plaintiff. Counsel, if there is
`
`17
`
`some -- if that's a -- if my suggestion is okay, great. If
`
`18
`
`there's something you want to suggest I do to amend it, let me
`
`19
`
`know. It's your floor.
`
`20
`
`MR. HEALY: Thank you, Your Honor. This is Mr. Healy
`
`21
`
`again. With respect to the timing, I will say that immediately
`
`22
`
`after this call ends I will check with my expert. I don't know
`
`23
`
`if it would make any difference to him based on his
`
`24
`
`availability about Wednesday or Thursday or even Friday, and so
`
`25
`
`we will certainly tell LG. I have no need to make them move
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 79 Filed 07/08/20 Page 19 of 33
`
`19
`
`faster if my expert can't get there until the following Monday,
`
`for example. So I will take care of that right after this
`
`call.
`
`The only other issue I just want to flag, and this is a
`
`conversation that we had begun having with defendant, is that
`
`given the situation in Texas, I'm not sure if Mr. Martin will
`
`be able to get to Texas in the next -- given the flare-up, but
`
`we'll have that discussion, and if there's a remote review,
`
`again, certainly we'll factor that into the timing.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`Aside from those sort of flags, the only additional
`
`11
`
`request I would say is, given that LG is going to be selecting
`
`12
`
`the representative products, we would ask that -- and it
`
`13
`
`doesn't have to be on the same time frame certainly, that we be
`
`14
`
`allowed to select, you know, two more products as sort of an
`
`15
`
`audit just to make sure that the code truly is representative.
`
`16
`
`We wouldn't have any way to know that unless we were able to
`
`17
`
`sort of select additional products and then do a comparison.
`
`18
`
`So that's my limited additional request, Your Honor.
`
`19
`
`20
`
`THE COURT: That sounds fine to me.
`
`And let me hear from counsel for LG why that would be an
`
`21
`
`unfair burden on LG at this time.
`
`22
`
`MR. DAVIS: So, Your Honor, I think that the five plus two
`
`23
`
`seems like a reasonable number at this time, and if we get to
`
`24
`
`the point where there are a large number of additional products
`
`25
`
`as you indicated plaintiff's expert would be responsible for,
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 79 Filed 07/08/20 Page 20 of 33
`
`20
`
`if we disagreed with that, we'll be happy to raise it with the
`
`Court at that time.
`
`The only caveat to this source code issue is at this point
`
`LG has produced, you know, terabytes of code, and we believe
`
`that all the code that plaintiff is interested in has already
`
`been produced. We will go back to the client and confirm that,
`
`as Your Honor has indicated, but to the extent that the code
`
`for these relevant files are provided to LG from a third party
`
`in binary format where we do not have the source code, we'll
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`make sure that we indicate that to plaintiff as early as
`
`11
`
`possible so that if there are additional discovery obligations
`
`12
`
`or needs that plaintiff will have the opportunity to accomplish
`
`13
`
`that or to work with us to accomplish that.
`
`14
`
`15
`
`THE COURT: That sounds fine to me.
`
`Does plaintiff's counsel have anything they'd like to add
`
`16
`
`to that statement?
`
`17
`
`18
`
`MR. HEALY: No, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: So let me first start off by saying how much I
`
`19
`
`appreciate you all are doing exactly what I would hope great
`
`20
`
`lawyers would do, which is you all appear to be doing a very
`
`21
`
`g

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