throbber
Case 1:22-cv-00058-ADA Document 206 Filed 03/21/24 Page 1 of 13
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
` UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
` WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
` AUSTIN DIVISION
`IDENTITY SECURITY, LLC
`) Docket No. A 22-CA-058 ADA
` )
`vs.
` ) Austin, Texas
` )
`APPLE, INC.
`) July 27, 2023
`
`
` TRANSCRIPT OF VIDEOCONFERENCE DISCOVERY HEARING
` BEFORE THE HONORABLE ALAN D. ALBRIGHT
`
`APPEARANCES:
`For the Plaintiff:
`
`For the Defendant:
`
`Mr. Taylor C. Hoogendoorn
`Mr. John P. Lahad
`Susman Godfrey, LLP
`1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100
`Houston, Texas 77002
`
`Ms. Leslie M. Spencer
`Ms. Amy Wann
`Mr. Michael Wueste
`Desmarais, LLP
`230 Park Avenue
`New York, New York 10196
`Mr. Tom Gorham
`Gillam & Smith, LLP
`102 North College Avenue,
`Suite 800
`Tyler, Texas 75702
`
`Court Reporter:
`
`
`Ms. Lily Iva Reznik, CRR, RMR
`501 West 5th Street, Suite 4153
`Austin, Texas 78701
`(512)391-8792
`
`Proceedings reported by computerized stenography,
`transcript produced by computer-aided transcription.
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, CERTIFIED REALTIME/REGISTERED MERIT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00058-ADA Document 206 Filed 03/21/24 Page 2 of 13
`
`2
`
`THE COURT: Good afternoon.
`Jen, would you call the case, please.
`THE CLERK: A civil action in Case 1:22-CV-58,
`Identity Security, LLC vs. Apple, Incorporated. Case
`called for a discovery hearing.
`THE COURT: Announcements from counsel, please.
`MR. LAHAD: Good afternoon, your Honor.
`John Lahad of Susman Godfrey for the Plaintiff
`Identity Security. Also on the line with me today is my
`associate, Taylor Hoogendoorn.
`MR. HOOGENDOORN: Good afternoon.
`MR. GORHAM: Good afternoon, your Honor.
`Tom Gorham with Gillam & Smith for Defendant
`Apple. With me on the line with the Desmarais law firm is
`Leslie Spencer, Amy Wann and Michael Wueste.
`Ms. Spencer and Ms. Wann will be presenting
`today. Also joining midway through the hearing today will
`be two client representatives after we address some
`outside attorneys'-eyes-only material.
`THE COURT: Okay. I have down the first request
`is by Apple. I'll hear from Apple on it.
`MS. WANN: Good afternoon, your Honor.
`Amy Wann from Desmarais, LLP on behalf of
`Defendant Apple, Inc. May it please the Court.
`THE COURT: Yes, ma'am.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, CERTIFIED REALTIME/REGISTERED MERIT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`13:31:39
`
`13:31:40
`
`13:31:41
`
`13:31:46
`
`13:31:49
`
`13:31:51
`
`13:31:55
`
`13:31:56
`
`13:31:59
`
`13:32:01
`
`13:32:05
`
`13:32:07
`
`13:32:08
`
`13:32:11
`
`13:32:13
`
`13:32:17
`
`13:32:20
`
`13:32:25
`
`13:32:27
`
`13:32:31
`
`13:32:33
`
`13:32:39
`
`13:32:40
`
`13:32:44
`
`13:32:47
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00058-ADA Document 206 Filed 03/21/24 Page 3 of 13
`
`3
`
`MS. WANN: So Identity Security, the plaintiff in
`this case, does not have any consummated licenses on the
`asserted patents, however, it previously offered to
`license the asserted patents to third parties RPX, Acacia
`and Samsung. Those license offers fell through and that
`is -- now is that Apple seeks discovery regarding these
`offers to license the asserted patents. But plaintiff has
`refused to produce communications related to those license
`offers.
`
`Now, if plaintiff wants Apple to pay for these
`patents, Apple should get discovery on what plaintiff
`thinks these patents are worth and --
`THE COURT: Why?
`MS. WANN: I'm sorry, your Honor?
`THE COURT: Why? What factor does it have
`anything to do with the trial?
`MS. WANN: Your Honor, because Identity has no
`executed licenses on these patents, patents-in-suit, so
`these licensing offers are the best and only reflection of
`what plaintiff thinks these patents are worth.
`THE COURT: How would they be used?
`MS. WANN: They would be used, for example, in --
`so the Federal Circuit has acknowledged in several cases
`that offers to license can actually be considered by
`experts in, for example, infringement and issues related
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, CERTIFIED REALTIME/REGISTERED MERIT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`13:32:48
`
`13:32:50
`
`13:32:55
`
`13:32:59
`
`13:33:02
`
`13:33:07
`
`13:33:11
`
`13:33:15
`
`13:33:20
`
`13:33:20
`
`13:33:23
`
`13:33:27
`
`13:33:28
`
`13:33:30
`
`13:33:31
`
`13:33:34
`
`13:33:35
`
`13:33:38
`
`13:33:41
`
`13:33:45
`
`13:33:47
`
`13:33:49
`
`13:33:52
`
`13:33:55
`
`13:33:58
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00058-ADA Document 206 Filed 03/21/24 Page 4 of 13
`
`4
`
`to damages such as calculating a reasonable royalty and
`comparable licenses.
`Now so, the fact that the Federal Circuit has
`said that experts may rely on these offers to license even
`though those offers have not been consummated means that
`these offers are, at the very least, discoverable in the
`first instance under the broader discovery standard, which
`as your Honor knows is simply reasonably calculated to
`lead to relevant admissible evidence. And of course, down
`the line, your Honor may eventually decide that these
`license offers are not admissible at trial, but
`admissibility at trial is a different issue from whether
`these license -- these license offers are discoverable in
`the first instance.
`And there is no burden here. Plaintiff has not
`argued that this discovery would be overly voluminous or
`unduly burdensome. And we're aware that your Honor has
`held in the past that the parties seeking this discovery
`must show good cause or reasons that justify why these
`licensing offers meet their threshold relevance standard.
`And we have good cause here for two reasons.
`First, Identity has no executed licenses to
`produce, so that fact elevates the relevance of these
`licensing offers because, as I've said earlier, these are
`the only evidence of plaintiff's licensing activity and,
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, CERTIFIED REALTIME/REGISTERED MERIT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`13:34:02
`
`13:34:08
`
`13:34:10
`
`13:34:14
`
`13:34:17
`
`13:34:20
`
`13:34:24
`
`13:34:27
`
`13:34:31
`
`13:34:36
`
`13:34:38
`
`13:34:42
`
`13:34:45
`
`13:34:49
`
`13:34:50
`
`13:34:54
`
`13:34:57
`
`13:35:03
`
`13:35:06
`
`13:35:10
`
`13:35:13
`
`13:35:16
`
`13:35:19
`
`13:35:23
`
`13:35:25
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00058-ADA Document 206 Filed 03/21/24 Page 5 of 13
`
`5
`
`therefore, are the best and only reflection of the value
`of these patents.
`And we've cited a case, High Point SARL, where
`the Court found especially relevant the fact that there
`have been no successful license executions. And we just
`want to note that in your Honor's prior case Daedalus,
`there was at least one relevant executed license that had
`already been produced; so, of course, in that case, the
`executed license diminished the relevance of the licensing
`offers. That's not the case here where plaintiff has no
`consummated executed licenses.
`And our second reason is, you know, your Honor
`noted in Daedalus that allowing discovery of unconsummated
`licensing negotiations may have a chilling effect in
`ongoing negotiations. There is no risk of that here.
`Plaintiff has not told us that it's actively involved in
`licensing discussions with these third parties. So
`there's no chilling effect by allowing plaintiff's license
`offers to be discoverable.
`And again, the cases that your Honor noted in
`your Honor's opinion in Daedalus, the chilling effect was
`present because there were, in fact, ongoing negotiations
`in both those cases, but that is not the case here. And
`so, these two reasons make this case different from
`Daedalus and, therefore, meet the good cause standards for
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, CERTIFIED REALTIME/REGISTERED MERIT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`13:35:30
`
`13:35:33
`
`13:35:35
`
`13:35:39
`
`13:35:43
`
`13:35:45
`
`13:35:50
`
`13:35:53
`
`13:35:57
`
`13:36:00
`
`13:36:05
`
`13:36:07
`
`13:36:10
`
`13:36:14
`
`13:36:17
`
`13:36:21
`
`13:36:24
`
`13:36:27
`
`13:36:31
`
`13:36:33
`
`13:36:36
`
`13:36:39
`
`13:36:42
`
`13:36:46
`
`13:36:49
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00058-ADA Document 206 Filed 03/21/24 Page 6 of 13
`
`6
`
`showing the relevance of Identity's licensing offers.
`And again, your Honor may decide that these
`offers are not admissible down the line, but the relevance
`standard for discovering the first instance is much
`broader than the standard for admissibility at trial. And
`since they are the -- these offers are the only evidence
`of what these patents are worth, they are relevant. I'm
`happy to take any questions from your Honor.
`THE COURT: A response.
`MR. LAHAD: Yes. Thank you, your Honor. John
`Lahad, Susman Godfrey, for the plaintiff.
`The Court's reasoning in the Daedalus case
`applies equally here and I think the ruling should be the
`same. Unconsummated negotiations are unreliable. And
`Apple has not known any facts that would justify
`discoverability and the relevance of these generally
`unreliable statements.
`As counsel noted in the Daedalus case, the Court
`noted that it sought good cause to raise the discovery
`requests to the threshold relevance standard and Apple has
`not shown good cause, your Honor. First, Apple argues
`that unlike the Daedalus case, these discussions are the
`only evidence of licensing activity and there's no
`executed licenses, but that doesn't address the
`reliability concerns. That doesn't transform -- that
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, CERTIFIED REALTIME/REGISTERED MERIT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`13:36:52
`
`13:36:56
`
`13:36:58
`
`13:37:02
`
`13:37:05
`
`13:37:08
`
`13:37:12
`
`13:37:16
`
`13:37:18
`
`13:37:21
`
`13:37:22
`
`13:37:25
`
`13:37:28
`
`13:37:30
`
`13:37:33
`
`13:37:36
`
`13:37:39
`
`13:37:42
`
`13:37:46
`
`13:37:49
`
`13:37:54
`
`13:37:56
`
`13:37:59
`
`13:38:04
`
`13:38:06
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00058-ADA Document 206 Filed 03/21/24 Page 7 of 13
`
`7
`
`doesn't make them any more or less unreliable the fact
`that there is no other consummated licenses.
`And as the Mondis court and this court
`recognized, these statements have little to no probative
`value for several reasons: Puffery, informational
`disparity, differences in the nature of the potential
`licensee. And Apple argues, well, if Identity wants Apple
`to pay for its patents, it should know what it wanted
`others to pay and I'd submit, your Honor, that's not
`right. Apple doesn't care about what Identity wanted for
`its patent, wanted others to pay. As we've said in our
`dispute chart, it wants the lowball offers as some kind of
`a -- by others as some kind of alleged valuation of the
`patents by a third party. That doesn't make them more
`reliable for the reasons that I mentioned above.
`And I will say this about the chilling effect.
`One grounds on which counsel sought to distinguish the
`Daedalus case, I don't think that there have to be ongoing
`negotiations for the chilling effect to be considered.
`Patentees aren't going to readily engage in licensing
`negotiations if there's this cloud looming over them
`about, you know, whatever they say will be used against
`them. So that factor, too, militates against allowing
`discovery of these communications.
`At the end of the day, your Honor, under Daedalus
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, CERTIFIED REALTIME/REGISTERED MERIT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`13:38:10
`
`13:38:13
`
`13:38:17
`
`13:38:22
`
`13:38:25
`
`13:38:29
`
`13:38:32
`
`13:38:37
`
`13:38:40
`
`13:38:43
`
`13:38:46
`
`13:38:50
`
`13:38:54
`
`13:38:57
`
`13:39:00
`
`13:39:05
`
`13:39:09
`
`13:39:14
`
`13:39:19
`
`13:39:26
`
`13:39:30
`
`13:39:33
`
`13:39:36
`
`13:39:43
`
`13:39:46
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00058-ADA Document 206 Filed 03/21/24 Page 8 of 13
`
`8
`
`and that line of cases, these unconsummated license
`negotiations, they're unreliable, not discoverable, and
`Apple simply has not met its burden to show the good cause
`required or set forth in Daedalus and I think that the
`ruling should be the same.
`THE COURT: Anything else from Apple?
`MS. WANN: Yeah, just a couple of things quickly,
`your Honor.
`So the first thing that Mr. Lahad spoke about the
`relevance of these licensing offers, your Honor did
`acknowledge in Daedalus that there's a whole other line of
`cases that do say that licensing and settlement
`negotiations are, in fact, relevant. And your Honor
`acknowledged that the law was split on this issue. And
`so, we think that our facts here are different from the
`facts that your Honor confronted in Daedalus; and
`therefore, your Honor should follow the other line of
`cases that Daedalus mentioned, the line of cases based on
`Phoenix Solutions where the courts have said that
`discovering -- discovery of settlement negotiations will
`lead to relevant admissible evidence.
`And about the second thing that Mr. Lahad
`mentioned, the chilling effect, the reality of the
`situation is that plaintiffs still cannot show any real
`prejudice here because the fact is they're not currently
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, CERTIFIED REALTIME/REGISTERED MERIT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`13:39:49
`
`13:39:53
`
`13:39:57
`
`13:40:02
`
`13:40:06
`
`13:40:09
`
`13:40:11
`
`13:40:13
`
`13:40:13
`
`13:40:17
`
`13:40:20
`
`13:40:22
`
`13:40:27
`
`13:40:31
`
`13:40:33
`
`13:40:37
`
`13:40:40
`
`13:40:43
`
`13:40:46
`
`13:40:50
`
`13:40:53
`
`13:40:55
`
`13:40:58
`
`13:41:01
`
`13:41:04
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00058-ADA Document 206 Filed 03/21/24 Page 9 of 13
`
`9
`
`engaged in any licensing discussions with any third party.
`So any chilling that Mr. Lahad describes is merely
`hypothetical. And again, there have been many cases where
`the plaintiff made the same argument and the Court decided
`that the risk of chilling was outweighed by the relevance
`of the licensing offers.
`And of course, I'd like to mention one last
`thing. Any risk of chilling can be addressed by obviously
`adherence to the protective order that's been entered in
`this case. So we will, of course, disclose and use these
`confidential materials under the terms of the protective
`order. Thank you, your Honor.
`THE COURT: I'll be back in a second.
`If we can go back on the record. The Court is
`going to deny Apple's request.
`The other issue I have is taking up Mr. Petr
`Kostka and if you would -- one of you would spell that for
`the court reporter, who, by the way, is Lily. Thank you
`for being here today, our all-star reporter. And I'll
`hear from plaintiff on this issue.
`MS. SPENCER: Mr. Kostka's name is K-O-S-T-K-A.
`And we have outside counsel from Apple who would like to
`join for this portion since it's not under the
`confidentiality of the protective order.
`THE COURT: That's absolutely fine with me.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`13:41:09
`
`13:41:11
`
`13:41:14
`
`13:41:18
`
`13:41:21
`
`13:41:25
`
`13:41:26
`
`13:41:28
`
`13:41:34
`
`13:41:37
`
`13:41:41
`
`13:41:43
`
`13:41:48
`
`13:43:14
`
`13:43:17
`
`13:43:18
`
`13:43:24
`
`13:43:28
`
`13:43:31
`
`13:43:35
`
`13:43:42
`
`13:43:46
`
`13:43:49
`
`13:43:51
`
`13:43:52
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, CERTIFIED REALTIME/REGISTERED MERIT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00058-ADA Document 206 Filed 03/21/24 Page 10 of 13
`
`10
`
`MR. HOOGENDOORN: And while we'll waiting for
`them to join, I think Petr is P-E-T-R, atypical spelling
`for the court reporter.
`THE COURT: I'm ready for plaintiff whenever you
`want to make your argument.
`MR. HOOGENDOORN: Do we have Apple's counsel in
`
`now?
`
`MS. SPENCER: Appears we do, yes.
`MR. HOOGENDOORN: Great. Thank you, your Honor.
`Taylor Hoogendoorn from Susman Godfrey.
`The bottom line here is that plaintiff is
`proceeding with a remote deposition as an Apple party
`witness in the Czech Republic in order to save both
`parties, really everyone involved, a very large amount of
`time and money. There's a seven-hour time change between
`U.S. central time zone and Prague's time zone. Obviously
`that creates some logistical challenges.
`Apple's insisting that we start this deposition,
`this remote deposition at 2:00 a.m. central. We're
`offering to split the time change down the middle and
`start at 5:30 a.m. central time, which is just after noon,
`12:30, Prague time. As we said in our chart, the burden
`of a party witness potentially working a couple of hours
`past 6:00 p.m. is marginal and that's only the case even
`if the depo kind of approaches the full seven hour --
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, CERTIFIED REALTIME/REGISTERED MERIT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`13:43:59
`
`13:44:00
`
`13:44:05
`
`13:44:20
`
`13:44:22
`
`13:44:24
`
`13:44:26
`
`13:44:28
`
`13:44:30
`
`13:44:32
`
`13:44:35
`
`13:44:37
`
`13:44:40
`
`13:44:42
`
`13:44:45
`
`13:44:48
`
`13:44:52
`
`13:44:55
`
`13:44:57
`
`13:45:00
`
`13:45:03
`
`13:45:07
`
`13:45:10
`
`13:45:12
`
`13:45:16
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00058-ADA Document 206 Filed 03/21/24 Page 11 of 13
`
`11
`
`THE COURT: Let me hear from -- that sounds
`pretty reasonable to me. I'm not sure what the opposition
`is from the -- from Apple to starting at 5:30 instead of
`2:00.
`
`MS. SPENCER: Yes, your Honor. If I may.
`THE COURT: Sure.
`MS. SPENCER: With respect to the request to
`start at 5:30 as it's been -- 5:30 central as it's been
`noted, that would mean ending the deposition late into the
`evening hours, the local time, which is far outside of
`normal business hours, and would impinge on the travel
`plans of Mr. Kostka, who is meeting his family who is
`about three hours outside of Prague on vacation right now,
`and he is scheduled to meet them after work on --
`following the deposition.
`THE COURT: Would he rather -- would you rather
`me make you all fly over there and do this in person and
`really inconvenience everyone?
`MS. SPENCER: Apple actually has offered, is
`planning to present Mr. Kostka in person and its counsel
`will be there. It was plaintiff's option for its counsel
`not to do so and we are willing to be accommodating and
`making the deposition remote to arrange for conference
`space at Apple to do that and, also, to make some
`adjustments for the time difference. But Susman is a firm
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, CERTIFIED REALTIME/REGISTERED MERIT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`13:45:19
`
`13:45:22
`
`13:45:26
`
`13:45:31
`
`13:45:33
`
`13:45:35
`
`13:45:36
`
`13:45:39
`
`13:45:46
`
`13:45:50
`
`13:45:55
`
`13:45:58
`
`13:46:02
`
`13:46:05
`
`13:46:10
`
`13:46:11
`
`13:46:13
`
`13:46:16
`
`13:46:19
`
`13:46:21
`
`13:46:25
`
`13:46:29
`
`13:46:34
`
`13:46:38
`
`13:46:42
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00058-ADA Document 206 Filed 03/21/24 Page 12 of 13
`
`12
`
`with offices in many different time zones. It's a regular
`part of everyone's practice to operate in different time
`zones. They could even do this from New York and gain an
`hour by doing so. They've come to New York for source
`code review and other reasons. So we do think it's not
`reasonable --
`THE COURT: I'm going to split the difference
`again and I think that's a very fair suggestion. We'll
`make it 5:30 New York time, and that way, it saves your
`gentlemen an hour on his end, because he'll start an hour
`early, but I think 5:30 a.m. eastern time, that sounds
`very reasonable to me. Was that the only issue was the
`start time?
`MS. SPENCER: Yes, your Honor.
`THE COURT: Okay. Is there any other issue we
`need to take up?
`MR. GORHAM: Not from Apple, your Honor.
`MS. SPENCER: No, your Honor.
`THE COURT: Have a good day. Take care.
`MR. LAHAD: Sorry, your Honor. Nothing for the
`plaintiff.
`(Proceedings concluded.)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`13:46:45
`
`13:46:48
`
`13:46:51
`
`13:46:53
`
`13:46:56
`
`13:47:01
`
`13:47:01
`
`13:47:05
`
`13:47:07
`
`13:47:13
`
`13:47:17
`
`13:47:20
`
`13:47:24
`
`13:47:26
`
`13:47:28
`
`13:47:30
`
`13:47:35
`
`13:47:36
`
`13:47:36
`
`13:47:41
`
`13:47:44
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, CERTIFIED REALTIME/REGISTERED MERIT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00058-ADA Document 206 Filed 03/21/24 Page 13 of 13
`
`13
`
`* * * * * *
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT )
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`)
`
`I, LILY I. REZNIK, Certified Realtime Reporter,
`Registered Merit Reporter, in my capacity as Official
`Court Reporter of 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 United States.
`WITNESS MY OFFICIAL HAND this the 27th day of February,
`2024.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 4 4 8 1
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, CERTIFIED REALTIME/REGISTERED MERIT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`L I L Y I .
` REZNIK,
` CRR,
` RMR
`O f f i c i a l C o u r t R e p o r t e r
`U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t
`A u s t i n D i v i s i o n
`5 0 1 W e s t 5 t h S t r e e t ,
`S u i t e 4 1 5 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A u s t i n ,
` T e x a s 7 8 7 0 1
`( 5 1 2 ) 3 9 1 - 8 7 9 2
`S O T C e r t i f i c a t i o n N o .
`E x p i r e s :
` 1 - 3 1 - 2 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`

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