American Patents LLC v. Mediatek, Inc. et al

Western District of Texas, txwd-6:2018-cv-00339

Exhibit F

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

0 EXHIBIT F 0 Levinson, Rebecca B. From: Zac Harrington <zac@ahtlawfirm.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 10:04 PM To: VanHoutan, Tyler T. Cc: Levinson, Rebecca B.; Ryan Pinckney; Lai Yip; aenglehart@oblon.com; eschweibenz@oblon.com; jkern@oblon.com; pamstutz@scottdoug.com; efindlay_findlaycraft.com; Martin Bader; Michael Hopkins; kpanderson@duanemorris.com; BGreene@duanemorris.com; pjhubert@duanemorris.com; mhudgeons@reedsmith.com; jlayne@reedsmith.com; dbjohnson@reedsmith.com; jmitchell@reedsmith.com; omohammed@reedsmith.com; Larry Thompson; Matt Antonelli; Michael Ellis; sdavis@stafforddavisfirm.com; cbartles@stafforddavisfirm.com Subject: Re: American Patents v MediaTek et al (C.A. No. 6:18-cv-339) – Proposed Protective Order Attachments: attachment 1.docx; ATT00001.htm Tyler- There is an interim protective order in place as part of the Court's standard order governing proceedings for patent cases, which the Court circulated to the parties before the CMC. Our draft proposed modified interim protective order is attached (we may make a few additional minor edits to clean up the document prior to filing)—it adds only the provisions from Judge Gilstrap's form order concerning disclosure of consultants and experts. The local rules do not require conference by telephone on this motion, but we are available to meet and confer on our motion tomorrow at 11am or 3pm or Thursday any time between 2pm and 5pm. We are willing to discuss defendants' proposed provisions for a final protective order, but continue to think that those provisions should be presented as a redline against our proposed final protective order. In any event, though, we do not think such a discussion should be used to delay filing of the simple and straightforward modification to the interim protective order that we are proposing. Best, Zac Sent from my iPhone 1 0 On Aug 6, 2019, at 7:25 PM, VanHoutan, Tyler T. <TVanHoutan@mcguirewoods.com> wrote: Zac: Defendants are disappointed to hear that Plaintiff is not willing to even discuss the protective order that Defendants have proposed to protect their confidential information. Nevertheless, there is no "current protective order" in this case as you represent below. To the extent that Plaintiff intends to unilaterally move the Court to enter a protective order, it will be necessary to meet and confer pursuant to Local Rule CV‐7(i) regarding that motion. Please propose dates/times when Plaintiff is available for the meet and confer, and we will coordinate amongst Defendants' counsel. Thanks, Tyler From: Zac Harrington <zac@ahtlawfirm.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 10:42 AM To: Levinson, Rebecca B. <RLevinson@mcguirewoods.com> Cc: Ryan Pinckney <ryan@ahtlawfirm.com>; Lai Yip <LYip@sheppardmullin.com>; VanHoutan, Tyler T. <TVanHoutan@mcguirewoods.com>; aenglehart@oblon.com; eschweibenz@oblon.com; jkern@oblon.com; pamstutz@scottdoug.com; efindlay_findlaycraft.com <efindlay@findlaycraft.com>; Martin Bader <MBader@sheppardmullin.com>; Michael Hopkins <MHopkins@sheppardmullin.com>; kpanderson@duanemorris.com; BGreene@duanemorris.com; pjhubert@duanemorris.com; mhudgeons@reedsmith.com; jlayne@reedsmith.com; dbjohnson@reedsmith.com; jmitchell@reedsmith.com; omohammed@reedsmith.com; Larry Thompson <larry@ahtlawfirm.com>; Matt Antonelli <matt@ahtlawfirm.com>; Michael Ellis <michael@ahtlawfirm.com>; sdavis@stafforddavisfirm.com; cbartles@stafforddavisfirm.com Subject: Re: American Patents v MediaTek et al (C.A. No. 6:18‐cv‐339) – Proposed Protective Order Rebecca- We are not willing to work off of Defendants proposed protective, especially since we sent y'all our draft first. We proposed the Gilstrap protective order as a compromise seeing as it contains many provisions that defendants often request. Since Defendants do not want to work off of that draft, we will ask the Court to make one small change to the current protective order so that experts can review confidential information. We assume y'all oppose this change, and we will file an opposed motion to make this change unless y'all inform us otherwise. If Defendants want all of the extra (and in our view completely unwarranted) provisions in the protective order you attached, y'all can ask the Court for those separately and explain why there is good cause for each change. Best, Zac 2 0 Zachariah S. Harrington Antonelli, Harrington & Thompson LLP 4306 Yoakum, Suite 450 Houston, TX 77006 (713) 581-3003 (direct) (713) 581-3020 (fax) (917) 370-1957 (cell) zac@ahtlawfirm.com www.ahtlawfirm.com On Aug 2, 2019, at 2:48 PM, Levinson, Rebecca B. <RLevinson@mcguirewoods.com> wrote: Ryan, While we appreciate Plaintiff providing a proposed Protective Order, Defendants have also been working on a proposed Protective Order. See attached. As all the Defendants have already agreed to the attached Protective Order, we think it would be more efficient if the parties could work from Defendants' proposed Protective Order. Please let us know if Defendants' proposed Protective Order is acceptable to Plaintiff or if there are any provisions that you would like to discuss. Regards, Rebecca Rebecca B. Levinson McGuireWoods LLP T: +1 202 828 2816 | M: +1 301 980 9714 From: Ryan Pinckney <ryan@ahtlawfirm.com> Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2019 6:13 PM To: Lai Yip <LYip@sheppardmullin.com>; VanHoutan, Tyler T. <TVanHoutan@mcguirewoods.com>; aenglehart@oblon.com; eschweibenz@oblon.co m; jkern@oblon.com; pamstutz@scottdoug.com; efindlay_findlaycraft.com <efindlay@f indlaycraft.com>; Martin Bader <MBader@sheppardmullin.com>; Michael Hopkins <MHopkins@sheppardmullin.com>; kpanderson@duanemorris.com; BGreene@duane morris.com; pjhubert@duanemorris.com; mhudgeons@reedsmith.com; jlayne@reedsm ith.com; dbjohnson@reedsmith.com; jmitchell@reedsmith.com; omohammed@reedsm ith.com; Levinson, Rebecca B. <RLevinson@mcguirewoods.com> Cc: Larry Thompson <larry@ahtlawfirm.com>; Zac Harrington <zac@ahtlawfirm.com>; Matt Antonelli <matt@ahtlawfirm.com>; Michael Ellis <michael@ahtlawfirm.com>; 'sdavis@stafforddavisfirm.com'; 'cbartles@stafforddavisfirm.com' 3 0 Subject: American Patents v Mediatek et al (C.A. No. 6:18‐cv‐339) – Proposed Protective Order Counsel, In advance of defendants' upcoming productions, we would like to get a protective order on file that allows our experts and consultants to review the materials in those productions. Attached is a proposed Protective Order that is based on Judge Gilstrap's model Protective Order. Please let us know if this is acceptable to defendants or if there are any provisions you would like to discuss. Best, Ryan Pinckney Antonelli, Harrington & Thompson LLP 4306 Yoakum Blvd., Ste. 450 Houston, Texas 77006 (713) 581‐3019 (direct) (713) 581‐3020 (fax) www.ahtlawfirm.com ryan@ahtlawfirm.com This e‐mail from McGuireWoods may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please advise by return e‐mail and delete immediately without reading or forwarding to others.<American Patents v. MediaTek et al. - Protective Order (from Defendants).docx> 4 0 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION AMERICAN PATENTS LLC, CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:18-cv-339 Plaintiff, v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MEDIATEK INC., MEDIATEK USA INC., BROADCOM PTE. LTD., BROADCOM CORPORATION, LENOVO (SHANGHAI) ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD., LENOVO GROUP, LTD., NXP SEMICONDUCTORS N.V., NXP B.V., NXP USA, INC., QUALCOMM INCORPORATED and QUALCOMM TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendants. PROTECTIVE ORDER Pending entry of the final Protective Order, the Court modifies its interim Protective Order governing the disclosure of confidential information in this matter as follows: If any document or information produced in this matter is deemed confidential by the producing party and if the Court has not entered a protective order, until a protective order is issued by the Court, the document shall be marked "confidential" or with some other confidential designation (such as "Confidential – Outside Attorneys Eyes Only") by the disclosing party and disclosure of the confidential document or information shall be limited to each party's outside attorney(s) of record, the employees of such outside attorney(s), and outside consultants or experts (i.e., not existing employees or affiliates of a Party or an affiliate of a Party) retained for the purpose of this litigation, provided that: (1) such consultants or experts are not presently employed by the Parties hereto for purposes other than this Action; (2) before access is given, the consultant or expert 1 0 has completed the Undertaking attached as Exhibit A hereto and the same is served upon the producing Party with a current curriculum vitae of the consultant or expert at least ten (10) days before access to the Protected Material is to be given to that consultant or Undertaking to object to and notify the receiving Party in writing that it objects to disclosure of Protected Material to the consultant or expert. The Parties agree to promptly confer and use good faith to resolve any such objection. If the Parties are unable to resolve any objection, the objecting Party may file a motion with the Court within fifteen (15) days of the notice, or within such other time as the Parties may agree, seeking a protective order with respect to the proposed disclosure. The objecting Party shall have the burden of proving the need for a protective order. No disclosure shall occur until all such objections are resolved by agreement or Court order. Each outside consultant or expert to whom DESIGNATED MATERIAL is disclosed in accordance with the terms of this Order shall be advised by counsel of the terms of this Order, shall be informed that he or she is subject to the terms and conditions of this Order, and shall sign an acknowledgment that he or she has received a copy of, has read, and has agreed to be bound by this Order. A copy of the acknowledgment form is attached as Appendix A. If a party is not represented by an outside attorney, disclosure of the confidential document or information shall be limited to one designated "in house" attorney, whose identity and job functions shall be disclosed to the producing party 5 days prior to any such disclosure, in order to permit any motion for protective order or other relief regarding such disclosure. The person(s) to whom disclosure of a confidential document or information is made under this local rule shall keep it confidential and use it only for purposes of litigating the case. Each of the Parties shall also retain the right to file a motion with the Court (a) to modify this Order to allow disclosure of DESIGNATED MATERIAL to additional persons or entities if 2 0 reasonably necessary to prepare and present this Action and (b) to apply for additional protection of DESIGNATED MATERIAL. 3 0 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION AMERICAN PATENTS LLC, CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:18-cv-339 Plaintiff, v. MEDIATEK INC., MEDIATEK USA INC., BROADCOM PTE. LTD., BROADCOM CORPORATION, LENOVO (SHANGHAI) ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD., LENOVO GROUP, LTD., NXP SEMICONDUCTORS N.V., NXP B.V., NXP USA, INC., QUALCOMM INCORPORATED and QUALCOMM TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendants. APPENDIX A UNDERTAKING OF EXPERTS OR CONSULTANTS REGARDING PROTECTIVE ORDER I, ___________________________________________, declare that: 1. My address is _________________________________________________________. My current employer is _________________________________________________. My current occupation is ________________________________________________. 2. I have received a copy of the Protective Order in this action. I have carefully read and understand the provisions of the Protective Order. 3. I will comply with all of the provisions of the Protective Order. I will hold in confidence, will not disclose to anyone not qualified under the Protective Order, and will use only for purposes of this action any information designated as "CONFIDENTIAL," "RESTRICTED -- ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY," or "RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL 1 0 SOURCE CODE" that is disclosed to me. 4. Promptly upon termination of these actions, I will return all documents and things designated as "CONFIDENTIAL," "RESTRICTED -- ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY," or "RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE CODE" that came into my possession, and all documents and things that I have prepared relating thereto, to the outside counsel for the party by whom I am employed. 5. I hereby submit to the jurisdiction of this Court for the purpose of enforcement of the Protective Order in this action. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Signature ________________________________________ Date _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2