American Patents LLC v. Mediatek, Inc. et al

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

Exhibit H

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

EXHIBIT H Levinson, Rebecca B. From: VanHoutan, Tyler T. Sent: Friday, August 9, 2019 5:53 PM To: Zac Harrington 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; Stafford Davis; cbartles@stafforddavisfirm.com Subject: RE: American Patents v MediaTek et al (C.A. No. 6:18-cv-339) – Proposed Protective Order Zac: On behalf of the non‐Lenovo Defendants, the form protective order circulated below does not provide adequate protections for Defendants' confidential information. We again urge Plaintiff to reconsider its position and work with Defendants on a mutually‐agreeable protective order, starting with the draft Protective Order that all of the Defendants have already agreed to. If Plaintiff's position is still that it will not propose edits to Defendants' proposed Protective Order, then you can indicate that the non‐Lenovo Defendants are opposed to Plaintiff's motion – and that Defendants will move for entry of their draft Protective Order in response. Thanks. From: Zac Harrington <zac@ahtlawfirm.com> Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2019 4:28 PM To: VanHoutan, Tyler T. <TVanHoutan@mcguirewoods.com> Cc: Levinson, Rebecca B. <RLevinson@mcguirewoods.com>; Ryan Pinckney <ryan@ahtlawfirm.com>; Lai Yip <LYip@sheppardmullin.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>; Stafford Davis <sdavis@stafforddavisfirm.com>; cbartles@stafforddavisfirm.com Subject: Re: American Patents v MediaTek et al (C.A. No. 6:18‐cv‐339) – Proposed Protective Order Counsel- Thanks for the meet and confer call earlier today. After considering y'alls input and discussing these issues with my team, we agree that it probably makes sense to move forward to a final protective order instead of a modified interim protective order. 1 Local Rule 26 provides that "[u]pon motion by any party demonstrating good cause, the court may enter a protective order in the form set out in Appendix H or any other appropriate form. In cases where the parties agree to a protective order, the form set out in Appendix H is approved." American believes that Appendix H is more than sufficient to protect all parties' confidential information. Accordingly, American will move the Court to enter Appendix H (attached for your convenience). Please let me know if defendants will oppose American's motion. We believe that good cause exists to enter Appendix H as the protective order in this case at least because the Court's form order allows for experts to review confidential information and is a presumptively reasonable set of protections for reviewing a party's confidential information. Best, Zac 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 7, 2019, at 7:29 PM, VanHoutan, Tyler T. <TVanHoutan@mcguirewoods.com> wrote: Zac: The "interim protective order" that was circulated to the parties was not entered by the Court. Regardless, Defendants are available at 2pm (CT) tomorrow afternoon to meet and confer regarding Plaintiff's forthcoming motion. Please confirm that you are still available, and we will circulate a dial‐in. We look forward to hearing how one Plaintiff editing a PO agreed to by five Defendant groups will be less efficient and more time consuming that five Defendant groups editing a PO circulated by Plaintiff. Thanks, Tyler From: Zac Harrington <zac@ahtlawfirm.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 9:04 PM To: VanHoutan, Tyler T. <TVanHoutan@mcguirewoods.com> Cc: Levinson, Rebecca B. <RLevinson@mcguirewoods.com>; Ryan Pinckney <ryan@ahtlawfirm.com>; Lai Yip <LYip@sheppardmullin.com>; aenglehart@oblon.com; eschweibenz@oblon.com; jkern@oblon.com; pa mstutz@scottdoug.com; efindlay_findlaycraft.com <efindlay@findlaycraft.com>; Martin Bader 2 <MBader@sheppardmullin.com>; Michael Hopkins <MHopkins@sheppardmullin.com>; kpanderson@duanemorris.com; BGreene@duanemorris.com; pjhu bert@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 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 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 3 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.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; 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 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, 4 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; eschweib enz@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; BG reene@duanemorris.com; pjhubert@duanemorris.com; mhudgeons@r eedsmith.com; jlayne@reedsmith.com; dbjohnson@reedsmith.com; jmi tchell@reedsmith.com; omohammed@reedsmith.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' 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, 5 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> 6