Free Declaration - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-01436-JJF

Document 124-6

Filed 03/30/2007

Page 1 of 16

XHIBIT E

Case 1:04-cv-01436-JJF

Document 124-6

Filed 03/30/2007

Page 2 of 16

I N THE SUPERIOR COURT O F THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA I N AND FOR THE COUNTY O F SANTA CLARA
BEFORE THE HONORABLE SOCRATES PETER MANOUKIAN, JUDGE DEPARTMENT NO. 7

i

i

--000--

EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, e t a l . ,

Plaintiffs,

vs ,
JERRY A.
-__

1 1 1 1
)
)

SPEASL, e t a l .

,

CASE NO. 1-05-CVO

91

1
)

Defendants.

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS.

1 - - -- - - - - 1 1

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS HELD ON AUGUST 18, 2006

A P P E A R A N C E S:

FOR THE P L A I N T I F F :

CAROLINE McINTYRE E R I C WARD ATTORNEYS AT LAW LA,RRY BRENT GXRRETT ATTORNEY AT LAW ROBERT J. SCHUTZ JAMES MOORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW GEORGEANN M . WILES, LICENSE NO. 10339 CSR

FOR THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDAN.TS :
CLAIR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONSULTANTS : O F F I C I A L COURT REPORTER:
FOR S T .

Case 1:04-cv-01436-JJF

Document 124-6

Filed 03/30/2007

Page 3 of 16

' 1 .

Copying. P r o h i b i t e d P u r s u a n t to GC 69954 ( d )

2
!

B

1
2

SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA

AUGUST 18, 2006

&.:x

cy?.
*,:.-.. ' ..., I

PROCEEDINGS : THE COURT: M a t t e r of l i n e 4 , Mirage

3

--

Kodak

4
5

versus S p e a s l .

O r Mirage,

S t a r t i n g from m l e f t , a p p e a r a n c e s , p l e a s e . y MS. McINTYRE: Good morning, Your Honor. Caroline

6
7'

McIntyre f o r P l a i n t i f f Eastman Kodak Company. THE COURT:

8

Yes. E r i c Ward, Your Honor, f o r Kodak and

9
'

MR. WARD:
also Mirage.
THE COURT: MR. SCHUTZ:

10
11

Okay. M name i s Ron S c h u t z . y And I am

12 13 .14'
&; $ :
@, % ;;;; ,*:;. .:..* ,< , % .

counsel f o r S t . C l a i r I n t e l l e c t u a l Property Consultants. MR. GARRETT: O'Melveny
&

Your Honor, L a r r y G a r r e t 5 ,

15
16
17
18

Myers, c o u n s e l f o r t h e i n d i v i d u a l d e f e n d a n t s . Your Honor, I ' m James Moore of Thelen

MR. MOORE:

Reid & P r i e s t , and

I'mLOUnsel

for St. C l a i r .

f

THE COURT:

Oh, .SO

--

1.9
20
21

MR. MOORE:
counsel.
THE COURT:

I ' m l o c a l and M r . Schutz is l e a d

If
Okay. There i s no i s s u e about f i l i n g t h e r e c o r d s under

22 23
24 25

seal.

So t h a t w i l l be g r a n t e d .

The motion t o compel t h i r d p a r t y WiImer H a l e ' s
f u r t h e r r e s p o n s e s i s c o n t i n u e d t o September 22 by s t i p and order.
And what time d i d I a s s i g n i t f o r , do you remember?

26 27
, ..

MR. MOORE: Honor.

I t h i n k t h a t ' s on t h e 1 0 a.m.,

Your

.' .. .. ,... , 'r...

'.. ....
'

28

Georgeanr: M.

Wiles, CSR

f

'

1!
t

Case 1:04-cv-01436-JJF

Document 124-6

Filed 03/30/2007

Page 4 of 16

Copying Prohibited Pursuant to GC 69954(d)
3 '

3

(:::
.s. I ..

1
2

MS. McINTYRE:

1 believe that's correct,

e.: .> ~.. .

THE COURT: Okay.

Okay.

10 o'clock.

3

Then, let me take up the motion to compel

--

4
5-

Plaintiffs' motion to compel Defendants' Speasl, S-P-E-A-S-L, Roberts, Chikosky, C-jH-I-K-O-S-K-Y, and St. Clair Intellectual Propert3 Consultants ' further responses to first

6
7
8

set of discovery. Who wants to speak to that first?
MR. SCHUTZ:
THE COURT:

Your.Honor, the

--

9
10

Mr. Schutz, go ahead. Yes, Your Honor, thank you.

MR. SCHUTZ:

11
12
13.

In the Court's tentative ruling it stated that we waived interposing an objection under 2019. And I'd like to point out a handful of things. First of all, Your Honor,

Ii
!

14
& ? @
q~

there was never in any meet and confer an assertion by the plaintiffs that we waived our right to interpose this objection. And that in their opening brief they did not raise waiver as a basis to prevent us from interposing this objection. It was only in their reply brief that they brought it up. In the Court's order, the Court cites the practice guide and two cases for what appears to be some general proposition that if an objection is not interposed, it cannot
be added at a later time. Hawever, if you l o o k at the
two cases that are cited in the practice guide and in which

15
16

.

17
18
19
2 0.

21 22 23

i

24
25

appear in the Court's tentative order, those cases involve
i s s u e s of privilege, Your Honor.

26
27
.I

One of the cases involved

1
i
j

I
i
I

the attorney-client privilege.

And what the court held in

. .

... _: .. ... .. -28
, ,

,

that case was that if you fail to object on the

K,.,,,.,

Georgeann M. Wiles, CSR

t
I
j
i

Case 1:04-cv-01436-JJF
i I

Document 124-6

Filed 03/30/2007

Page 5 of 16

.

Copying Prohibited Pursuant to GC 69954(d)
-

4

1
2 3 4

attorney-client privilege initially, you cannot later then interpose the attorney-client privilege. In the other case cited it involved what the Court con

--

classified as a trade secret action.

And it was like

5
6 7

this:

The defendant did not want to produce documents

claiming that they were trade secrets. And so it was an issue of.whether these documents had some type of privilege attached to them. Again, the court held you can't interpose
a privilege objection like that.

8

8
10

There's no case, and none has been cited, that deals with the issue of defining a trade secret to shake the scope of discovery. And when we objected on the basis of 2019, it's basically just a variation of a relevance objection or a burden objection. Because they defined it

11
12 13
'4 1

15 16
17

trade secret in a fashion that it is going to govern discovery going forward and without enough specificity. THE COURT:
MR. SCHUTZ:

Okay.
So

18
19
20

on the waiver issue, judge, there

is no case law to support waiver under these circumstances.

Even the defendants -- excuse me, even the plaintiffs at the meet and confer stage do not believe that we waived it. Even their initial brief does not believe we waived it because we never raised it. It was only this last-minute waiver.

21
22

23

24
25
26 27
28

And again, if I may, Your Honor, then I'd like to address the merits. I don't know if you want to --

THE COURT: Let me hear from Ms. McIntyre and Mr. Ward on the waiver issue. MR. WARD: Excuse me. Eric Ward.

Ge0rgean.n M. Wiles, CSR

Case 1:04-cv-01436-JJF

Document 124-6

Filed 03/30/2007

Page 6 of 16

Copying P r o h i b i t e d P u r s u a n t t o GC 6 9 9 5 4 ( d )
r\

5

1

I t h i n k t h a t t h e case l a w - i s s u e t h a t MI.

Schutz

r a i s e d goes i n b o t h d i r e c t i o n s .

That i s , t h e r e i s no case

o u t t h e r e t h a t suggests t h a t a 2019 o b j e c t i o n i s n o t
4

waiveable.

And 1 b e l i e v e , Your Honor, t h a t when you l o o k a t

5.

t h e p u r p o s e o f Sectiq'n 2 0 1 9 , i t a c t u a l l y i s s i m i l a r t o t h e k i n d s of o b j e c t i o n s o r p r i v i l e g e s t h a t were r a i s e d i n t h e twc
I

6
7
8

ca5e5 t h a t are cited.
I might n o t e , Your Honor, t h a t t h i s o b j e c t i o n i s

--

9' 10
1 1 22

t h i s 2019 o b j e c t i o n , i s t h e p r i m a r y r e a s o n t h a t t h e

i n d i v i d u a l d e f e n d a n t s have n o t d i s c l o s e d a s i n g l e document ir t h i s case i n t h e e i g h t months t h a t d i s c o v e r y h a s been

ongoing.

A n d t o focus on that one objection, I think raises

13
14

i t a t l e a s t t o t h e realm of a p r i v i l e g e and t h e c a s e law t h a t you c i t e d i n t h e t e n t a t i v e r u l i n g is analogous t o t h e s i t u a t i o n t h a t w have h e r e . e

16
17
18
19

THE COURT:

M observation i s t h i s , t h a t i n s o f a r as y

2019 i s concerned on t h e t r a d e secrets, t h e r e i s no case one

way o r t h e o t h e r .

But i s n ' t it t r u e , g e n e r a l l y , i n l e g a l

p r a c t i c e t h a t i f a r i g h t i s n o t a s s e r t e d i t ' s deemed waived?
NOW, you -- you know, l i k e a n o b j e c t i o n d u r i n g t r i a l .

20
..

21
22

Q u e s t i o n i s asked, h e a r s a y answer is g i v e n . o b j e c t s , it s t a n d s . secrets?
MR. SCHUTZ:

I f nobody

Why s h o u l d n ' t t h a t a p p l y t o t r a d e

23
24

Your Honor, I t h i n k a s a g e n e r a l

25
26

p r o p o s i t i o n what you s t a t e i s t r u e ; however, t h a t ' s n o t t h e s i t u a t i o n here.
If look a t t h e c a s e s t h a t d e a l wich

27
<':,
<: .

p r i v i l e g e , i f you s t e p back and s a y , t h e r e ' s a r e q u e s t f o r documents and t h e r e ' s n o t an o b j e c t i o n of some t y p e , b u t no

. . ..:'..:.
i..

:

28

.. - -

.

- - -__-_

Georgeann M. Wiles, CSR

Case 1:04-cv-01436-JJF
: I

Document 124-6

Filed 03/30/2007

Page 7 of 16

.

copying Prohibited Pursuant to GC 69954(d)
1
I

6
I

1

privilege objection is interposed, and later, further objection is interposed, that the cases cited are

3
4

fundamentally different than this situation. Our situation was, they asked for documents, we interposed several objections. One of which, Your Honor, I

5

6

think this is important to keep in mind, was that at the time there were various motions pending to have the case stayed because there's related litigation in Delaware federal court, and we said, among other things, that it's not timely. We don't think we should have to respond until the issue is decided of which case is going forward because at that time it wasn't clear whether the case in California was going to be stayed; the court had not ruled on that. Subsequently, after the court ruled on the motion to stay, we interposed an objection on 2019. So it's not as

7
8

9
3.0

11
12
13

14

16

if, Your Honor, you know, the first time around we said, you know, we've got all that

17
18

--

although we did interpose some

additional objections, and I would like to point that out. So if you couple the procedural posture when the first round of objections came with this, Your Honor, we objected in.addition to the procedural posture objections, we objected on grounds of undue burden and relevance. not a new objection or a different objection. 2019 is

19
20

?I
22

23
24

It's just

really more specificity, perhaps, as to why the documents don't have to be produced because of relevance issues, but they haven't defined it.
'

25
26
,

It's a substantially different

27
28

situation than interposing the new objection of privilege.
THE COURT:

.:, . ,? i:c2 . ... \.'.>,. ' ."

.

Let me digest that for a second.
!

_. -

Georgeann M. Wiles, CSR

Case 1:04-cv-01436-JJF

Document 124-6

Filed 03/30/2007

Page 8 of 16

Copying P r o h i b i t e d Purs'uant t o GC 69954. ( d ) G e t t i n g p a s t waiver
2

7

p;' ..;
:.. :

--

hang on.

,... :.

L e t ' s p u t t h e w a i v e r i s s u e a s i d e and b e c a u s e I ' m g o i n g t o have t o l o o k a t t h i s a g a i n .
I know t h a t t h e r e ' s no

<.;>+

3
4

case-.

I looked.
MR. WARD:
THE COURT:'

5
6

;Right. C o u l d n ' t f i n d one. And g e n e r a l l y , t h e

7

d e f a u l t is t h a t i f something i s n o t asserted, i t ' s waived,

8 9'
10
11

b u t g e t t i n g past t h a t .
MR. WARD:
I f I might, Your Honor, I ' m s o r r y t o

interrupt.
THE COURT:

A r e your hands i n your p o c k e t ?

12
'

MR. WARD:
THE COURT:

St was, b u t i t ' s no l o n g e r .
Okay. Your Honor, t h e

13

14
.y...:4;, ,i ...*%. .,
.r?&Y+<.

MR. WARD:

--

I would

--

what one

15
16

t h i n g t h a t M r . Schutz s a i d I t h i n k i s v e r y i m p o r t a n t h e r e , and t h a t i s t h a t when t h e d e f e n d a n t s o b j e c t e d t o t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s i n t h e v e r y f i r s t i n s t a n c e , it was n o t a s though t h e y o n l y o b j e c t e d on t h e p r o c e d u r a l b a s i s . There

I..<,.

. x

17

18
19

were t h e s t a n d a r d o b j e c t i o n s t h a t were c o n t a i n e d i n r e s p o n s e t o e a c h of t h e s p e c i f i c q u e s t i o n s and document demands. And

20
21,
22

s o 2019 was n o t among t h o s e g e n e r a l o b j e c t i o n s t h a t t h e y
made. that And t h e r e was a whole l i t a n y of them.

So t o s u g g e s t

23

--

t h a t they

--

and I d o n ' t t h i n k M r . S c h u t z s a i d t h i s ,

24
25
26

b u t t o s u g g e s t t h a t t h e r e was simply a p r o c e d u r a l o b j e c t i o n
and no o t h e r o b j e c t i o n s were raised t o t h e d i s c o v e r y i s incorrect. I n f a c t , t h e y p r e s e r v e d a l l of t h e o t h e r

27
:.;:

o b j e c t i o n s by r a i s i n g them a t t h e t i m e , u n l i k e i n t h i s situation.

. .

Lv .

. ..

28

Georgeann M. Wiles, CSR

Case 1:04-cv-01436-JJF

Document 124-6

Filed 03/30/2007

Page 9 of 16

Copying P r o h i b i t e d P u r s u a n t t o GC 69954(d)

8

c:;;.
I
< .:.'::.

1

THE COURT:

Okay.

B u t g e t t i n g p a s t t h a t , I also go

e??,...

\.+

2

on t o n o t e t h a t C a l i f o r n i a law d o e s n o t r e q u i r e t h a t a
2019.020 statement be so s p e c i f i c t h a t p l a i n t i f f c a n p o i n t t o

3

4

a l i n e number i n d e f e n d a n t s ' p a t e n t s .
t h e a u t h o r i t y for t h a t ?

I ' v e not

--

where i s

5

6
.7

MR. SCHUTZ:
issue.
THE COURT:

Can I

--

I ' d l i k e t o address t h a t

8
9
'

Sure.

Yes.

MR. SCHUTZ:

I t ' s important t o understand t h a t t h i s
I t ' s r e a l l y about patents.

10
1 1
12 13

r e a l l y i s n ' t a t r a d e secret c a s e .
THE COURT:

They d i s a g r e e w i t h you.
Well, a c t u a l l y , t h e y d o n ' t ,

MR. SCHUTZ:
Honor.

Your

L e t me point t h a t out.
THE COURT:

'1 4
@: &
;+;.**r,' .> ,: :, ; <
&y>.

Okay. H e r e ' s what w e have h e r e . M client, y

15
16

MR. SCHUTZ:

S t . C l a i r , i s t h e r e c o r d owner of s e v e r a l p a t e n t s .

W have e No

17

f i l e d s e v e r a l p a t e n t i n f r i n g e m e n t c a s e s on t h e s e p a t e n t s .

18
19 20

t r a d e secrets case on t h e p a t e n t s .

I ' v e t r i e d t o v e r d i c t on

behalf of S t . C l a i r t h e s e p a t e n t s , and we've won a t o t a l of
$62 m i l l i o n ,

We've a l s o s e t t l e d w i t h s e v e r a l o t h e r
A l l as a r e s u l t . o f t r a d e secrets of p a t e n t

.. .

2.1
22
23
24

companies. litigation.

What t h e y want i s t h a t money o r some p o r t i o n of We're going t o g e t i n t o They w a n t

t h a t money o r all of t h e money. that.

They d o n ' t want a n y t h i n g f o r t r a d e s e c r e t s .

25
26

t h e money t h a t S t . C l a i r has g o t t e n f o r p a t e n t i n f r i n g e m e n t ,

and t h e y ' r e somehow t r y i n g t o s a y very e a r l y on t h - t r a d e secret, t h e n i t t u r n e d i n t o p a t e n t . And t h e y ' v e

was a

27
.I.

I . ' .

... -...;.

,

.:.

28

d e f i n e d t h e t r a d e s e c r e t , Judge, n o t i n a way t h a t ' s r e l a t e d

--

~

. _

Georgeann M. Wiles, CSR
!

Case 1:04-cv-01436-JJF

Document 124-6

Filed 03/30/2007

Page 10 of 16

!

Copying P r o h i b i t e d P u r s u a n t t o GC 6 9 9 5 4 ( d ) 1
2

9

*

a t l e a s t d i r e c t l y and c l e a r l y t o t h e p a t e n t .
patent t h a t ' s a t i s s u e here.

And i t ' s t h e

p:. ..-,..'.
, *G<>,. i %. .

.

3

Judge, we've asked something v e r y s i m p l e , v e r y

4
5
6

simple, we've g o t t h e p a t e n t s .

They've r e a d them.

They've

r e a d them maybe a do en O E a hundred t i m e s . the patents.

i

T h e y ' v e can t a k e

T h e y c a n p i c k up a h i g h l i g h t e r , and t h e y can

I
8

s a y t h i s p a t e n t . , which has t h e i n d i v i d u a l d e f e n d a n t s ' names on them as i n v e n t o r s , t h e y can p i c k them up, and t h e y can p o i n t , y e s , r i g h t h e r e where t h e y went t o t h e p a t e n t o f f i c e s and t h i s i s o u r i n v e n t i o n , t h a t ' s t h e t r a d e secret.
And theq

9
10

1 1 12 13 14
@.:.

won't do i t .

I mean, i t ' s e a s y .

They can s i t t h e r e and s a y , h e r e ' s what t h e i n v e n t o r s a i d t h a t they invented.

W think t h a t ' s the trade e
And t h e n w e c a n v e r y

secret and t h e y can h i g h l i g h t it.
c l e a r l y know e x a c t l y what t h e y a r e .

&*... .*r ; . . +:
*.:

-.

15
16
17

But t h e y g o t t h i s broad

s t a t e m e n t o u t t h e r e t h a t r e a l l y d o e s n ' t g i v e us any s p e c i f i c i t y about how t h a t t i e s i n t o what r e a l l y i s a t s t a k e here.
T h e p a t e n t ' s what g e n e r a t e d t h e money.

18

The t r a d e

19
.20

secret g e n e r a t e d z e r o money.
THE COURT:

What about t h a t ?
Well, Your Honor, we're mixing t h i n g s UF

2.l
22 23 24

MR. WARD:

here quite significantly.

The i n v e n t o r s , t h e t h r e e

i n d i v i d u a l d e f e n d a n t s , conceived of an i d e a w h i l e employed b y Mirage under an employment c o n t r a c t which o b l i g a t e d them t o

25
26
27
' :... ., .: : ,.
'*L*

disclose t h e i d e a t o Mirage and a l s o a s s i g n t h e i d e a t o
Mirage. N e i t h e r of which t h e y d i d . The important t h i n g about t h e t r a d e secret i s t h a t
i t was a concept a t The t i m e .
I t eventually

. .. .. .......

.

i .

.2a

--

t h a t concept

Georgeann M . Wiles, C S R

Case 1:04-cv-01436-JJF

Document 124-6

Filed 03/30/2007

Page 11 of 16

Copying P r o h i b i t e d P u r s u a n t t o GC 6 9 9 5 4 ( d )

10

1
2 3

was e v e n t u a l l y reduced t o p r a c t i c e and p a t e n t e d .

And a t t h e

t i m e it was p a t e n t e d , it became, by law, a m a t t e r of g e n e r a l
knowledge and no l o n g e r a t r a d e secret. But f o r t h e p e r i o d

4
5

of t i m e t h a t t h e i n v e n t o r s had t h e i d e a and t h e y developed
it, which r e s u l t e d i n t h e p a t e n t , i t was a t r a d e secret.

W e

6
7 ' 8

d i d n ' t know about i t .

I t ' s unusual i n t r a d e s e c r e t l a w

b e c a u s e t y p i c a l l y t h e p l a i n t i f f knows what t h e t r a d e secret

i s and i t ' s m i s a p p r o p r i a t e d , t a k e n from them, l i k e a customer
list.
THE COURT:
MR. WARD:
t

9

10
11

Sure.
O r t h a t s o r t of t h i n g .

12

Here w e had no i d e a of what i t was. d e f i n e what w e knew as of 1989 t o 1992.

So w e had t o

13 14

What w e ' v e done i s

d e s c r i b e d t h a t i d e a i n a way t h a t ' s v e r y s p e c i f i c . t h e i n v e n t o r s know what t h e y t o o k .

I n fact,

15
16 17
18

They used t h e same
T h e y knew

terminology i n t h e i r discovery r e q u e s t s t o u s . what it was.

And a s t h e Court p o i n t e d o u t i n t h e t e n t a t i v e

r u l i n g , it i s n o t o u r o b l i g a t i o n t o go through and d e s c r i b e i n minute d e t a i l what t h e t r a d e s e c r e t c o n s i s t s o f .
THE COURT:

19

20
.21
22

Okay.

Next p o i n t .

MR. SCHUTZ:
THE COURT:

Your Hono.r, may I respond? G ahead. o
I have t h e i s s u e i n mind.

23
24 25
26 27

I ' m going t o have t o look a t t h i s a g a i n .
point.

Go on t o t h e n e x t

MR. SCHUTZ:

B r i e f l y , Your Honor.

Again, t h i s i s

an unusual d i s p u t e about d e f i n i n g t r a d e s e c r e t . a s k i n g t h e m t o do something d i f f i c u l t .

We're n o t

Because what t h e

28

i n v e n t o r s came up w i t h t h e y d i s c l o s e d i n t h e i r p a t e n t

- _._____

Georgeann M . Wiles, CSR

Case 1:04-cv-01436-JJF

Document 124-6

Filed 03/30/2007

Page 12 of 16

copying Prohibited Pursuant to GC 69954(d)
. 1.

.
-

11
-

application, it issued it a patent. here.

All the words are right All they See

fY.7,
9 ,.?..:. '......, .".

2

We're not asking them to do any real work.

3
4

have to do is say, okay, it's all written down here.

these lines or see these columns numbers, that's what we they have to define as tr de secrets. Judge, this is a unique case.
You won't find any

5
6

a;

7
8
9

case law that will provide guidance that's particularly helpful on these issues. THE COURT:
I know that.

I have a book put out by

10

an education committee for judges on trade secrets and they say just that. There's no -- there's no case on this matter. MR. SCHUTZ: Again, we're not asking them to do something that's difficult. It's already here.

11 i2
13

All they

14

have to do is say that patent which is where the money is. That's what this whole thing is about. These parts of the That's all we're

16 17
18

patent, that's what the trade secret was. asking, judge. Very simple.
MR. WARD:

Then they already know the information,

19

judge.

W had described it in precisely the way that Mr. e
So,

20
21

Schutz has described it to a jury.

you know, what is

there not to know about what we're talking about? MR. SCHUTZ: There are 12 columns, 12 columns of They can go in there and

22
23

single-spaced text in the patent. pick it out.

24

They got one general sentence through which

25
26

they hope to drive a semi-truck, judge. And discovery isn't about driving semi-trucks through holes. THE COURT: argue on the merits?
Okay.

Any other point that you wish to

Georgeann M. Wiles, CSR

Case 1:04-cv-01436-JJF
i"
,

Document 124-6

Filed 03/30/2007

Page 13 of 16

Copying P r o h i b i t e d P u r s u a n t t o GC 6 9 9 5 4 ( d J MR. SCHUTZ:

12
!

No, Your Honor.

Thank you f o r h e a r i n g

me.
THE COURT: M s . McIntyre, a n y t h i n g you want t o add?

MS. McINTYRE:
THE COURT:
Mr.

No, Your Honor.

Okay.

Garrett, M r . Moore, a n y t h i n g ?
No, Your Honor.
No.

MR. GARRETT: MR. MOORE:
THE COURT:

I'll t a k e t h e matter u n d e r s u b m i s s i o n .
A c t u a l l y , go

I just had a t h o u g h t I want t o d o u b l e check.

ahead.
MR. SCHUTZ:

There i s j u s t one o t h e r i s s u e i n t h e Sorry t o

t e n t a t i v e we'd l i k e t o a d d r e s s , Your Honor. i n t e r r u p t here.
THE COURT:

G ahead. o

T h a t ' s why I was a s k i n g i f

t h e r e was a n y t h i n g e l s e ,
MR. SCHUTZ:

Go a h e a d . I d i d n ' t know i f

A r e you r e a d y ?

wanted to make a n o t e b e f o r e I s t a r t e d .
THE COURT:
MR.

Okay.

Go ahead.

SCHUTZ:

There was a n o t h e r p a r t of t h e

t e n t a t i v e , Your Honor, d e a l i n g w i t h j u d i c i a l n o t i c e .
THE COURT: MR. SCHUTZ:

Yes. They had r e q u e s t e d c e r t a i n t e s t i m o n y

t h a t t h e C o u r t t a k e j u d i c i a l n o t i c e of i t .
THE COURT:
MR.

Right. I n t h e t e n t a t i v e you d i d .

SCHUTZ:

They c i t e d no support for t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t you

Georgeann M. Wiles, CSR

Case 1:04-cv-01436-JJF

Document 124-6

Filed 03/30/2007

Page 14 of 16

. .
?

Copying Prohibited Pursuant to GC 69954 (d)
1

13
-

up -THE COURT:
1 needed to clarify that.

t$,.f
4:
,A,

#+..,

2
3

I don't know

whether it was true or not I can take notice that it was said, but whether it's true or not that's another horse race. MR. SCHUTZF As long as there's a clarification on
i

4
5

6
7 8

that.
THE COURT:

I

I n e e d t o add that.

I normally d o , and

I don't know why I didn't do it here.
So I'll just add, insofar of the existence of the

9' 10

testimony but not of its truth. MR. WARD: Thank you. That is what the law is.

11
12
.

We're in agreement with that, Your Honor. The point is, 1 mean, Mr. Schutz referenced the patent infringement cases that he's tried to verdict very successfully. To say that

13
14

(%?$&
*$<$
*$$Q.,

15
16

the testimony in those cases have said that is irrelevant would be incorrect. And I don't think that's what the Court's saying.
A l l we're dealing with is whether

17
18

--

we know

they said it, whether it's true or not, we'll leave for another d a y . THE COURT: Okay. That's another horse race.

19
20
. . .

. 21
22 23
24

Anything else? No, Your Honor. Okay, counsel.
I'll take this under

MR. SCHUTZ: THE COURT:

submission, and I'll have this out by the end of the day.
MR. MOORE:

25
26

Your Honor, one final question.

I

apologize. THE COURT:
MR. MOORE:

27
.-. ''.&
I :,.:'. :

Yes, MT. Moore. I'm not sure what the practice is

......

28

Georgeann M. Wiles, CSR

Case 1:04-cv-01436-JJF
....
.

Document 124-6

Filed 03/30/2007

Page 15 of 16

Copying P r o h i b i t e d . Pursuant t o GC 69954 ( d ) M r . S c h u t z and o t h e r s a r e pro h a c v i c e . counsel t o appear a t a l l ?
THE COURT:

14
!

D you need l o c a l o

Yeah. You do.

MR. MOORE:
THE COURT: might happen and

I p r e f e r t h a t o n l y because something
No. 1.
And No. 2 , t h e b a r r u l e s s o r t of

--

imply t h a t by h a v i n g t h e local c o n t a c t p o i n t y o u ' r e going b e here.
I r e a l i z e it might be d u p l i c a t i o n , b u t t h e n , a g a i n ,

you know something about t h e l o c a l customs t h a t M r . Schutz might, n o t .
MR. MOORE:

L i k e p u t t i n g my hands i n my p o c k e t s , I Thank you, Your Honor. And I t o o k h i s a d v i s e .

w a s n ' t aware of t h a t .
MR. SCHUTZ:

(Whereupon, a discussion was held off the record.)

(Whereupon, the matter was adjourned.)

Georgeann M. Wiles, CSR

Case 1:04-cv-01436-JJF

Document 124-6

Filed 03/30/2007

Page 16 of 16

._
<:

Copying P r o h i b i t e d P u r s u a n t t o GC 6 9 9 5 4 ( d )

15

1
. 2

REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE STATE O F CALIFORNIA
)

Ki??
(;a:<.':

....:'X6.
rq;;<*

3 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
4

1

ss,

5. 6

I , GEORGEAkN M. WXLES do h e r e b y c e r t i f y t h a t t h e

f o r e g o i n g i s a f u l 1 , f t r u e and c o r r e c t t r a n s c r i p t of t h e p r o c e e d i n g s had i n t h e a b o v e - e n t i t l e d a c t i o n h e l d o n t h e 1 8 t h d a y o f A u g u s t , 2006; T h a t I r e p o r t e d t h e same i n s t e n o t y p e t o t h e b e s t o f my a b i l i t y b e i n g t h e q u a l i f i e d and a c t i n g O f f i c i a l Court R e p o r t e r o f t h e S u p e r i o r C o u r t o f t h e S t a t e of C a l i f o r n i a , i n

I

7
8

9'

10
1 1

12
13

and f o r t h e County of S a n t a C l a r a , a p p o i n t e d t o s a i d c o u r t ,
a n d t h e r e a f t e r had t h e same t r a n s c r i b e d i n t o t y p e w r i t i n g a s herein appears. I f u r t h e r c e r t i f y t h a t I have c o m p l i e d w i t h

14

16

CCP 2 3 7 ( a ) ( 2 ) and t h a t a l l p e r s o n a l j u r o r i d e n t i f y i n g

17
18
19
20
. .

information has been redacted, if applicable.

Dated t h i s 23rd d a y of August, 2006.

21
22 23 24 25
26 27

?.::.

. . .
..' , ;
I "

. . ._
.r:
''

28

Georgeann M. Wiles, CSR