Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_12-cv-05826/USCOURTS-cand-5_12-cv-05826-23/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

1 

Case No. 5:12-cv-05826-PSG 

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS IN LIMINE AND OTHER PRE-TRIAL ISSUES

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 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION

GOOD TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION AND 

GOOD TECHNOLOGY SOFTWARE, INC., 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

MOBILEIRON, INC.,

Defendant.

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. 5:12-cv-05826-PSG

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: 

MOTIONS IN LIMINE AND OTHER 

PRE-TRIAL ISSUES

(Re: Docket Nos. 358, 361, 399, 405, 431)

Plaintiffs Good Technology Corp. and Good Technology Software, Inc. and Defendant 

MobileIron, Inc. have collectively filed 22 motions in limine.

1

 The parties appeared earlier at a 

pre-trial conference and supplemented their briefing with oral argument. As previewed at the 

hearing and explained further below, the court grants the requested relief—but only in limited part. 

A. Docket No. 358: Good’s MIL No. 1 

Good moves to exclude evidence of, reference to or argument regarding any suggestion by 

this court that any patents-in-suit may be invalid. Specifically, Good moves to exclude reference to 

the court’s statements in its order denying MobileIron’s motion for judgment on the pleadings2 and 

“any other such statements by the court.” The motion is GRANTED. 

 

1 See Docket Nos. 358, 361. 

2 See Docket No. 298. 

Case 5:12-cv-05826-PSG Document 437 Filed 07/06/15 Page 1 of 10
2 

Case No. 5:12-cv-05826-PSG 

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS IN LIMINE AND OTHER PRE-TRIAL ISSUES

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 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

B. Docket No. 358: Good’s MIL No. 2 

Good moves to exclude evidence of, reference to or suggestion of disparaging 

characterizations of the USPTO, its examiners or its examination process. Based on MobileIron’s

representations that it will not make such arguments, the motion is DENIED. Should MobileIron 

attempt to present any unfair or inflammatory characterizations of the USPTO, its examiners or its 

process, Good is free to renew its objection. 

C. Docket No. 358: Good’s MIL No. 3 

Good moves to exclude references to the construction of claim terms and arguments about 

the construction of claim terms that this court previously rejected. The motion is GRANTED. 

D. Docket No. 358: Good’s MIL No. 4 

Good moves to exclude evidence of, reference to or suggestion regarding the claim 

construction process beyond the words of this court’s claim construction order.3 The motion is 

GRANTED. 

E. Docket No. 358: Good’s MIL No. 5 

Good moves to exclude evidence of, reference to or suggestion of Good’s initial public 

offering, its IPO process or its securities. While MobileIron argues that the information is relevant 

to reasonable royalty determinations and Good’s Lanham Act claim, the court is convinced that the 

potential prejudice of opening up the contents of SEC filings before Good actually goes public 

outweighs the potential relevance of the information contained therein.4 The motion is 

GRANTED. Any evidence of, reference to or suggestion of MobileIron’s SEC filings is similarly 

excluded.5

F. Docket No. 358: Good’s MIL No. 6 

Good moves for an order precluding MobileIron from referring to Good as “Visto” during 

the trial. While reference to Good as Visto may create juror confusion, references to Visto are 

 

3 See id. 

4 See Fed. R. Evid. 403. 

5

 To the extent the parties wish to meet and confer on this issue and stipulate to a different 

outcome, the court will entertain any such stipulation. 

Case 5:12-cv-05826-PSG Document 437 Filed 07/06/15 Page 2 of 10
3 

Case No. 5:12-cv-05826-PSG 

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS IN LIMINE AND OTHER PRE-TRIAL ISSUES

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 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

inevitable. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED-IN-PART. Only statements that refer to postmerger Good as Visto are precluded. 

G. Docket No. 358: Good’s MIL No. 7 

Good moves to exclude any evidence of, reference to or suggestion of Good’s alleged 

willful infringement. At least in competitor cases, In re Seagate set a clear bar precluding a finding 

of willful infringement in the absence of a patentee seeking a preliminary injunction.6 As 

MobileIron sought no such injunction—and for the sake of consistency with this court’s order 

granting MobileIron summary judgment of no willful infringement7—the motion is GRANTED.

H. Docket No. 361: MobileIron’s MIL No. 1

MobileIron moves to preclude Good from asserting obviousness combinations that were not 

disclosed in its invalidity contentions. While the court intends to hold the parties to its disclosures 

at trial—and will entertain any objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c) at the appropriate juncture—

the court will not exclude such combinations wholesale before trial. The motion is DENIED. 

I. Docket No. 361: MobileIron’s MIL No. 2 

MobileIron moves to preclude one of Good’s technical experts, Hugh Smith, from offering 

certain doctrine of equivalents opinions. MobileIron offers no reason it could not have included 

this challenge in its earlier challenge to Smith’s opinion testimony. The motion is DENIED. 

J. Docket No. 361: MobileIron’s MIL No. 3 

MobileIron moves to preclude Good from relying on applications that the ’606 patent 

incorporates by reference. In light of the court’s order granting summary judgment of 

non-infringement and invalidity of the ’606 patent, the motion is DENIED AS MOOT. 

 

6 In re Seagate Tech., LLC, 497 F.3d 1360, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (en banc) (a “patentee who does 

not attempt to stop an accused infringer’s activities [by seeking a preliminary injunction] should 

not be allowed to accrue enhanced damages based solely on the infringer’s post-filing conduct.”). 

7 See Docket No. 424. 

Case 5:12-cv-05826-PSG Document 437 Filed 07/06/15 Page 3 of 10
4 

Case No. 5:12-cv-05826-PSG 

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS IN LIMINE AND OTHER PRE-TRIAL ISSUES

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 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

K. Docket No. 361: MobileIron’s MIL No. 4 

MobileIron moves to preclude Good from asserting the ’606 patent is entitled to an 

invention date earlier than January 16, 1998. In light of the court’s order granting summary 

judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of the ’606 patent, the motion is DENIED AS MOOT. 

L. Docket No. 361: MobileIron’s MIL No. 5 

MobileIron moves to preclude Good from offering any evidence relating to MobileIron’s 

iOS jailbreak detection feature. Because MobileIron’s iOS jailbreak detection is not an accused 

feature, the court is persuaded that evidence about its function is not relevant. But MobileIron’s 

similar “root detection” feature is accused and documents describing its function often use the term 

“jailbreak.” The motion is GRANTED-IN-PART. Evidence solely relating to MobileIron’s iOS 

jailbreak detection is excluded. This does not bar Good from admitting evidence that merely uses 

the term “jailbreak” or refers to both jailbreak detection and root detection to establish facts about 

the root detection feature. 

M. Docket No. 361: MobileIron’s MIL No. 6 

MobileIron moves to preclude Good from arguing that MobileIron directly infringes the 

method claims of the patents-in-suit through sales of software or use of software by others. The 

Federal Circuit requires that the accused infringer practice each and every step of the method to 

prove direct infringement,8 and this Good cannot do.9 The motion is GRANTED. 

N. Docket No. 361: MobileIron’s MIL No. 7 

MobileIron moves to preclude Good’s experts from testifying about MobileIron’s advice of 

counsel letters. In light of the court’s order granting summary judgment on willfulness and indirect 

infringement, the motion is DENIED AS MOOT. 

 

8 See Ericsson v. D-Link Sys., Inc., 773 F.3d 1201, 1222 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[N]one of our decisions 

have found direct infringement of a method claim by sales of an end user product which performs 

the entire method, and we decline to do so here.”); Ricoh Co., Ltd. v. Quanta Computer Inc., 550 

F.3d 1325, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[A] party that sells or offers to sell software containing 

instructions to perform a patented method does not infringe the patent under § 271(a).”); Ormco 

Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 463 F.3d 1299, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“Method claims are only 

infringed when the claimed process is performed, not by the sale of an apparatus that is capable of 

infringing use.”).

9

 This ruling does not impact any damages Good may seek based on direct infringement.

Case 5:12-cv-05826-PSG Document 437 Filed 07/06/15 Page 4 of 10
5 

Case No. 5:12-cv-05826-PSG 

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS IN LIMINE AND OTHER PRE-TRIAL ISSUES

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 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

O. Docket No. 361: MobileIron’s MIL No. 8 

MobileIron moves to preclude Good from introducing or relying upon MOBIR0961876, an 

internal MobileIron email from 2008. The court is persuaded that MOBIR0961876 is relevant and 

not unfairly prejudicial. The motion is DENIED. Should Good attempt to improperly use 

MOBIR0961876 at trial to support untrue or inflammatory characterizations, MobileIron is free to

renew its objection. 

P. Docket No. 361: MobileIron’s MIL No. 9 

MobileIron moves to exclude certain evidence from trial in the event that Good’s Lanham 

Act claim is bifurcated for a bench trial. In light of the court’s denial of the request for bifurcation, 

the motion is DENIED AS MOOT. 

Q. Docket No. 361: MobileIron’s MIL No. 10 

MobileIron moves to preclude Good from relying on theories, witnesses and evidence 

disclosed for the first time in a May 2015 discovery response. The motion is GRANTED-INPART. To the extent any of this information was properly disclosed before the close of fact 

discovery in December 2014, it is fair game. But theories, witnesses and evidence disclosed after 

the close of fact discovery are out under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c).10 

R. Docket No. 361: MobileIron’s MIL No. 11 

MobileIron moves to preclude Good from seeking Lanham Act damages. MobileIron 

argues that Good never provided a damages computation in any of its disclosures and that its “latedisclosed” theories on lost profits and disgorgement should be excluded under Fed. R. Civ. P. 

37(c).11 Good counters that it disclosed its intention to seek Lanham Act damages in its First 

Amended Complaint.12 Beyond that, Good argues that it was not required to disclose any 

 

10 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c) (“If a party fails to provide information or identify a witness as required by 

Rule 26(a) or (e), the party is not allowed to use that information or witness to supply evidence . . . 

at a trial”).

11 Id. 

12 Docket No. 32 at 16 (“That the Court require MobileIron to pay damages (including without 

limitation lost profits and disgorgement) and enhanced damages and/or treble damages, in a sum to 

be proven at trial, based on its violation of the Lanham Act”).

Case 5:12-cv-05826-PSG Document 437 Filed 07/06/15 Page 5 of 10
6 

Case No. 5:12-cv-05826-PSG 

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS IN LIMINE AND OTHER PRE-TRIAL ISSUES

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 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

computation of MobileIron’s profits because, in the event that Good is able to prove willfulness at 

trial, the burden will shift to MobileIron to prove that its profits were not attributed to the alleged 

conduct.13 In light of the latitude of Rule 37, the court cannot say that Good’s failure to specify a 

damages computation—under the circumstances of a shifting burden—was not “substantially 

justified.”14 The motion is DENIED. 

S. Docket No. 361: MobileIron’s MIL No. 12 

MobileIron moves to preclude Good from offering any evidence, testimony or argument 

regarding the identities of specific Good entities which sold GFE or GMM products in the United 

States. In light of the court’s order granting summary judgment of lost profits,15 the motion is 

DENIED AS MOOT. 

T. Docket No. 361: MobileIron’s MIL No. 13 

MobileIron moves to preclude Good from asserting a single functioning unit damages 

theory, a reasonable royalty based on 30 percent of MobileIron’s product revenue and per patent 

royalties for the ’606, ’219 and ’386 patents. In light of the court’s orders on Good’s lost profits 

and reasonable royalty theories,16 the portion of the motion concerning a single functioning unit 

theory is DENIED AS MOOT. 

The remainder of the motion concerns the strength of conclusions reached by Good’s 

experts. While MobileIron argues that these issues were raised for the first time in opposition to its 

 

13 See Lindy Pen Co., Inc. v. Bic Pen Corp., 982 F.2d 1400, 1408 (9th Cir. 1993) (holding that 

gross profits are presumed to be the result of the infringing activity and the burden shifts to

defendant to show otherwise); Southland Sod Farms v. Stover Seed Co., 108 F.3d 1134, 1146 (9th 

Cir. 1997) (“In fact, for false comparative advertising claims, this circuit has held that ‘publication 

of deliberately false comparative claims gives rise to a presumption of actual deception and 

reliance.’” (citing U-Haul Int’l, Inc. v. Jartran, Inc., 793 F.2d 1034, 1040-41 (9th Cir. 1986) 

(quoting U-Haul Int’l, Inc. v. Jartran, Inc., 601 F. Supp. 1140, 1149 (D. Ariz. 1984)))). 

14 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) (“If a party fails to provide information or identify a witness as required 

by Rule 26(a) or (e), the party is not allowed to use that information or witness to supply evidence 

on a motion, at a hearing, or at a trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless.”); 

see also Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(a) advisory committee’s note (1993) (“Likewise, a party would not 

be expected to provide a calculation of damages which, as in many patent infringement actions, 

depends on information in the possession of another party or person.”). 

15 See Docket No. 378. 

16 See id. 

Case 5:12-cv-05826-PSG Document 437 Filed 07/06/15 Page 6 of 10
7 

Case No. 5:12-cv-05826-PSG 

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS IN LIMINE AND OTHER PRE-TRIAL ISSUES

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 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

motions for summary judgment and to exclude experts, if MobileIron believes Good’s 30 percent

product revenue and per patent royalties lack support, cross-examination is available to point out 

these deficiencies to the jury. Wholesale exclusion is unwarranted. The motion is DENIED. 

U. Docket No. 361: MobileIron’s MIL No. 14 

MobileIron moves to exclude an Excel spreadsheet produced by Good entitled “Value of 

Lost Opportunities.” The spreadsheet indicates the amount in sales that Good lost to MobileIron 

based on Good’s salespeople self-reporting which competitors they believe made final sales to 

potential customers. While MobileIron argues that such information is more prejudicial than 

probative, the court finds that it clears relevance, hearsay and prejudice hurdles under Fed. R. Evid. 

401, 403 and 801. MobileIron will have the opportunity to vigorously cross-exam Good witnesses 

as to the contents of the document, nullifying any concerns about potential prejudice. The motion 

is DENIED. 

V. Docket No. 361: MobileIron’s MIL No. 15 

MobileIron moves to preclude Good from offering settlement agreements with Excitor A/S 

and Little Red Wagon into evidence. While settlement agreements can form a basis for reasonable 

royalty opinions, the settlement agreement must have a similar scope to the hypothetical license 

agreement.17 In light of the court’s order granting summary judgment of non-infringement and 

invalidity of the ’606 patent, the Excitor A/S and Little Red Wagon agreements no longer include 

any of the patents-in-suit. Absent a substantial connection to a licensing agreement involving a 

patent-in-suit or substantially similar circumstances,

18 which Good can no longer show, the Excitor 

A/S and Little Red Wagon agreements are irrelevant. The motion is GRANTED. 

 

17 See Trell v. Marlee Electronics Corp., 912 F.2d 1443, 1447 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The district court’s 

apparent failure to consider the fact that the Bewator license . . . encompassed the right to other 

inventions compels reversal.”).

18 See Lucent Techs. Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301, 1329-30 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (holding that 

comparable licenses must not arise from divergent circumstances or cover different technology); 

Sentius Int’l, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 13-cv-00825, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10423 (N.D. 

Cal. Jan. 27, 2015); Golden Bridge Tech. v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 12-cv-04882, 2014 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 76339 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 1, 2014). 

Case 5:12-cv-05826-PSG Document 437 Filed 07/06/15 Page 7 of 10
8 

Case No. 5:12-cv-05826-PSG 

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS IN LIMINE AND OTHER PRE-TRIAL ISSUES

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 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

W. Additional Disputes from Pre-Trial Conference

• Good seeks leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the court’s summary judgment 

order19 on lost profits, in which the court granted the motion in full. Under Civ. L.R. 7-9, a 

party must be able to show “[a] manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or 

dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court before such interlocutory 

order.”20 While Good argues that the court did not consider GMM in finding that 

Weinstein incorrectly applied the EMVR, the court did in fact consider both GMM and 

GFE in its analysis. And while Good argues that GMM is the smallest saleable patent 

practicing unit, Good failed to present any evidence suggesting the same. Finally, it is 

improper for Good to suggest swapping in the GMM price for the GFE price to alleviate the 

court’s market elasticity concern. Nor will the court entertain other amendments to the 

expert reports such as substituting the average sales price of MobileIron’s products for the 

GMM price. The time for such changes has long since passed. Good alternatively requests 

that MobileIron be precluded from introducing evidence to (1) characterize Good’s own 

products as not functioning properly, (2) characterize Good’s engineering team as having 

improper resources, (3) characterize Good’s financial resources as insufficient, 

(4) otherwise disparage Good’s products or business units or (5) engage in discussion 

regarding the business relationships of Good’s subsidiaries. To the extent that Good wishes 

to make individualized objections to any such evidence during trial, it is free to renew this 

request. The motion is DENIED. 

• MobileIron’s Emergency Motion to Preclude Good from Disputing Inventorship of 

MobileIron’s ’016 Patent21 is DENIED. Good’s request to sever the ’016 patent from the 

case pending a ruling on correction from the United States Patent Office also is DENIED. 

The parties may propose jury instructions as to inventorship to correct any potential for jury 

confusion. 

• MobileIron seeks leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the court’s denial of its 

motion for summary judgment of indefiniteness of Claim 18 of the ’219 patent.22 Civ. L.R. 7-9 permits a request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration if (1) at the 

time of the motion for leave, a material difference in fact or law exists from that which was 

presented to the court before entry of the interlocutory order for which reconsideration is 

sought; or (2) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the 

time of such order.23 MobileIron points the court to the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in 

Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC24 which overruled Lighting World Inc. v. Birchwood 

Lighting25 and changed the presumptions that apply to means-plus-function claims. That is 

well and good. But the court denied the motion for summary judgment at-issue in light of 

its claim construction, where the court determined that the plain and ordinary meaning 

applies to the term “data tracker.”26 Because the court had already decided that the term 

 

19 Docket No. 399. 

20 Civ. L.R. 7-9(b)(3).

21 Docket No. 405. 

22 Docket No. 431. 

23 Civ. L.R. 7-9. 

24 Case No. 2013-1130, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10082 (Fed. Cir. June 16, 2015). 

25 382 F.3d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 

Case 5:12-cv-05826-PSG Document 437 Filed 07/06/15 Page 8 of 10
9 

Case No. 5:12-cv-05826-PSG 

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS IN LIMINE AND OTHER PRE-TRIAL ISSUES

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 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

“data tracker” was not indefinite, it denied the motion for summary judgment on that 

basis,27 rather than on the merits of Lighting World. The motion is DENIED. 

• MobileIron’s request for bifurcation of the Lanham Act claims is DENIED. To the extent 

the remedy on Good’s Lanham Act claims is equitable in nature, the court will submit the 

issue to the jury for an advisory verdict. 

• Either party may bring a Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a) motion orally if it so chooses. In the event 

that a party or the court feels that further briefing is necessary, the party can request a 

briefing schedule. In the event either party wishes to bring a Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) motion 

following the close of trial, the parties shall follow the procedures laid out in the Civil 

Local Rules.28

• The parties shall present the FJC patent introduction video featuring Judge Fogel before 

jury selection.

• As to the DeAmbra trial subpoena, MobileIron is not required to accept service on his 

behalf in light of the fact that he is no longer a MobileIron employee. MobileIron was 

ordered to produce last-known contact information for DeAmbra so that Good can serve 

him individually. 

• The parties shall meet and confer as to confidentiality designations. The courtroom will

remain open to the public over the course of trial, subject to any narrow and exceptional 

request of the parties.

• During voir dire, each party will have 45 minutes to ask questions of the jury. The scope of 

such questions will be limited to jurors’ responses to the court’s line of questioning and 

jurors’ responses to the juror questionnaire. 

• The parties shall consult with the clerk’s office to arrange the use of the juror questionnaire 

as proposed at Docket No. 389. 

• Each party will have one hour for opening statements and one hour for closing arguments. 

Each party will have 25 hours to conduct direct examinations, cross examinations and any 

rebuttal.

• Each trial day will begin at 9:00 AM and end at 4:30 PM, with a one-hour lunch break. 

Counsel shall appear at 8:00 AM each day to address any preliminary evidentiary issues. 

• Voir dire will commence at 9:00 AM on Thursday, July 16, 2015. Opening statements will 

follow immediately thereafter.

• Jury instructions and verdict form will be addressed at the jury charge conference, which 

will be held at the end of the trial day toward the end of the first full week of trial. No later 

than July 9, 2015, the parties may file amended proposed jury instructions and verdict 

forms to the extent that their scope has changed in light of this court’s rulings on summary 

judgment. 

• The parties may briefly introduce each witness at the beginning of each direct examination. 

 26 See Docket No. 135. 

27 See Docket No. 169. 

28 See Civ. L.R. 7. 

Case 5:12-cv-05826-PSG Document 437 Filed 07/06/15 Page 9 of 10
Case 5:12-cv-05826-PSG Document 437 Filed 07/06/15 Page 10 of 10