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, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

PROFECTUS TECHNOLOGY, ) Docket No. WA 20-CA-101 ADA

LLC )

)

vs. ) Waco, Texas

)

GOOGLE, LLC ) June 11, 2020

TRANSCRIPT OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE

BEFORE THE HONORABLE ALAN D. ALBRIGHT

APPEARANCES:

For the Plaintiff: Mr. Steven E. Ross

Ross IP Group, PLLC

5050 Quorum Drive, Suite 700

Dallas, Texas 75254

Mr. Kirk A. Voss

Griffith Barbee, PLLC

1722 Routh Street, Suite 710

Dallas, Texas 75201

For the Defendant: Ms. Paige A. Amstutz

Scott, Douglass & McConnico, LLP

303 Colorado Street, Suite 2400

Austin, Texas 78701

Mr. Daniel C. Callaway

Farella, Braun & Martel, LLP

235 Montgomery Street, 18th Floor

San Francisco, California 94104

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.

Case 6:20-cv-00101-ADA Document 34 Filed 06/30/20 Page 1 of 25
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

15:46:16

15:46:18

15:46:25

15:46:25

15:46:28

15:46:33

15:46:33

15:46:35

15:46:39

15:46:42

15:46:46

15:46:49

15:46:51

15:46:54

15:47:00

15:47:06

15:47:08

15:47:12

15:47:15

15:47:19

15:47:22

15:47:26

15:47:29

15:47:33

15:47:36

LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)

2

THE CLERK: Telephonic discovery hearing in Civil

Action 6:20-CV-101, styled, Profectus Technology, LLC vs.

Google, LLC.

THE COURT: If I could hear announcements from

plaintiff's counsel and then, defense counsel.

MR. ROSS: Yes, your Honor.

Good afternoon. This is Steven Ross. I'm lead

counsel for Plaintiff Profectus. And with me on the call

today is my co-counsel, Mr. Kirk Voss.

THE COURT: Welcome by phone to Waco.

And who for the defendant?

MS. AMSTUTZ: Good afternoon, Judge Albright.

This is Paige Amstutz with Scott, Douglass &

McConnico. With me is Dan Callaway with Farella, Braun &

Martel. And with us also is our client, Don Wong.

THE COURT: Thanks to each of you for being here

besides Ms. Amstutz. Especially I always appreciate it

when counsel -- not besides her, but I'm happy to have

her, as well. But I always appreciate it when inhouse

folks show up. I think that's very important.

So I've been looking over -- I looked over the

discovery issues that you all have. That doesn't mean I

could guess which one of you wants to go first, but I

guess since the plaintiff wants to get this information,

I'll let them say why, and then, I'll hear from opposing

Case 6:20-cv-00101-ADA Document 34 Filed 06/30/20 Page 2 of 25
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

15:47:39

15:47:45

15:47:46

15:47:47

15:47:51

15:47:55

15:47:55

15:47:57

15:48:00

15:48:05

15:48:08

15:48:14

15:48:18

15:48:23

15:48:28

15:48:32

15:48:36

15:48:40

15:48:45

15:48:51

15:48:56

15:49:02

15:49:08

15:49:12

15:49:14

LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)

3

counsel as to why they should not get it.

MR. ROSS: Thank you, your Honor. This is Mr.

Ross.

With the Court's permission, I will just proceed

with these issues in the order that they are set out in my

letter.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. ROSS: The first issue is with respect to

Interrogatory No. 5, and this interrogatory asks for

Google to provide information regarding the various

economic incentives, such as tax breaks or tax abatements,

that it has received from governmental entities to either

relocate to or expand within the Western District of

Texas. So in that regard, we'd like to get information

regarding the governmental entity that extended those

incentives, the date of the incentives, the nature of the

incentives, and then, the dollar value of the incentives.

This goes directly to the public interest factors

and particularly the local interest in deciding local

cases at home. Obviously, the amount of money that a

governmental entity is willing to invest, if you will, in

a company such as Google is a measure of that government's

interest in the operations of Google within that -- within

that jurisdiction.

We think that's very relevant information, and

Case 6:20-cv-00101-ADA Document 34 Filed 06/30/20 Page 3 of 25
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

15:49:18

15:49:22

15:49:27

15:49:31

15:49:35

15:49:37

15:49:40

15:49:45

15:49:48

15:49:51

15:49:56

15:50:00

15:50:03

15:50:09

15:50:13

15:50:14

15:50:18

15:50:23

15:50:30

15:50:35

15:50:40

15:50:43

15:50:47

15:50:53

15:50:53

LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)

4

we've asked for it in the form of an interrogatory because

we believe that Google has this information collected and

relatively handy for tax purposes, if for no other reason.

And we think it would not be very burdensome to answer

that interrogatory.

THE COURT: Before I hear from counsel for

Google, I will tell you, this is an interesting discovery

request. I don't think I've seen it before, but I'm not

doing discovery requests anymore. But I know that when I

was arguing these cases, on one side or the other, I did

think it was important. This kind of information had some

relevance. You know, it certainly has some relevance, for

example, that, you know, Google has a substantial building

and a number of employees in Western District of Texas,

for example, in Austin.

But it seems to me that to the extent this

information is relevant, the only information -- the only

buckets of information that would be relevant to this case

opposing a transfer would be funds that Google received

either from local entities -- I'm not going to -- I guess

it could be city of Austin, but it could be anybody -- or

the state of Texas with the intent to incentivize Google

to move into a location that's within the Western

District.

So I will start off by telling defense counsel

Case 6:20-cv-00101-ADA Document 34 Filed 06/30/20 Page 4 of 25
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

15:50:56

15:51:00

15:51:07

15:51:08

15:51:10

15:51:13

15:51:19

15:51:25

15:51:28

15:51:31

15:51:35

15:51:37

15:51:40

15:51:44

15:51:48

15:51:52

15:51:53

15:51:57

15:52:00

15:52:03

15:52:07

15:52:09

15:52:11

15:52:15

15:52:18

LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)

5

for Google, I am sympathetic at least with those two

buckets. So tell me why I'm wrong.

MR. CALLAWAY: Thank you, your Honor. This is

Dan Callaway for Google.

We view this discovery request and the public

interest justification for it as being very attenuated

with respect to public interest. And to be specific,

Profectus has requested and Google has agreed to produce

evidence on, as you mentioned, the size of its offices,

the number of employees, the role of those employees as it

relates to the accused products; and in view of that

evidence, which Google has agreed to produce, you know,

what does it add whether Google has received a tax break.

You know, there's no statement of a nexus in this

discovery request between any tax break and the actual

accused products.

So this appears to be duplicative when it comes

to public interest of the sort of facts on the ground

about, you know, where are the buildings, how many folks

are working there, and how many folks are working on the

accused products.

THE COURT: Well, I don't know that I agree with

you. And, of course, I'll let the plaintiff lawyer take

this up himself. But it seems to me that the local

interest is reflected both by the investment that Google

Case 6:20-cv-00101-ADA Document 34 Filed 06/30/20 Page 5 of 25
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

15:52:22

15:52:29

15:52:33

15:52:41

15:52:42

15:52:44

15:52:46

15:52:50

15:52:53

15:52:58

15:53:03

15:53:09

15:53:10

15:53:15

15:53:21

15:53:24

15:53:30

15:53:32

15:53:39

15:53:41

15:53:42

15:53:46

15:53:49

15:53:51

15:53:54

LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)

6

is making or any defendant is making in the district. And

then, I might agree with you that, ultimately, it doesn't

move the needle one way or the other. But when the

question is whether or not the plaintiff should be

entitled to discovery on something, I don't know that that

is the right standard.

Seems to me, the right standard for discovery is

unless it's overly burdensome -- and I didn't hear that

argument -- that it could be relevant. This information

sounds at least relevant to me. It may or may not move

the needle, but explain to me why this information -- I'll

make something up.

You know, if the city of Austin gave Google a tax

break of, I'll just say, $1 to locate their building not

only in the Western District, but to do it in Austin, and

not only in Austin, but to do it in downtown Austin to --

you know, because it's such a phenomenal company and they

want it to be a tenant, they want the world to see, as

they're running along Town Lake, a building that has a big

Google sign on it.

Why isn't that at least relevant? Why isn't that

information relevant?

MR. CALLAWAY: I hear what you're saying, your

Honor. I think that's why I started out by saying this is

a very attenuated way of measuring the public interest in

Case 6:20-cv-00101-ADA Document 34 Filed 06/30/20 Page 6 of 25
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

15:53:57

15:54:00

15:54:04

15:54:07

15:54:10

15:54:12

15:54:15

15:54:17

15:54:22

15:54:25

15:54:29

15:54:32

15:54:37

15:54:41

15:54:45

15:54:48

15:54:52

15:54:54

15:54:56

15:54:59

15:55:06

15:55:08

15:55:10

15:55:14

15:55:18

LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)

7

view of the facts on the ground. I would also say, if it

comes to a specific tax break from Austin or from the

state to locate in a particular place, that would be

public record. So we would ask, you know, why is Google

then burdened with gathering that information if it's

equally available to both parties?

THE COURT: My guess is that that's not a big

burden. My guess is, Google has a lot -- is going to

suffer a lot bigger burdens in this case. And I don't

mean to mock you, I'm just saying it seems to me that -- I

mean, sure that plaintiff can look that stuff up. But,

you know, the difference is that if they decide to put it

in their motion or their response to your motion, as

opposed to it saying that there are public reports that

blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, what you have is that Google

has provided us with information that said this, I think

that's a different caliber of information.

I think it will be -- I think the Court would be

much more willing to rely on something -- some information

that was produced by Google and verified by Google. I

think it, frankly, would benefit you to have the correct

number, rather than press reports, which might or might

not be right.

At any rate, I'm going to allow -- I'm going to

order Google to -- I want this kept confidential. Or I

Case 6:20-cv-00101-ADA Document 34 Filed 06/30/20 Page 7 of 25
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

15:55:24

15:55:26

15:55:31

15:55:34

15:55:36

15:55:39

15:55:47

15:55:51

15:55:55

15:55:59

15:56:06

15:56:11

15:56:19

15:56:21

15:56:23

15:56:28

15:56:33

15:56:35

15:56:35

15:56:38

15:56:42

15:56:47

15:56:52

15:56:58

15:57:03

LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)

8

don't know where y'all are at on a protective order. I

want this information to be confidential. It doesn't

sound to me like it needs to be attorneys'-eyes-only, but

it should be confidential.

And I would like the information to be produced

to the plaintiff both to the extent that Google received

any either affirmative money or any kind of tax break that

incentivized it to locate in the Western District of

Texas, and/or if the state of Texas did the same thing

with respect to Google in locating, or building anything,

or moving, anything that indicates a local interest in the

Western District either on the part of a municipal entity

that is within the district or the state for something

where Google benefits within the district, I'll order that

that be produced in a confidential manner.

What is the next topic?

MR. ROSS: Your Honor, once again, this is Mr.

Ross for the plaintiff.

The next topic is our Request For Production No.

10, and this requests a copy of each declaration, dated

from January 1, 2017 to the present, that was signed by a

Google employee and filed in court in support of a motion

by Google to transfer venue in a patent case. And, your

Honor, this goes to the informational asymmetry that the

Court touched on in the Parus decision. This is

Case 6:20-cv-00101-ADA Document 34 Filed 06/30/20 Page 8 of 25
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

15:57:07

15:57:13

15:57:18

15:57:23

15:57:27

15:57:30

15:57:35

15:57:38

15:57:45

15:57:49

15:57:54

15:57:59

15:58:03

15:58:04

15:58:09

15:58:15

15:58:18

15:58:20

15:58:26

15:58:28

15:58:31

15:58:34

15:58:38

15:58:43

15:58:46

LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)

9

information that is uniquely within Google's possession.

It tests, I guess, Google's understanding or application

of the word "inconvenient." Obviously inconvenient is a

very subjective term, and it can mean different things to

different people and different contexts.

So what we'd like to do with this is to evaluate

the circumstances under which Google has sought to

transfer other cases in other courts to gauge what Google

feels is inconvenient and then, determine whether this is

something that is, indeed, done on a case-by-case basis,

based on the facts of each case.

THE COURT: So -- and I hate to sound dumb, but I

might.

Are you asking for the attachments, the

declarations that were contained in a motion to transfer

where, for example, here, Google has been sued in the

Western District, they are trying to get out of the

Western District? Or are you -- is it some -- is it a

declaration where Google has filed the suit and you want

the declarations of people who have transferred -- tried

to transfer the case against Google?

MR. ROSS: Your Honor, it was -- it's actually

the former. It's -- I'm sorry if the request wasn't clear

enough. But this is situations where Google has sought to

transfer the case out of the court in which it was filed.

Case 6:20-cv-00101-ADA Document 34 Filed 06/30/20 Page 9 of 25
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

15:58:52

15:58:55

15:58:58

15:59:01

15:59:05

15:59:07

15:59:10

15:59:13

15:59:17

15:59:21

15:59:24

15:59:27

15:59:29

15:59:34

15:59:36

15:59:38

15:59:42

15:59:45

15:59:48

15:59:53

15:59:55

16:00:00

16:00:05

16:00:07

16:00:10

LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)

10

THE COURT: Let me hear from Google on that.

MR. CALLAWAY: And to be clear, your Honor, as we

read Request For Production No. 10, it's asking for a copy

of each declaration, signed by a Google employee,

advocating for supporting a transfer motion in a patent

case, you know, anywhere. So whether it's a motion to

transfer from the District of Maine or the District of

Delaware, or Western District, Eastern District, any

district. And that goes to our objection, which is, let's

keep the game on the baseball diamond here. This motion

is about the instant facts, you know, the availability of

evidence to this case and this district.

So this request isn't that. This request by

Profectus is saying, we want to learn about Google's

litigation strategy or we want --

THE COURT: I'm with you. I mean -- and I agree,

actually.

So what is your position with respect to how far

back the plaintiff is seeking?

MR. CALLAWAY: Well, this is an awful lot of

material they're looking for. When I looked before the

call, I think I counted 160 cases that Google has been

sued on patents in the last three-and-a-half years, which

is the timeframe requested here. I don't know, as I stand

here, how many of those have involved a motion to

Case 6:20-cv-00101-ADA Document 34 Filed 06/30/20 Page 10 of 25
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

16:00:12

16:00:14

16:00:15

16:00:17

16:00:20

16:00:25

16:00:27

16:00:29

16:00:34

16:00:37

16:00:41

16:00:45

16:00:51

16:00:56

16:00:59

16:00:59

16:00:59

16:01:01

16:01:03

16:01:09

16:01:13

16:01:16

16:01:19

16:01:19

16:01:23

LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)

11

transfer, but it's an awful lot of cases. And --

THE COURT: Sure.

MR. CALLAWAY: You know, obviously we see those

declarations in those other cases about other products and

other patents as being irrelevant here, you know, full

stop.

THE COURT: Okay. I'm going to grant the

request. I'm going to limit those declarations to cases

where there was a motion to transfer either from the

Western District of Texas or the Eastern District of

Texas, and I think the date was January 1st of 2017.

That's 17, 18, 19, 20 -- I think from January 1st of 2018.

I think three years would be a fair representative number.

MR. CALLAWAY: And, your Honor, if I could for

Google.

THE COURT: Yes, sir.

MR. CALLAWAY: Some of these declarations are

going to be shot through with very confidential

information. So I am chagrinned to be producing this

stuff, but I take your ruling as it is. But I just want

assurance from the plaintiff that we'll move forward on a

protective order that will protect very sensitive

information.

And I would even ask if we might redact some of

the confidential information in these declarations that

Case 6:20-cv-00101-ADA Document 34 Filed 06/30/20 Page 11 of 25
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

16:01:25

16:01:29

16:01:32

16:01:33

16:01:38

16:01:42

16:01:45

16:01:49

16:01:54

16:01:59

16:02:06

16:02:10

16:02:15

16:02:20

16:02:22

16:02:25

16:02:30

16:02:35

16:02:36

16:02:41

16:02:44

16:02:50

16:02:55

16:03:01

16:03:03

LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)

12

will be entirely, you know, technical in nature or related

to other products.

THE COURT: Okay. Let me say two things about

that. One, when you produce these, these will be produced

under attorneys'-eyes-only; and if the plaintiff wants to

use them for some reason, they'll have to let the Court

know what they want to use out of them and why. And two,

to the extent that there is an explanation of technology

that is irrelevant in any way to the technology that --

for example, if the case in Austin was on Google Maps and

this is on Search or, you know, whatever else, you could

certainly redact the technical information. And if the

plaintiff gets it and thinks that's unfair, then the

plaintiff will let me know they have an issue with a

specific one.

MR. CALLAWAY: Understood, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. What's next?

MR. ROSS: Next, we would be moving on to the

topics in Profectus' Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice, and

this wraps in some of the other requests, although

indirectly. Other document requests that Google has --

that Profectus has served on Google asks for copies of

agreements with electrical providers, electricity

providers within the state of Texas.

For example, we understand that Google has

Case 6:20-cv-00101-ADA Document 34 Filed 06/30/20 Page 12 of 25
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

16:03:05

16:03:09

16:03:14

16:03:19

16:03:25

16:03:29

16:03:33

16:03:35

16:03:38

16:03:45

16:03:49

16:03:53

16:03:56

16:04:03

16:04:07

16:04:08

16:04:13

16:04:15

16:04:18

16:04:23

16:04:27

16:04:30

16:04:30

16:04:33

16:04:36

LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)

13

entered into a partnership with Reliant Energy, which is

based in Texas. And according to that partnership, Google

will provide these accused devices to Reliant, and Reliant

then provides the devices to its customers, which use them

in their homes for controlling their heating and cooling

systems and monitoring their electricity usage.

Another request goes to --

THE COURT: Let me stop you there.

So I could see a nexus -- I know who Reliant is.

I can see a nexus in terms of the fact that it may mean

that there are third-party witnesses or documents, to the

extent documents still exist in the world from Reliant.

But I'm not sure why you need what you're asking for

unless Google is going to -- well, maybe I should ask

Google.

It seems to me that -- I'm actually on kind of

Google's side here where it seems to me, the relationship

between Google and Reliant, there's probably sufficient

information about in -- online and in the press that you

could accomplish what you need to in this motion, or

responding to the motion, without getting this information

from Google.

So what is it that you want from Google about

their relationship with Reliant that is probably not

publicly available?

Case 6:20-cv-00101-ADA Document 34 Filed 06/30/20 Page 13 of 25
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

16:04:39

16:04:41

16:04:44

16:04:46

16:04:48

16:04:49

16:04:53

16:04:58

16:05:04

16:05:08

16:05:12

16:05:17

16:05:25

16:05:31

16:05:31

16:05:32

16:05:33

16:05:34

16:05:36

16:05:40

16:05:44

16:05:45

16:05:47

16:05:51

16:05:54

LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)

14

MR. ROSS: Well, your Honor, I apologize. I

think I -- I was providing context there.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. ROSS: The actual issue before the Court.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. ROSS: Relates to our topic number two, which

concerns documents produced by Google in response to

Profectus' document requests. Okay. We've asked for

agreements between Google and Reliant, and to use them as

an example, we'd like to be able to ask a Google

representative about those agreements to provide context

and help us understand the nature of the arrangement.

That's really the extent of this. Google --

THE COURT: Who are you --

MR. ROSS: I'm sorry.

THE COURT: No. It's me that's interrupting. I

apologize.

Who is it that you're going to ask these

questions to? Is there either going to be a deposition of

a corporate representative prior to your filing the

response?

MR. ROSS: Yes, your Honor. We've served the

interrogatories and document requests. And we have also

served a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice, and that

deposition will be scheduled at a mutually convenient time

Case 6:20-cv-00101-ADA Document 34 Filed 06/30/20 Page 14 of 25
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

16:05:58

16:06:01

16:06:04

16:06:07

16:06:13

16:06:17

16:06:21

16:06:26

16:06:29

16:06:32

16:06:36

16:06:40

16:06:42

16:06:45

16:06:45

16:06:49

16:06:52

16:06:52

16:06:56

16:06:59

16:07:04

16:07:08

16:07:11

16:07:11

16:07:15

LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)

15

and place after we receive the documents and other

discovery from Google.

THE COURT: Let me ask counsel for Google. I

understand the thrust of what they want.

Is there a representative document or two that

you could provide them that would enable them to question

-- intelligently question a Google witness about? Because

it seems to me -- again, I'm trying to protect the Google

witness who might have to be schooled up on a number of

topics and come in there. It seems to me, the Google

person would be better off if there were actual documents

in front of him that he could rely on to make sure he gets

the answers right with respect to a relationship with

Reliant.

But tell me what you think is an appropriate

response here to that request.

MR. CALLAWAY: Thank you, your Honor.

And just to unthread this a few more loops, we

have the same reaction that your Honor expressed regarding

the contracts with Reliant and other parties, but in the

spirit of compromise, we did agree to respond to those

document requests and go ahead and produce those

confidential agreements.

So where we are now is, Profectus is saying, hey,

on top of that, we want to have a Google witness come and

Case 6:20-cv-00101-ADA Document 34 Filed 06/30/20 Page 15 of 25
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

16:07:17

16:07:22

16:07:26

16:07:28

16:07:30

16:07:34

16:07:37

16:07:41

16:07:45

16:07:49

16:07:56

16:07:59

16:08:00

16:08:02

16:08:05

16:08:08

16:08:11

16:08:13

16:08:17

16:08:20

16:08:23

16:08:29

16:08:34

16:08:37

16:08:43

LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)

16

testify about these agreements, which puts us, again, in

the situation you expressed, which is we've gotta school

up a witness, folks are working from home, this might --

you know, the witness who knows about these agreements

that might be somebody other than the witness who knows

about the number of employees in the Austin office.

So the position we've taken here is, let these

agreements speak for themselves. This is a considerable

document production that we're offering with respect to

these agreements, and having to offer up a 30(b)(6)

witness on top of that seems duplicative and pretty

burdensome.

THE COURT: I think I'm with you on that one. I

think if you had produced the exhibits for the good

they're going to do in this response to the motion, I

think you have everything you need. I mean, it's only

going to have so much impact, and I don't know that

anything that a witness says would add to that.

I'll tell you this, though. Here's what we're

going to do and it will sound like I'm cutting the baby in

half. Maybe I am. I'm going to allow -- I'm going to

deny the request for a deposition at this point. I don't

know how or even whether the plaintiff will include

anything about that information in their response to the

motion to transfer.

Case 6:20-cv-00101-ADA Document 34 Filed 06/30/20 Page 16 of 25
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

16:08:45

16:08:53

16:08:58

16:09:02

16:09:05

16:09:10

16:09:14

16:09:19

16:09:22

16:09:26

16:09:30

16:09:30

16:09:34

16:09:36

16:09:40

16:09:45

16:09:51

16:09:56

16:10:01

16:10:05

16:10:09

16:10:14

16:10:17

16:10:23

16:10:27

LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)

17

If in their response, in Google's reply to the

response, if Google responds in a way to anything that has

to do with Reliant Energy where the plaintiff feels like

it goes outside of what's contained in what they have

access to in the documents, then you guys chat first and

then, call me. I will definitely make sure that the

plaintiff has as much information as it needs to respond

to any position that Google takes with respect to this

really pretty narrow issue that sounds to me like we're

getting ahead of that right now if you have the

agreements.

What else do we have to take up?

MR. ROSS: Well, your Honor, I understand the

Court's ruling about not having a deposition at this

point. I do have one request, and that is that topic four

in my letter, it related to a -- what had been a Rule

30(b)(6) deposition topic, and let me just read that to

you. It's from January 1, 2017 to the present. The

amount of business travel on a trips-per-year basis to

Google's facilities in the Western District of Texas by

Google's employees who are based at Google's facilities in

the Northern District of California.

I intended to ask that in a Rule 30(b)(6). If

your Honor declines to allow a 30(b)(6) deposition at this

point, my request would be if we could convert that over

Case 6:20-cv-00101-ADA Document 34 Filed 06/30/20 Page 17 of 25
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

16:10:29

16:10:34

16:10:37

16:10:42

16:10:43

16:10:47

16:10:54

16:10:59

16:11:01

16:11:05

16:11:10

16:11:13

16:11:16

16:11:18

16:11:20

16:11:23

16:11:24

16:11:26

16:11:32

16:11:35

16:11:40

16:11:41

16:11:46

16:11:50

16:11:53

LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)

18

into an interrogatory that Google could answer for us.

THE COURT: I think that that is an extremely

relevant issue in my decision about whether or not I could

transfer the case.

And so, I am going to allow you to transform that

into an interrogatory. And to the extent you need

specific documents, I would think in a very narrow manner,

there might be documents, or a spreadsheet, or something

that shows that in lieu of a deposition, I think that's

totally fair. But I think that that's a very pertinent --

I think that's one of the most important factors the Court

will consider.

MR. CALLAWAY: Your Honor, if I might pose some

objections, if only for the record, on behalf of Google.

THE COURT: Please do. Yeah, yeah, I definitely

want you to protect the record.

MR. CALLAWAY: With respect to -- this is

30(b)(6) topic five, we do believe this is not a relevant

request because the thrust of this is, how often do Google

employees fly to Texas, right? But that doesn't really

measure anything, except the size of the company, which

shouldn't be relevant to the 1404 analysis. This goes to

how often do folks fly from California to Texas. It

doesn't necessarily bear on the particular inconvenience

of any one witness whose -- you know, whose inconvenience

Case 6:20-cv-00101-ADA Document 34 Filed 06/30/20 Page 18 of 25
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

16:12:00

16:12:02

16:12:05

16:12:08

16:12:11

16:12:13

16:12:17

16:12:25

16:12:27

16:12:31

16:12:35

16:12:37

16:12:40

16:12:41

16:12:43

16:12:46

16:12:48

16:12:53

16:12:57

16:13:01

16:13:05

16:13:10

16:13:13

16:13:15

16:13:19

LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)

19

legally is measured by the so-called hundred-mile rule.

And, you know, as a logical matter, just because

one guy makes the trip ten times, it doesn't make it any

more convenient for the other guy to make it. So in our

view, that shouldn't weigh on the 1404 analysis.

THE COURT: I understand. You and I respectfully

disagree pretty strongly on that. So -- and I'm not

saying you're wrong. Actually, maybe at some point, the

circuit will help all of us decide whether or not that's

important or not and actually discuss it.

But I'm going to allow the plaintiff to send

interrogatory and a request for production with respect to

that issue.

Anything else?

MR. ROSS: Your Honor, this is Mr. Ross. I don't

have anything else at this point.

THE COURT: Anything for Google?

MR. CALLAWAY: I do think we skipped over one

request that was in our materials, Steve. I don't want to

let it go unsaid and leave uncertainty as to which way we

wound up on that, and that is 30(b)(6) topics numbers six

and seven. I don't want to speak out of turn, but are we

still raising that to the Court?

MR. ROSS: Well, my understanding is, the Court

doesn't want us to do a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice.

Case 6:20-cv-00101-ADA Document 34 Filed 06/30/20 Page 19 of 25
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

16:13:23

16:13:27

16:13:30

16:13:33

16:13:35

16:13:38

16:13:41

16:13:45

16:13:50

16:13:55

16:14:00

16:14:06

16:14:12

16:14:15

16:14:19

16:14:21

16:14:24

16:14:31

16:14:33

16:14:36

16:14:40

16:14:42

16:14:47

16:14:51

16:14:55

LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)

20

So we won't be pressing that at this point unless we have

something else change and we need to go back to the Court

for -- to revisit the issue.

THE COURT: Yeah. And I don't know -- I'm sorry

to interrupt you, too. That I don't know what those two

are, off the top of my head. I have it here on my

computer, but I don't have it immediately in front of me.

Here's the way I see it is, I think the plaintiff

ought to have access to as much information as it needs to

respond to anything that Google argues to me. So if in

their reply, the plaintiff -- or if in responding to the

motion, or if in responding to the reply to your response,

the plaintiff feels like they have been prejudiced by not

having access to information that Google has, then I'm

going to allow you to get that either from an

interrogatory, or a 30(b)(6), or whatever.

I'm just trying to say that that's what I -- I

want to make sure you have that access, but I don't think

we need to go beyond that because you're just responding

to their motion and evidence and arguments. And so,

that's the balance I'm trying to strike here. If in

either of those two 30(b)(6) topics, you think you need

information to respond to the motion that Google filed, or

if after you get the reply, you need it for that reason,

you need to make sure I'm aware of that and I'll take it

Case 6:20-cv-00101-ADA Document 34 Filed 06/30/20 Page 20 of 25
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

16:14:59

16:15:04

16:15:05

16:15:08

16:15:14

16:15:19

16:15:21

16:15:23

16:15:28

16:15:31

16:15:34

16:15:38

16:15:42

16:15:48

16:15:49

16:15:52

16:15:55

16:15:57

16:16:02

16:16:03

16:16:05

16:16:07

16:16:09

16:16:10

16:16:12

LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)

21

up in that context.

MR. ROSS: Yes, your Honor. I understand that.

And certainly after we get their documents and we

review them, if it does appear that the circumstances have

changed, we will certainly alert the Court and ask for

leave to do that deposition.

THE COURT: Okay. Do it sooner, rather than

later, because in this age of COVID, I want to make sure

we can make arrangements to get it done right. And, of

course, I'm equally concerned about protecting Google and

their folks, and so, I want to make sure that if I allow

you to do discovery, it's discovery both that's necessary

and it's done in a way that is, you know, prophylactic for

everyone involved.

So let me know as soon as you need help, if you

ever do need help, and we'll get back on a phone call like

this, and, of course, you know, I'll hear from both sides

and try and do whatever I can to make sure that both sides

are treated fairly.

So anything else from the plaintiff?

MR. ROSS: No, your Honor.

THE COURT: Anything else from counsel for

defendant?

MR. CALLAWAY: Just briefly, your Honor.

THE COURT: Yes, sir.

Case 6:20-cv-00101-ADA Document 34 Filed 06/30/20 Page 21 of 25
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

16:16:13

16:16:15

16:16:18

16:16:20

16:16:24

16:16:27

16:16:29

16:16:32

16:16:36

16:16:39

16:16:43

16:16:44

16:16:47

16:16:50

16:16:52

16:16:55

16:16:58

16:17:03

16:17:09

16:17:14

16:17:18

16:17:20

16:17:23

16:17:27

16:17:31

LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)

22

MR. CALLAWAY: With respect to RFP 10, the

declarations that were related to other transfer motions,

I understood your ruling as we discussed it. And I'm

reminded by my co-counsel to ask, with respect to

redactions, with respect to protecting confidential

information, some of these declarations will have

technical information, which you mentioned redacting, and

some of them, on top of that, will likely have personnel

information that could be sensitive or confidential and

which we would view as not pertinent to the purpose of

their production here.

So I would ask if there's personnel information

on unrelated technology in those transfer declarations,

can we go ahead and redact that, too?

THE COURT: I think -- and I'll hear from the

plaintiff in a second. I think the only information that

is relevant about personnel that you need to produce with

these is what the person does and where they are located

for Google doing it, which I don't think -- doesn't seem

to me to be overly invasive. And so -- because I'm sure I

could look up for most of the Google people, you know,

people's names and what they do.

And so, if -- you can -- as far as I'm concerned,

you can redact everything besides that about their person

-- about personnel.

Case 6:20-cv-00101-ADA Document 34 Filed 06/30/20 Page 22 of 25
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

16:17:34

16:17:36

16:17:41

16:17:44

16:17:49

16:17:53

16:17:57

16:18:02

16:18:05

16:18:07

16:18:10

16:18:15

16:18:20

16:18:22

16:18:24

16:18:27

16:18:30

16:18:33

16:18:37

16:18:37

16:18:39

16:18:43

16:18:45

16:18:49

16:18:52

LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)

23

MR. CALLAWAY: Understood.

THE COURT: Now, again, if the plaintiff gets

something and he finds something particularly, for lack of

a better word, curious or interesting and in a specific

case, he wants to articulate to you first, and then, to me

last, why there might be additional information he wants,

I would urge Google to be, you know, as generous as you

can be while still protecting an employee.

If the plaintiff can articulate, I'd like to know

these, you know, these three things and they all seem to

be the kind of things that the Google employee would tell

someone at a cocktail party, or a job interview, or

something like that, I think you probably ought to provide

it to him. But obviously that's entirely up to each one

of you to make that decision and if you have -- if you

have a disagreement, just let Josh Yi know and I'll hear

both sides.

MR. ROSS: Very well. We understand, your Honor.

Thank you very much.

THE COURT: These questions -- when I'm answering

these questions, they're very helpful because I can refine

what it is I'm ordering and make sure that you guys don't

have to tussle over it both in -- in good faith because I

didn't think to tell you, you know, what the parameters

were. So I very much appreciate. My guess is, I know

Case 6:20-cv-00101-ADA Document 34 Filed 06/30/20 Page 23 of 25
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

16:18:57

16:19:00

16:19:02

16:19:07

16:19:08

16:19:10

16:19:11

16:19:14

16:19:15

16:19:17

16:19:20

16:19:26

16:19:27

16:19:29

LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)

24

which local counsel made that suggestion and you made a

great choice in hiring her.

I'm always glad when people ask for questions for

clarification because I want to make sure you guys

understand what I'm ordering.

Anything else for Google?

MR. CALLAWAY: I don't think so, your Honor.

Thank you.

THE COURT: Okay. You guys, be safe out there

and be well. And I look forward to seeing you all at some

point again either in Austin or in Waco. Have a good

afternoon.

MS. AMSTUTZ: Thank you, Judge.

MR. CALLAWAY: Thank you.

MR. ROSS: Thank you, your Honor.

(End of proceedings.)

Case 6:20-cv-00101-ADA Document 34 Filed 06/30/20 Page 24 of 25
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, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)

25

* * * * * *

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 16th day of June,

2020.

/s/Lily I. Reznik

LILY I. REZNIK, CRR, RMR

Official Court Reporter

United States District Court

Austin Division

501 W. 5th Street,

Suite 4153

Austin, Texas 78701

(512)391-8792

SOT Certification No. 4481

Expires: 1-31-21

Case 6:20-cv-00101-ADA Document 34 Filed 06/30/20 Page 25 of 25