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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 

PLAINTIFF,

VS.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, A 

DELAWARE CORPORATION,

DEFENDANT.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

C-17-00220 LHK

SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA

APRIL 19, 2017

PAGES 1-26 

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

BEFORE THE HONORABLE LUCY H. KOH 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

FOR THE PLAINTIFF: FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

BY: JENNIFER MILICI

 600 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

BY: JOSEPH R. BAKER

400 7TH STREET, SW

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 

APPEARANCES CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER: LEE-ANNE SHORTRIDGE, CSR, CRR

CERTIFICATE NUMBER 9595

PROCEEDINGS RECORDED BY MECHANICAL STENOGRAPHY

TRANSCRIPT PRODUCED WITH COMPUTER

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 79 Filed 04/25/17 Page 1 of 27
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

2

APPEARANCES (CONTINUED)

FOR THE DEFENDANT: CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE 

 BY: GARY A. BORNSTEIN

 YONATAN EVEN

 NICOLE PELES 

825 EIGHTH AVENUE 

 NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10019

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS

BY: GEOFFREY T. HOLTZ

 RICHARD S. TAFFET

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 79 Filed 04/25/17 Page 2 of 27
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

3

SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA APRIL 19, 2017

P R O C E E D I N G S

(COURT CONVENED AT 10:28 A.M.)

THE COURT: GOOD MORNING AND WELCOME. 

THE CLERK: PLEASE BE SEATED. 

YOUR HONOR, WE'RE CALLING CASE NUMBER 17-CV-00220, FEDERAL 

TRADE COMMISSION VERSUS QUALCOMM INCORPORATED. 

COUNSEL, PLEASE COME FORWARD AND STATE YOUR APPEARANCES. 

MS. MILICI: JENNIFER MILICI FOR THE FTC. 

MR. HOLTZ: I'LL GO FIRST. 

GEOFFREY HOLTZ FOR QUALCOMM. 

MR. BORNSTEIN: GARY BORNSTEIN FOR QUALCOMM, YOUR 

HONOR. 

MR. BAKER: JOSEPH BAKER FOR THE FTC. 

MR. EVEN: YONATAN EVEN FOR QUALCOMM. 

THE COURT: I'M SORRY?

MR. EVEN: YONATAN EVEN FOR QUALCOMM.

MS. PELES: NICOLE PELES FOR QUALCOMM. 

MR. TAFFET: RICHARD TAFFET FOR QUALCOMM AS WELL. 

THE COURT: OKAY. GOOD MORNING AND WELCOME TO 

EVERYONE. 

OKAY. DID YOU EXCHANGE INITIAL DISCLOSURES ON APRIL 12TH? 

MR. BORNSTEIN: WE DID, YOUR HONOR. 

MS. MILICI: WE DID. 

THE COURT: OKAY. AND DID YOU ACTUALLY EXCHANGE 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 79 Filed 04/25/17 Page 3 of 27
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

4

DOCUMENTS OR JUST LISTS OF CATEGORIES OF DOCUMENTS IN YOUR 

POSSESSION? 

MS. MILICI: JUST LISTS OF CATEGORIES OF DOCUMENTS. 

WE DID NOT EXCHANGE DOCUMENTS WITH THE INITIAL DISCLOSURES. 

MR. BORNSTEIN: AND WE'VE OBVIOUSLY PROVIDED A FAIRLY 

LARGE NUMBER OF DOCUMENTS IN THE PRE-COMPLAINT STAGE. 

THE COURT: UNDERSTOOD. OKAY. 

ALL RIGHT. SO WE HAVE A HEARING ON JUNE 15. 

SO TELL ME ABOUT THE THIRD PARTY DISCOVERY. IS THAT 

DISCOVERY THAT WAS TAKEN OF QUALCOMM CONSUMERS, QUALCOMM 

COMPETITORS, OR -- 

MS. MILICI: SO THE THIRD PARTIES, IT WOULD INCLUDE 

BOTH CUSTOMERS AND COMPETITORS. 

THE COURT: UM-HUM. OKAY. AND I WOULD ASSUME THAT 

QUALCOMM HAS ITS OWN DOCUMENTATION THAT IT'S EXCHANGED WITH ITS 

CUSTOMERS. 

MR. BORNSTEIN: OVER THE COURSE OF TIME, SURE, THERE 

ARE INTERCHANGES WITH CUSTOMERS. WE DON'T HAVE ACCESS, OF 

COURSE, TO THE INTERNAL INFORMATION OF THE CUSTOMERS. 

THE COURT: RIGHT.

OKAY. HAVE YOU REACHED AGREEMENT ON THE ADDITIONAL 

DEPOSITIONS THAT MAY BE NEEDED, OR SHOULD WE WAIT ON THAT ONE? 

MR. BORNSTEIN: WE'VE NOT YET GOTTEN TO AGREEMENT ON 

THAT ONE, YOUR HONOR, AND I WOULD SUGGEST THAT IT WOULD BE 

USEFUL TO HAVE MORE INFORMATION TO BE ABLE TO HAVE AN 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 79 Filed 04/25/17 Page 4 of 27
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

5

INTELLIGENT DISCUSSION WITH COUNSEL ABOUT THAT BEFORE WE 

SUGGEST SOMETHING TO THE COURT. 

THE COURT: THAT'S FINE. THAT'S FINE. 

NOW, YOU HAVE AGREED TO HAVE NO MORE THAN 20 

INTERROGATORIES ON THE THIRD PARTIES; CORRECT? 

MR. BORNSTEIN: YES. 

MS. MILICI: YES. 

THE COURT: OKAY, THAT'S FINE. 

OTHERWISE, UNTIL YOU REQUEST ANY VARIATION, THE DISCOVERY 

LIMITS IN THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE WILL GOVERN THE 

CASE. 

ALL RIGHT. NOW, JUDGE NATHANAEL COUSINS IS GOING TO BE 

THE DISCOVERY JUDGE FOR THE MDL, AND I THINK IT DOESN'T MAKE 

SENSE TO HAVE TWO DIFFERENT JUDGES, BECAUSE WE MAY HAVE 

INCONSISTENT RULINGS, SO HE'S ALSO GOING TO BE THE DISCOVERY 

JUDGE IN THE FTC CASE, IN YOUR CASE. ALL RIGHT? SO IF YOU 

WOULD PLEASE ALWAYS COMPLY WITH WHATEVER HIS REQUIREMENTS ARE 

FOR RAISING ANY DISCOVERY DISPUTES. 

BUT HE'S QUITE FAST IN RESOLVING THEM, SO I THINK THAT 

WILL ALSO HELP US IN KEEPING THE CASE MOVING. 

LET'S TALK ABOUT YOUR PROTECTIVE ORDER. SO UNDER OUR 

PATENT LOCAL RULES, DISCOVERY CAN'T BE WITHHELD ON THE BASIS 

THAT THERE'S NO PROTECTIVE ORDER, AND WE HAVE TWO DIFFERENT 

SORT OF MODEL PROTECTIVE ORDERS IN OUR DISTRICT, ONE FOR YOUR 

GENERAL CIVIL CASE THAT ONLY HAS ONE LEVEL OF CONFIDENTIALITY, 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 79 Filed 04/25/17 Page 5 of 27
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

6

AND THE STANDARD PROTECTIVE ORDER IN PATENT CASES THAT HAS THE 

TWO LEVELS. IT HAS ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY, IT HAS PROSECUTION 

BAR. 

SO I DON'T WANT THE ABSENCE OF A PROTECTIVE ORDER TO BE 

THE BASIS FOR WITHHOLDING OF ANY DISCOVERY, SO DO YOU WANT TO 

HAVE ONE OF THESE DEFAULTS BE YOUR DEFAULT UNTIL YOU STIPULATE 

TO ONE THAT HAS ALL THE CUSTOMIZED PROVISIONS THAT YOU WANT? 

MS. MILICI: SO THE FTC SENT A DRAFT PROTECTIVE 

ORDER -- 

THE COURT: OKAY. 

MS. MILICI: -- TO QUALCOMM ON APRIL 6TH. 

THE COURT: OKAY. 

MS. MILICI: WE HAVEN'T HEARD BACK. I THINK WE 

STARTED WITH THE MODEL PROTECTIVE ORDER FOR THE PATENT -- 

THE COURT: FOR PATENT CASES? 

MS. MILICI: YES. 

THE COURT: OKAY. 

MS. MILICI: AND THEN WE MODIFIED IT SOMEWHAT. AMONG 

OTHER THINGS, THE MODEL ORDERS ARE WRITTEN PRIMARILY FOR 

COMMERCIAL PARTIES AND NOT FOR GOVERNMENT PLAINTIFFS, SO THERE 

WAS SOME MODIFICATION TO THE LANGUAGE. 

THE COURT: SURE. 

MS. MILICI: BUT THAT -- THAT DRAFT HAS BEEN WITH 

QUALCOMM FOR SOME TIME. 

THE COURT: OKAY. SO I'D LIKE A DATE BY WHICH 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 79 Filed 04/25/17 Page 6 of 27
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

7

QUALCOMM IS GOING TO RESPOND TO YOU, BECAUSE IT'S BEEN TWO 

WEEKS. 

MR. BORNSTEIN: SURE. WE'LL RESPOND BY THE END OF 

THE WEEK, YOUR HONOR. 

THE COURT: OKAY. 

MR. BORNSTEIN: AND WE'VE TENTATIVELY AGREED WITH 

COUNSEL THAT WE WOULD PRESENT SOMETHING TO THE COURT BY NEXT 

WEEK. 

THE COURT: OKAY. SO BY APRIL 21, QUALCOMM WILL 

RESPOND TO THE FTC'S APRIL 6TH DRAFT PROTECTIVE ORDER. 

ALL RIGHT. AND THAT DOCUMENT CAN BE PRESENTED TO 

JUDGE COUSINS FOR SIGNATURE. OKAY? 

AND SIMILARLY, IF YOU HAVE ANY DISPUTES ABOUT THE 

PROTECTIVE ORDER, THAT WOULD GO TO JUDGE COUSINS. 

LET'S GIVE A DATE BY WHICH YOU'RE GOING TO DO THAT SO I 

CAN ALERT HIS CHAMBERS THAT THAT IS COMING AND THEY'LL BE ON 

THE LOOK OUT FOR IT AND CAN SIGN IT PROMPTLY IF YOU REACH A 

STIPULATION. WHEN IS THAT GOING TO BE FILED? 

MR. BORNSTEIN: SO I WOULD SUGGEST THURSDAY IF THAT 

WORKS FOR COUNSEL, THE 27TH. 

MS. MILICI: THAT'S FINE WITH THE FTC. 

THE COURT: IF YOU NEEDED A LITTLE MORE TIME -- IF 

YOU'RE ONLY GOING TO GET QUALCOMM'S RESPONSE ON FRIDAY, THE 

21ST -- 

MR. BORNSTEIN: WE CAN DO IT THE FOLLOWING WEEK. 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 79 Filed 04/25/17 Page 7 of 27
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

8

HOWEVER MUCH TIME COUNSEL NEEDS. 

MS. MILICI: I THINK WE CAN DO IT BY THE 27TH. 

THE COURT: OKAY. I'LL JUST SAY APRIL 28TH. 

DO YOU KNOW WHAT OBJECTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE? 

MR. BORNSTEIN: TO THE DRAFT THAT THE FTC PROVIDED? 

THE COURT: YES. 

MR. BORNSTEIN: YES. WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT USING 

SOME OF THE PROVISIONS THAT ARE FROM THE PATENT MODEL ORDER -- 

THE COURT: UM-HUM. 

MR. BORNSTEIN: -- WHICH WE THINK ARE MORE SUITED TO 

THE EXCHANGE OF TECHNICAL INFORMATION AS OPPOSED TO THE KIND OF 

COMMERCIAL INFORMATION THAT'S GOING TO BE AT ISSUE IN THIS 

CASE. THIS IS NOT A CASE THAT'S GOING TO INVOLVE THE EXCHANGE 

OF SOURCE CODE OR TECHNICAL INFORMATION LIKE MATTERS THAT HAVE 

BEEN BEFORE YOUR HONOR MANY TIMES. 

AND SO WE HAVE SUGGESTIONS THAT WE'LL MAKE. THE PROPOSAL 

WE RECEIVED FROM THE FTC LOOKED A LITTLE BIT MORE LIKE THE 

STANDARD MODEL ORDER IN THIS COURT, ALTHOUGH WE DO AGREE WITH 

THE CONCEPT OF A TWO-TIER CONFIDENTIALITY. 

THE COURT: SO WHAT IS THE CHANGE YOU'RE GOING TO 

RECOMMEND TO THE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY TIER? 

MR. BORNSTEIN: THE -- I DON'T HAVE A COMPLETE LIST 

FOR THE COURT, BUT THE PRIMARY ONE THAT HAS BEEN GIVING US 

TROUBLE, WHICH WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE A 

PROPOSAL ON, IS THE PROVISION THAT WOULD REQUIRE US TO GIVE 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 79 Filed 04/25/17 Page 8 of 27
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

9

NOTICE TO THIRD PARTIES OF OUR INTENT TO SHARE INFORMATION WITH 

IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AT QUALCOMM, PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR 

SUPERVISING THE LITIGATION. 

THE COURT: UM-HUM. 

MR. BORNSTEIN: AND THEN IF WE RECEIVE AN OBJECTION 

FROM THE THIRD PARTY, THE PROPOSAL IN THE DRAFT THAT WE 

RECEIVED IS THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO COME TO COURT TO MAKE A 

MOTION IN ORDER TO RECEIVE PERMISSION TO SHARE INFORMATION WITH 

THE ATTORNEYS AT QUALCOMM RESPONSIBLE FOR SUPERVISING THE 

LITIGATION. 

THE COURT: UM-HUM. 

MR. BORNSTEIN: AND THAT STRIKES US AS A 

SIGNIFICANTLY BURDENSOME AND UNNECESSARY PROCESS FOR COMMERCIAL 

INFORMATION, NOT TECHNICAL INFORMATION, AND FOR SHARING THAT 

INFORMATION WITH PEOPLE WHO HAVE LITIGATION RESPONSIBILITIES 

AND NOT EITHER TECHNICAL OR COMMERCIAL BUSINESS 

RESPONSIBILITIES. SO THAT'S THE PRIMARY CHANGE THAT I THINK 

WE'LL BE SUGGESTING. 

THERE WILL BE A FEW OTHERS, AND I WOULD HAVE TO TAKE A 

LOOK AT THE DOCUMENTS TO GIVE YOUR HONOR A MORE COMPLETE LIST 

RIGHT NOW. 

THE COURT: SO WHAT IS YOUR SUGGESTION THEN? THAT 

THE THIRD PARTY HAS TO MOVE TO QUASH IT OR FOR SOME TYPE OF A 

PROTECTION SO THAT IT'S NOT VIEWED BY QUALCOMM IN-HOUSE COUNSEL 

WHO DON'T DO LICENSING? 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 79 Filed 04/25/17 Page 9 of 27
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

10

MR. BORNSTEIN: SO OUR SUGGESTION WITH RESPECT TO THE 

THIRD PARTY INFORMATION IS -- REALLY COMES IN TWO STEPS. 

THERE'S THE THIRD PARTY INFORMATION THAT IS CURRENTLY IN THE 

POSSESSION OF THE FTC THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO GET ACCESS TO 

PROMPTLY, AND THEN THERE'S THE THIRD PARTY INFORMATION WE MAY 

GET THROUGH SUPPLEMENTAL OR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY DOWN THE LINE. 

IN EITHER CASE, WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IS OBVIOUSLY 

OUTSIDE COUNSEL BEING ABLE TO SEE THE DOCUMENTS, AS WELL AS A 

DESIGNATED SET OF IN-HOUSE QUALCOMM LAWYERS WITH RESPONSIBILITY 

FOR THE LITIGATION WHO ARE PERMITTED TO SEE THE MATERIALS SO 

THAT THEY CAN EXERCISE THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES TO THE COMPANY TO 

SUPERVISE THE CASE. 

THE COURT: AND THEN YOU'LL HAVE SOMETHING LIKE A 

PROSECUTION BAR, THAT THEY CANNOT THEN BE CONTRACT NEGOTIATORS 

AND LICENSING ATTORNEYS? BECAUSE I DO THINK THAT WOULD CAUSE 

PROBLEMS FOR THESE THIRD PARTIES WHO MAY HAVE TO NEGOTIATE A 

LICENSE WITH QUALCOMM. 

MS. MILICI: AND I THINK THAT'S OUR CONCERN IS THAT A 

LOT OF THE THIRD PARTIES, YOU KNOW, DEPEND ON QUALCOMM FOR 

THEIR CHIPSET SUPPLY, YOU KNOW, AND/OR ARE COMPETITORS. 

AND SO THERE'S SOME CONCERN THAT QUALCOMM ATTORNEYS MIGHT 

HAVE BUSINESS RESPONSIBILITIES THAT ARE IMPLICATED IN THE 

FUTURE. 

THE COURT: SO I THINK IF YOU'RE ONLY GOING TO GET 

THEIR RESPONSE, I ASSUME PROBABLY LATE IN THE DAY ON 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 79 Filed 04/25/17 Page 10 of 27
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

11

APRIL 21ST, THERE'S NO WAY THIS IS GOING TO GET RESOLVED BY THE 

27TH. 

MS. MILICI: OKAY. 

THE COURT: AND I THINK THAT IT WOULD BE THE FTC'S 

RESPONSIBILITY TO REPRESENT THE INTERESTS OF THE THIRD PARTIES 

IN THIS PROTECTIVE ORDER. RIGHT? 

MS. MILICI: I THINK THAT'S RIGHT. 

THE COURT: SO -- WHY DON'T YOU TRY TO FILE THAT BY 

MAY 5TH, AND THEN IF YOU NEED TO HAVE IT LITIGATED, HAVE 

JUDGE COUSINS DECIDE ANY DISPUTE ON THAT QUESTION. OKAY? SO 

MAY 5 OF 2017, PLEASE. 

ALL RIGHT. SO THAT'S THE PROTECTIVE ORDER. THANK YOU FOR 

THE PROGRESS THAT BOTH SIDES HAVE MADE ON PUSHING AT LEAST THAT 

FORWARD. 

SO LET'S GO TO THE MAIN EVENT, WHICH IS THE SCHEDULE. 

I'M TRYING TO THINK IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE HERE. 

I AM NOT GOING TO STAY DISCOVERY, SO WHETHER IT'S A 

LIMITED DISCOVERY REQUEST -- LIMITED STAY REQUEST OR A BROAD 

ONE, I'M NOT GOING TO STAY DISCOVERY. 

SO LET ME HEAR, THOUGH, WHAT IS QUALCOMM'S -- I'M SORRY -- 

WHAT IS THE FTC'S POSITION ON QUALCOMM'S REQUEST? DO YOU AGREE 

THEY PROVIDE A NON-PUBLIC CASE FILE, OR DISAGREE AS TO DELAYING 

THIRD PARTY DISCOVERY? 

I MEAN, I'M GOING TO BE JUST FRANK HERE. I ISSUED AN 

ORDER THAT SAID THERE WILL BE NO STAY OF DISCOVERY, AND THEN I 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 79 Filed 04/25/17 Page 11 of 27
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

12

INVITED QUALCOMM TO PROPOSE A SHORTER CASE SCHEDULE, AND THEN I 

WAS, FRANKLY, DISAPPOINTED THAT YOUR JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT 

STATEMENT THEN COMES BACK AND ASKS FOR ANOTHER DISCOVERY STAY, 

ALBEIT MORE LIMITED THAN YOUR FIRST REQUEST. 

BUT I HOPE THAT'S NOT AN INDICATION OF HOW YOU INTEND TO 

LITIGATE THIS CASE, BECAUSE I'M GOING TO BE DISAPPOINTED IF I 

ISSUE AN ORDER THAT, YOU KNOW, SAYS "THE COURT DENIES 

DEFENDANT'S REQUEST THAT DISCOVERY BE DEFERRED UNTIL AFTER THE 

COURT HAS RULED ON DEFENDANT'S PENDING RULE 12(B)(6) MOTION TO 

DISMISS. THERE WILL BE NO STAY OF DISCOVERY." 

AND THEN WITHIN THREE DAYS, TWO BUSINESS DAYS, I GET 

ANOTHER DISCOVERY STAY REQUEST. IT'S -- IT'S DISAPPOINTING. 

I'LL PUT IT THAT WAY. 

SO I HOPE, WHEN I MAKE A RULING, I'M NOT THEN FOLLOWED UP 

BY THE SAME REQUEST JUST SLIGHTLY MORE LIMITED GOING FORWARD. 

MR. BORNSTEIN: YOUR HONOR, THAT -- 

THE COURT: YEAH. 

MR. BORNSTEIN: -- IS ABSOLUTELY NOT HOW WE INTEND TO 

LITIGATE, AND I APOLOGIZE -- 

THE COURT: YEAH. 

MR. BORNSTEIN: -- FOR UPSETTING OR DISAPPOINTING THE 

COURT I THINK WAS THE WORD THAT YOU USED. 

THE COURT: YEAH. 

MR. BORNSTEIN: OUR CONCERN, WHAT MOTIVATED THIS -- 

THE COURT: YES. 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 79 Filed 04/25/17 Page 12 of 27
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

13

MR. BORNSTEIN: -- JUST SO THAT I'M SURE I GET THE 

OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN AND APOLOGIZE FOR THIS, IS THAT WE ARE 

VERY WILLING TO START AND GO AHEAD AND MAKE DISCOVERY TO THE 

FTC, THE INFORMATION IT SEEKS FROM US. 

BUT WE, RIGHT NOW, ARE NOT IN A POSITION WHERE WE CAN GO 

SERVE DISCOVERY REQUESTS ON THIRD PARTIES IN AN INFORMED WAY. 

IF WE GO OUT AND WE SERVE A BUNCH OF DISCOVERY REQUESTS ON 

THIRD PARTIES, IT'S GOING TO ASK FOR INFORMATION THAT'S ALREADY 

IN THE RECORD. IT'S GOING TO BE DUPLICATIVE OF THE INFORMATION 

WE WOULD GET FROM THE FTC CASE FILE. 

WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO BE AS EFFICIENT AND INFORMED 

IN SEEKING WHAT WE NEED OR IN COORDINATING THE THIRD PARTY 

DISCOVERY WITH THE FTC WHICH HAS A HEAD START IN THE PROCESS. 

ALL WE'RE LOOKING TO DO IS TO BEGIN THE DISCOVERY PROCESS 

FROM THE SAME PLACE SO THAT WE CAN GET TO THE STARTING LINE AND 

THEN HAVE A DISCOVERY PROCESS THAT IS FAIR AND BALANCED ON BOTH 

SIDES WHERE WE ACTUALLY HAVE THE RECORD SO WE CAN CRAFT OUR 

REQUESTS, AND THEN WE CAN COORDINATE WITH THE FTC IN TERMS OF 

HOW THE DISCOVERY WILL GO WITH THE THIRD PARTIES SO THERE ARE 

NOT SUCCESSIVE REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS, SO THERE'S JUST ONE 

DEPOSITION OF ANY INDIVIDUAL OR THIRD PARTY WHO WE'RE ABLE TO 

HAVE THE MATERIAL IN ADVANCE AND BE PREPARED FOR THAT. 

SO THAT WAS THE MOTIVATION. 

THE COURT: UM-HUM. 

MR. BORNSTEIN: I TRULY APOLOGIZE IF THAT, A, WASN'T 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 79 Filed 04/25/17 Page 13 of 27
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

14

CLEAR; AND, B, IF YOU FELT THAT WE WERE UNDERCUTTING YOUR 

ORDER, WHICH WAS ABSOLUTELY NOT OUR INTENT, YOUR HONOR. 

THE COURT: WHAT IS THE FTC'S POSITION? 

MS. MILICI: WELL -- 

THE COURT: I'M NOT GOING TO STAY IT. I'M NOT GOING 

TO BIFURCATE DISCOVERY. 

BUT TELL ME YOUR POSITION ON THEIR OTHER REQUESTS. 

MS. MILICI: OKAY. SO ONE OF THE -- THE FIRST 

PROPOSAL THAT QUALCOMM MADE WAS THAT WE PRODUCE THE THIRD PARTY 

MATERIALS IMMEDIATELY. 

THE COURT: UM-HUM. 

MS. MILICI: WE CAN'T DO THAT, BOTH UNDER THE 

REGULATIONS THAT GOVERN THE FTC, THAT'S 16 C.F.R. 410(G), WHICH 

SAYS WE CAN'T PRODUCE THIRD PARTY MATERIALS UNTIL, UNTIL A 

PROTECTIVE ORDER IS IN PLACE, AND THAT WE HAVE TO GIVE THIRD 

PARTIES THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME TO COURT AND SEEK ADDITIONAL 

PROTECTIONS. 

THAT'S COMPLETELY CONSISTENT WITH THE MODEL PROTECTIVE 

ORDERS OF THIS COURT. BOTH THE PATENT MODEL PROTECTIVE ORDER 

AND THE STANDARD PROTECTIVE ORDER SAY THAT WHEN A PARTY SEEKS 

THIRD PARTY DOCUMENTS FROM ANOTHER PARTY, THE THIRD PARTY HAS 

TO BE NOTIFIED AND GIVEN A COPY OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER AND THE 

DOCUMENT REQUEST AND THEN GIVEN A CHANCE TO COME TO COURT AND 

SEEK PROTECTION FOR ITS DOCUMENTS. 

SO THAT'S THE PROCESS THAT WE'LL NEED TO FOLLOW HERE. WE 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 79 Filed 04/25/17 Page 14 of 27
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

15

CANNOT PRODUCE THEM IMMEDIATELY. THE THIRD PARTIES ARE 

ENTITLED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT AND MAKE THEIR ARGUMENTS. 

IT'S FOR THAT REASON THAT, YOU KNOW, THE SCHEDULE THAT 

QUALCOMM PROPOSES IS INDEFINITE. IT'S THAT FACT DISCOVERY 

CONTINUES FOR 12 MONTHS AFTER TWO MONTHS AFTER THEY GET THE 

FTC'S DOCUMENTS. WE'RE OPPOSED TO ANY INDEFINITE SCHEDULE FOR 

FACT DISCOVERY. AND, IN FACT, I KNOW THAT JUST A WEEK AGO, 

QUALCOMM PROPOSED A FACT DISCOVERY PERIOD THAT'S JUST STRAIGHT 

OUT 15 MONTHS, AND SO THIS IS A NEW POSITION SINCE THEN. 

YOU KNOW, IN ADDITION, I DON'T SEE THE NEED TO STAY ALL 

THE THIRD PARTY DISCOVERY WHILE QUALCOMM REVIEWS DOCUMENTS. 

THERE ARE CERTAINLY A NUMBER OF THIRD PARTIES WHO WE WOULD BE 

SEEKING DISCOVERY FROM WHO DID NOT PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENTS DURING 

THE FTC'S INVESTIGATION, AND I DON'T SEE ANY REASON TO STAY 

DISCOVERY AS TO THOSE THIRD PARTIES. 

THE COURT: I'M WONDERING IF THERE'S ANY SORT OF 

EXPEDITING PERHAPS MULTIPLE TRACKS, WHETHER YOU CAN INFORM 

QUALCOMM AS TO WHICH THIRD PARTIES YOU OBTAINED NO DISCOVERY 

FROM SO THEN THEY CAN START FRESH KNOWING THAT THERE'S NO 

DUPLICATION POSSIBLE. WOULD YOU BE OPPOSED TO PROVIDING THAT 

INFORMATION? 

OR EVEN JUST SAYING -- I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH 16 C.F.R. 

410(G), SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN SAY AT LEAST HERE'S THE 

LIST, AND WE CAN PROBABLY GUESS THEM NOW WHO THEY ARE. BUT, 

YOU KNOW, HERE'S A LIST OF WHO WE HAVE OBTAINED DISCOVERY FROM, 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 79 Filed 04/25/17 Page 15 of 27
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

16

AND SO THEN QUALCOMM CAN KNOW, WELL, EVERYONE ELSE WAS NOT 

INVOLVED OR DIDN'T PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THEY CAN START FRESH 

WITH THOSE. 

IS THAT POSSIBLE? 

AND I WOULD ASSUME, AT LEAST FOR THE CUSTOMERS, A LOT OF 

THAT IS GOING TO BE DOCUMENTS THAT QUALCOMM ALREADY HAS. 

QUALCOMM MAY HAVE GENERATED THE E-MAILS, DRAFTS, WHATNOT. 

PRESUMABLY THAT CAN BE PRODUCED ON AN EXPEDITED BASIS EVEN 

IF, YOU KNOW, MORE INTERNAL DOCUMENTS THAT QUALCOMM WOULDN'T 

HAVE COULD BE ON A SEPARATE TRACK. 

I'M JUST WONDERING, IS THERE ANY SORT OF EXPEDITING THAT 

COULD BE DONE, OR SOME INFORMATION YOU CAN PROVIDE CONSISTENT 

WITH YOUR C.F.R. OBLIGATIONS THAT WOULD AT LEAST ASSIST 

QUALCOMM IN PUSHING THE BALL FORWARD? 

MS. MILICI: SO I THINK PART OF THE PROBLEM HERE IS 

THE HOLD UP ON THE PROTECTIVE ORDER. 

THE COURT: OKAY. 

MS. MILICI: TYPICALLY WE DON'T, YOU KNOW, IDENTIFY 

SUBMITTERS, COMPANIES THAT SUBMIT DOCUMENTS DURING AN 

INVESTIGATION, YOU KNOW, ON THE PUBLIC RECORD OR TO THE 

ATTORNEY OF THE INVESTIGATION. 

THE COURT: OKAY. 

MS. MILICI: SO WE WOULD WANT SOME PROTECTIVE ORDER 

IN PLACE BEFORE, YOU KNOW, DOING THE NEGATIVE. IF WE'RE GOING 

TO IDENTIFY ANYBODY WHO DIDN'T, WE'RE IDENTIFYING EVERYONE WHO 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 79 Filed 04/25/17 Page 16 of 27
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

17

DID. 

THE COURT: RIGHT. 

MS. MILICI: BUT AS TO YOUR POINT OF, YOU KNOW, ONCE 

THAT'S HAPPENED, COULD WE PRODUCE -- MAKE A LIMITED PRODUCTION 

OF DOCUMENTS THAT, YOU KNOW, QUALCOMM SHOULD ALREADY HAVE 

BECAUSE THEY'RE COMMUNICATIONS WITH QUALCOMM, I MEAN, THAT 

WOULD TAKE A LOT OF WORK ON OUR BEHALF TO IDENTIFY THOSE 

DOCUMENTS. 

THE COURT: UM-HUM. 

MS. MILICI: I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT IT CAN'T BE 

DONE, BUT IT MIGHT NOT BE MORE EFFICIENT. 

THE COURT: UM-HUM. ALL RIGHT. 

WELL, I'M WONDERING IF YOU CAN AT LEAST START, IN YOUR 

COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE THIRD PARTIES, TO NOTIFY THEM OF WHAT'S 

COMING. I MEAN, YOU MAY EVEN WANT TO CONSULT WITH THEM ON THE 

PROTECTIVE ORDER TO PROCEED TO WORK OUT THE MECHANISM THAT WILL 

WORK SO THAT IT DOES NOT GET BOGGED DOWN IN A LOT OF 

LITIGATION, WHICH NOBODY WANTS. 

SO IT COULD BE THAT YOU COULD JUST START DOING SOME OF THE 

LEGWORK NOW. 

MS. MILICI: AND TO BE CLEAR, WE HAVE. 

THE COURT: OKAY, GOOD. 

MS. MILICI: YOU KNOW, THE -- THE NOTICE THAT HASN'T 

BEEN PROVIDED TO THE THIRD PARTIES IS THE NOTICE THAT'S CALLED 

FOR IN THE MODEL PROTECTIVE ORDER, WHICH IS HERE'S THE DOCUMENT 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 79 Filed 04/25/17 Page 17 of 27
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

18

REQUEST, HERE'S THE PROTECTIVE ORDER, HERE'S THE TIMEFRAME IN 

WHICH YOU NEED TO SEEK ADDITIONAL PROTECTION. WE KIND OF CAN'T 

GIVE THAT NOTICE UNTIL THERE'S A PROTECTIVE ORDER. 

BUT, YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY WE CAN GIVE NOTICE THAT THIS 

ISSUE HAS ARISEN. 

THE COURT: WELL, LET ME ASK QUALCOMM, YOU GOT THE 

DRAFT ON APRIL 6TH. CAN YOU EXPEDITE IN GIVING YOUR COMMENTS 

SO WE CAN TRY TO -- I MEAN, I'M HAPPY TO MOVE THIS BACK TO 

APRIL 27TH IF THAT IS HELPFUL. 

I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT IF YOU DON'T GET QUALCOMM'S 

POSITION UNTIL THE END OF THE DAY ON FRIDAY, THE 21ST, THE 27TH 

MIGHT BE TIGHT. BUT MAYBE IT'S NOT. YOU ALL HAVE ALREADY BEEN 

THINKING ABOUT THIS. 

MR. BORNSTEIN: SO, YOUR HONOR, WE'LL DO WHATEVER WE 

CAN TO GET IT TO COUNSEL AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN. AND IF -- 

THE COURT: CAN YOU DO IT TODAY? THAT WOULD HELP. 

MR. BORNSTEIN: I DON'T THINK I CAN DO IT TODAY, YOUR 

HONOR. 

THE COURT: OKAY. WELL, HOW ABOUT TOMORROW? 

MR. BORNSTEIN: WE WILL DO IT TOMORROW IF THAT NEEDS 

TO HAPPEN, ABSOLUTELY. 

THE COURT: OKAY. SO THAT WOULD BE THE 20TH. 

DO YOU STILL THINK ONE WEEK IS ENOUGH TIME? 

MS. MILICI: I MEAN, I THINK WE CAN DO IT IN ONE WEEK 

IF -- WITH SUFFICIENT MOTIVATION. 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 79 Filed 04/25/17 Page 18 of 27
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

19

THE COURT: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WELL, THEN, I'LL MOVE 

YOUR DATE TO FILE EITHER A STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER OR A 

PROTECTIVE ORDER DISPUTE -- WELL, YOU'LL HAVE TO CHECK WITH 

JUDGE COUSINS. FIND OUT WHAT HIS REQUIREMENTS ARE. I CAN'T 

REMEMBER IF HE HAS A -- I'M SURE HE HAS A MEET AND CONFER 

OBLIGATION BEFORE YOU CAN FILE, BUT I JUST DON'T RECALL WHAT 

THE SPECIFICS ARE BEFORE FILING WITH HIM. 

BUT APRIL 27TH WILL BE YOUR DEADLINE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. 

OKAY? 

MR. BORNSTEIN: OKAY. AND I -- YOU KNOW, THE 

PROTECTIVE ORDER, I THINK YOUR HONOR, IF I MAY, THE -- WILL 

ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT COUNSEL WAS EXPRESSING ABOUT 

THIS BEING AN INDEFINITE PERIOD. 

WE'RE NOT SEEKING AN INDEFINITE PERIOD. WHAT WE ENVISION 

IS THAT THERE WOULD BE AN ORDERLY PROCESS WHERE THE NOTICE 

UNDER 410(G) OF THE C.F.R. WOULD BE GIVEN; THERE WOULD BE AN 

OPPORTUNITY FOR THE THIRD PARTIES TO RAISE WHATEVER CONCERNS 

THEY HAVE; THERE WOULD BE A PERIOD OF TIME FOR THOSE CONCERNS 

TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE COURT, WHICH CAN BE ON -- IN WHATEVER 

SCHEDULE IS APPROPRIATE THAT YOUR HONOR OR JUDGE COUSINS DEEMS 

APPROPRIATE; AND THEN WE WOULD GET THE MATERIALS. 

IT WOULDN'T DRAG ON FOREVER, AND I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE 

POSSIBILITY THAT COUNSEL WAS SUGGESTING IT WILL DRAG ON 

FOREVER. 

THAT'S OUR REAL CONCERN IS THAT WE HAVE A BACK END DATE ON 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 79 Filed 04/25/17 Page 19 of 27
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

20

WHEN FACT DISCOVERY MUST END, BUT WE HAVE AN INDEFINITE PERIOD 

OF TIME BEFORE WE KNOW WHAT THE FULL RECORD IS THAT WE'RE 

TAKING DISCOVERY ON. THAT'S OUR REAL CONCERN. WE JUST WANT 

SOME PREDICTABILITY IN TERMS OF WHEN WE'LL GET DOCUMENTS AND 

THEN HAVE ENOUGH TIME WITH THOSE DOCUMENTS TO BE ABLE TO 

CONDUCT DISCOVERY. 

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WELL, I'M NOT GOING TO LET 

THIS CASE DRAG ON, SO -- OKAY. SO LET'S GO THROUGH THE 

SCHEDULE. 

I WOULD LIKE TO -- THIS COMPLAINT WAS FILED IN JANUARY OF 

2017, SO I WOULD LIKE THE TRIAL TO BE WITHIN TWO YEARS, SO I AM 

GOING TO WORK BACKWARDS. 

I AM GOING TO PROPOSE AN EIGHT DAY -- I DO THINK IT'S 

EIGHT DAYS. I MEAN, THIS IS A BENCH TRIAL, SO IT MAY BE LESS, 

BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY DIFFERENT WITNESSES WOULD BE CALLED. 

WHAT DO YOU THINK THE ESTIMATE IS? 

MR. BORNSTEIN: THE INITIAL DISCLOSURES, YOUR HONOR, 

THAT WE RECEIVED FROM THE FTC HAVE 39 QUALCOMM EMPLOYEES AND 44 

THIRD PARTIES, THIRD PARTY ENTITIES -- 

THE COURT: UM-HUM. 

MR. BORNSTEIN: -- WHICH STRIKES ME THAT THIS IS 

GOING TO BE A VERY LARGE DISCOVERY PERIOD AND A LARGE TRIAL. 

THE COURT: OKAY. SO WHAT DO YOU THINK? IF WE 

GET -- WELL, I THINK WITHOUT A JURY, WE'LL GET EVEN MORE -- 

WE'LL GET PROBABLY FIVE HOURS AND 45 MINUTES OF TRANSCRIPT TIME 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 79 Filed 04/25/17 Page 20 of 27
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

21

EVERY DAY, MAYBE EVEN SIX HOURS BECAUSE THERE WILL BE FEWER OF 

THE TYPES OF DISCUSSIONS WITHOUT A JURY. SO HOW MANY DAYS DO 

YOU THINK? 

MR. BORNSTEIN: WELL, COUNSEL AND I HAVE NOT HAD THE 

OPPORTUNITY TO CONFER ON THE SUBJECT. 

THE COURT: UM-HUM. 

MR. BORNSTEIN: WOULD IT BE ACCEPTABLE TO YOUR HONOR 

IF WE HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT BEFORE WE GET BACK TO 

THE COURT? 

THE COURT: THAT'S FINE. AND, YOU KNOW, IT FRANKLY 

DOESN'T MATTER. I JUST NEED TO SET THE START DATE. WE CAN END 

AT WHATEVER POINT YOU WANT TO. BUT I WOULD SET TIME LIMITS. 

MR. BORNSTEIN: OF COURSE. 

THE COURT: SO I'LL SAY FOR NOW, ASSUMING WE GET FIVE 

AND A HALF HOURS OF TRANSCRIPT TIME EACH DAY, I WOULD ASSUME -- 

LET'S SAY YOU EACH GOT 25 HOURS, OR EVEN 20, 20 TO 25 HOURS OF 

EVIDENCE. SAY YOU GOT, WHAT, 40 MINUTES EACH FOR OPENING, AN 

HOUR AND A HALF IF YOU THINK NECESSARY, ALTHOUGH I THINK AN 

HOUR WOULD BE BETTER. WHAT ABOUT AN HOUR FOR CLOSING AND 45 

MINUTES FOR OPENING, 20 HOURS OF EVIDENCE EACH? 

OKAY. WE HAVE NO JURY SELECTION. WE'VE GOT NO JURY 

INSTRUCTIONS, SO WE DON'T NEED TO SAVE ANY TIME FOR THAT. 

SO WHAT DOES THAT WORK OUT TO BE? 

(PAUSE IN PROCEEDINGS.) 

THE COURT: ROUGHLY 44 HOURS, SO THAT'S ABOUT EIGHT 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 79 Filed 04/25/17 Page 21 of 27
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

22

DAYS. 

MS. MILICI: YOUR HONOR, THAT TIME MIGHT BE TIGHT, 

BUT I'M ASSUMING THAT WE COULD ADDRESS THAT LATER IF THAT -- 

THE COURT: YEAH, WE CAN FINE TUNE THIS LATER. 

MS. MILICI: OKAY. 

THE COURT: IT'S NOT -- I'LL PUT IT NOW FOR NINE 

DAYS. BUT I REALLY THINK THAT -- YOU KNOW, I'M GOING TO GO 

AHEAD AND PUT IT FOR EIGHT NOW. WE CAN FINE TUNE IT LATER. 

BUT THERE WILL BE STRICT TIME LIMITS, SO -- BUT AS THE CASE 

DEVELOPS, YOU CAN LET ME KNOW WHAT'S MORE REALISTIC OR NOT. 

OKAY. SO THAT WILL BE STARTING JANUARY 4TH OF 2019 AT 

9:00 O'CLOCK; WE'LL HAVE THE FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE 

DECEMBER 13, 2018, AT 1:30; WE'LL HAVE A HEARING ON DISPOSITIVE 

MOTIONS OCTOBER 18 OF 2018 AT 1:30. 

AND THE REASON WHY I PUT IN TWO MONTHS IS THAT IF IT'S A 

GRANT IN PART OR A GRANT IN FULL, I NEED TO GIVE YOU A WRITTEN 

ORDER THAT YOU CAN APPEAL AND, YOU KNOW, IT MAY TAKE AT LEAST A 

MONTH AFTER THE HEARING TO GET THAT OUT. 

AND THEN UNDER MY STANDING ORDER, YOU'LL NEED TO MEET AND 

CONFER 21 DAYS IN ADVANCE OF THE PRETRIAL CONFERENCE AND FILE 

YOUR PRETRIAL DOCUMENTS 14 AND 10 DAYS BEFORE THE PRETRIAL 

CONFERENCE. 

SO THAT JUST BUILDS IN A MONTH TO GET THE ORDER OUT, AND 

THEN A MONTH FOR YOU TO DO ALL THE PRETRIAL PREP BEFORE THE 

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE. AND THAT WAY YOU'RE NOT HAVING TO ARGUE 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 79 Filed 04/25/17 Page 22 of 27
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

23

MOTIONS IN LIMINE IN THE ALTERNATIVE AND YOU'LL HAVE A RULING 

IN HAND AND A BETTER SENSE OF THE SCOPE OF THE CASE. 

OKAY. SO BUILDING IN THE SORT OF -- HMM. WHAT ABOUT 

SEPTEMBER 28TH, 2018, FOR THE DAUBERT REPLIES AND SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT REPLIES -- THIS MIGHT BE A LITTLE -- HOW MANY WEEKS IS 

THAT? 

(PAUSE IN PROCEEDINGS.) 

THE COURT: OKAY. SO SEPTEMBER 28TH, 2018, IS THE 

DATE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DAUBERT REPLIES; SEPTEMBER 10TH 

OF 2018 IS THE DATE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DAUBERT 

OPPOSITIONS; AUGUST 10TH, 2018, IS THE LAST DAY TO FILE 

DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS AND DAUBERT MOTIONS. 

NOW, YOU CAN FILE ANY DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS EARLIER, BUT I 

USUALLY LIMIT DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS TO ONE PER SIDE IN THE WHOLE 

CASE. YOU CAN FILE IT ANY TIME, BUT I DISCOURAGE YOU FILING IT 

PREMATURELY BECAUSE THEN WE'LL JUST GET A 56(D) OPPOSITION AND 

IT'LL BE A WASTE OF TIME. SO THERE'S ONE PER SIDE IN THE WHOLE 

CASE. THAT'S AUGUST 10. 

THEN THE CLOSE OF EXPERT DISCOVERY IS JULY 20TH, 2018; 

PLAINTIFF'S REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORTS, JUNE 22; DEFENDANT'S 

EXPERT REPORTS, MAY 25; PLAINTIFF'S OPENING EXPERT REPORTS, 

APRIL 20TH OF 2018; CLOSE OF FACT DISCOVERY, MARCH 30TH OF 

2018; AND WE HAVE THE HEARING ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS SET FOR 

JUNE 15, 2017, AND YOU ALL HAVE STIPULATED TO THE BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE, SO I THINK THAT'S FINE. 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 79 Filed 04/25/17 Page 23 of 27
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

24

WE HAVE A REPLY DATE OF JUNE 2ND; AN OPPOSITION DATE OF 

MAY 12; AND WE SET APRIL 27TH AS THE FILING DATE FOR THE 

PROTECTIVE ORDER. 

I WOULD SET A FURTHER CMC FOR AFTER THE HEARING SO YOU 

HAVE THE ORDER IN HAND. WHAT ABOUT JULY 19, 2017, AT 2:00 

O'CLOCK? 

MS. MILICI: THAT'S FINE FOR THE FTC, YOUR HONOR. 

THANK YOU. 

MR. BORNSTEIN: YOUR HONOR, MAY I ASK YOUR PERMISSION 

TO LOOK AT MY PHONE TO MAKE SURE THAT I'M NOT SUPPOSED TO BE 

WITH MY KIDS THAT WEEK ON A VACATION? 

THE COURT: YES, PLEASE. 

MR. BORNSTEIN: OKAY. THANK YOU. 

THE COURT: PLEASE. 

(PAUSE IN PROCEEDINGS.) 

MR. BORNSTEIN: YES, THAT'S FINE, YOUR HONOR. 

I APOLOGIZE FOR HAVING TO DO THAT. 

THE COURT: OKAY. NO, NO, NO PROBLEM. 

OKAY. DO YOU NEED ME TO REPEAT THE SCHEDULE? WE'LL ISSUE 

A CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER WITH ALL THESE DATES IN IT, BUT I'M 

HAPPY TO REPEAT IT BECAUSE THIS IS A LOT OF -- THIS IS A LONG 

LIST OF DATES. 

MS. MILICI: I THINK WE'VE GOT IT. 

MR. BORNSTEIN: I THINK WE HAVE IT. 

THE COURT: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 79 Filed 04/25/17 Page 24 of 27
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

25

MR. BORNSTEIN: THANK YOU. 

THE COURT: I'M SORRY. GO AHEAD. 

MR. BORNSTEIN: I WAS JUST GOING TO -- I WANTED TO 

PUT ONE ISSUE ON THE TABLE THAT MAY COME UP IN THE FUTURE, JUST 

SO THERE ARE NO SURPRISES IF WE HAVE TO SPEAK WITH COUNSEL OR 

WITH THE COURT ABOUT THIS AT SOME POINT. 

THE COURT: OKAY. 

MR. BORNSTEIN: BUT AS WE NOTED, THERE'S A VERY LARGE 

NUMBER OF THIRD PARTIES THAT ARE OVERSEAS THAT WILL COMPLICATE 

THE DISCOVERY PROCESS, AND SO I JUST WANTED TO RAISE THE 

POSSIBILITY THAT IF WE REACH THE END OF FACT DISCOVERY AND 

THERE'S A DELAY IN GETTING INFORMATION BECAUSE OF HAGUE 

CONVENTION PROCESSES, I HOPE THE COURT WILL INDULGE US IN BEING 

ABLE TO CONTINUE TO RECEIVE THE INFORMATION AND TAKE FACT 

DISCOVERY THAT -- WHERE THE DELAY IS CAUSED BY ISSUES THAT ARE 

OUT OF OUR CONTROL, LIKE THE HAGUE CONVENTION PROCESSES. 

THE COURT: I'LL CERTAINLY CONSIDER ANY ISSUES THAT 

COME UP. I WILL EXPECT FULL DILIGENCE, THOUGH. 

MR. BORNSTEIN: OF COURSE, YOUR HONOR. 

THE COURT: AND IF IT TURNS OUT THAT A HAGUE 

CONVENTION REQUEST, YOU KNOW, WAS MADE TO GERMANY, OR ANY 

COUNTRY THAT TAKES A REALLY LONG TIME, LIKE TWO WEEKS BEFORE 

FACT DISCOVERY CUTOFF, I MAY NOT BE THAT SYMPATHETIC. 

MR. BORNSTEIN: NO. 

THE COURT: SO AS LONG AS THERE'S BEEN FULL 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 79 Filed 04/25/17 Page 25 of 27
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

26

DILIGENCE, THEN, YES, I AM NOT GOING TO DISADVANTAGE A PARTY 

BECAUSE THEY'RE STILL WAITING FOR SOME EMBASSY TO -- YOU KNOW, 

YOU'RE STILL WAITING ON LETTERS ROGATORY OR, YOU KNOW, SOME 

PROCESS STILL HAS NOT TAKEN PLACE IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY. 

MR. BORNSTEIN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. I APPRECIATE 

THAT. WE WILL, OF COURSE, BE DILIGENT IN PURSUING THAT. 

THE COURT: OKAY. WHAT ELSE? ANYTHING ELSE TODAY? 

MS. MILICI: NOT FOR THE FTC. 

MR. BORNSTEIN: NO, WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING, EITHER, 

YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU. 

THE COURT: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU ALL VERY 

MUCH. 

MS. MILICI: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OKAY. THANK YOU. 

THE CLERK: COURT IS ADJOURNED. 

(THE PROCEEDINGS WERE CONCLUDED AT 11:00 A.M.)

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 79 Filed 04/25/17 Page 26 of 27
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER

I, THE UNDERSIGNED OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER OF THE UNITED 

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, 

280 SOUTH FIRST STREET, SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA, DO HEREBY 

CERTIFY: 

THAT THE FOREGOING TRANSCRIPT, CERTIFICATE INCLUSIVE, IS 

A CORRECT TRANSCRIPT FROM THE RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE 

ABOVE-ENTITLED MATTER. 

_______________________________

LEE-ANNE SHORTRIDGE, CSR, CRR 

CERTIFICATE NUMBER 9595

DATED: APRIL 25, 2017

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 79 Filed 04/25/17 Page 27 of 27