Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Hulu, LLC

REPLY in support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Summary Judgment as to of No Invalidity Based on the Rejaie Reference 262

C.D. Cal.March 25, 2019

SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO INVALIDITY BASED ON THE REJAIE REFERENCE 1 Case No. LACV17-04146 JAK (PLAx) 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 RUSS AUGUST & KABAT Marc A. Fenster (SBN 181067) mfenster@raklaw.com Benjamin T. Wang (SBN 228712) bwang@raklaw.com Kent N. Shum (SBN 259189) kshum@raklaw.com 12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor Los Angeles, California 90025 Tel: (310) 826-7474 Fax: (310) 826-6991 DESMARAIS LLP Alan S. Kellman (admitted pro hac vice) Richard M. Cowell (admitted pro hac vice) C. Austin Ginnings (admitted pro hac vice) Kerri-Ann Limbeek (admitted pro hac vice) Jennifer M. Przybylski (admitted pro hac vice) Steven M. Balcof (admitted pro hac vice) 230 Park Avenue New York, New York 10169 Tel: (212) 351-3400 Fax: (212) 351-3401 Peter C. Magic (SBN 278917) 101 California Street, Suite 3070 San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: (415) 573-1900 Fax: (415) 573-1901 Attorneys for Plaintiff Sound View Innovations, LLC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. HULU, LLC, Defendant. Case No. LACV17-04146 JAK (PLAx) REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO INVALIDITY BASED ON THE REJAIE REFERENCE Date: April 15, 2019 Time: 8:30 a.m. Hon. Judge John A. Kronstadt Courtroom: 10B Case 2:17-cv-04146-JAK-PLA Document 357 Filed 03/25/19 Page 1 of 12 Page ID #:20372 SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO INVALIDITY BASED ON THE REJAIE REFERENCE i Case No. LACV17-04146 JAK (PLAx) 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 TABLE OF CONTENTS Pages I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 II. ARGUMENT................................................................................................... 2 A. There Is No Genuine Dispute That The Rejaie Reference Is Not A Prior Art Printed Publication. ................................................................ 2 B. Hulu May Not Now Substitute The Rejaie Reference For A Different Reference From The Same Authors. ..................................... 3 1. Hulu’s Public Availability Arguments Relate to Three Different Documents-None of Which Is The Rejaie Reference. ................................................................................... 4 2. Hulu Did Not Disclose The Three New Rejaie Documents As Invalidating Prior Art At Appropriate Stages Of Discovery. ................................................................................... 4 III. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 7 Case 2:17-cv-04146-JAK-PLA Document 357 Filed 03/25/19 Page 2 of 12 Page ID #:20373 SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO INVALIDITY BASED ON THE REJAIE REFERENCE ii Case No. LACV17-04146 JAK (PLAx) 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 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases ............................................................................................................... Page(s) CH2O, Inc. v. Meras Eng’g, Inc., Case No. 13-CV-8418-JAK-GJSX, 2016 WL 7645734 (C.D. Cal. May 9, 2016) ................................................................................................................ 4 Cordis Corp. v. Bos. Sci. Corp., 561 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ................................................................... 2, 3 Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-01197-WHO, 2016 WL 2988834 (N.D. Cal. May 24, 2016) ................................................................................................................ 7 Hilgraeve, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 271 F. Supp. 2d 964 (E.D. Mich. 2003) .......................................................... 1 Signal IP v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., Case No. 14-CV-2457-JAK-JEMX, 2016 WL 4923575 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2016) .......................................................................................................... 6 Statutes 35 U.S.C. § 102 .......................................................................................................... 3 35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................................... 3 Rules Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 ....................................................................................................... 6 Case 2:17-cv-04146-JAK-PLA Document 357 Filed 03/25/19 Page 3 of 12 Page ID #:20374 SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO INVALIDITY BASED ON THE REJAIE REFERENCE 1 Case No. LACV17-04146 JAK (PLAx) 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 I. INTRODUCTION Hulu’s Opposition (Dkt. No. 313 (“Opposition”)) to Sound View’s Motion for Summary Judgment of No Invalidity Based on the Rejaie Reference (Dkt. No. 262 (“Motion”)) does not raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the Rejaie Reference is prior art to U.S. Patent No. 6,708,213 (the “’213 Patent”).1 Hulu does not cite a single fact indicating that the Rejaie Reference-a document bearing the date January 22, 1999, but not indicating whether that date is a date of publication-was published or otherwise made available to the public prior the filing date of the ’213 Patent. Nor does Hulu dispute the legal premise of Sound View’s Motion-namely, that a date printed on a document, without more, is not clear and convincing evidence that the document was published on that date.2 Instead, Hulu argues that there is a genuine dispute as to whether other documents prepared by the same author are prior art to the ’213 Patent, and suggests that the availability of those documents could establish the public availability of the Rejaie Reference. Hulu’s Opposition is wrongheaded because it focuses on the public availability of documents other than the Rejaie Reference. The Rejaie Reference is the only document that Hulu disclosed as the basis of an invalidity defense as required by the Court’s Standing Patent Rules. Prior to filing its Opposition, Hulu did not indicate that it intended to assert an invalidity defense based on any of its newly-identified documents, alone or in combination with the Rejaie Reference (the document dated January 22, 1999), and Hulu does not identify good cause for being able to change its invalidity theory now. Because there is no genuine dispute that the Rejaie Reference was not a publicly available printed publication prior to the filing date of the ’213 1 On March 20, 2019, the parties jointly stipulated to dismiss with prejudice all claims, defenses, and counterclaims pertaining to U.S. Patent No. 6,757,796. See Dkt. No. 336. Thus, Sound View’s Motion is moot as to the ’796 Patent. 2 See Motion at 4-5 (citing Hilgraeve, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 271 F. Supp. 2d 964, 975 (E.D. Mich. 2003)). Case 2:17-cv-04146-JAK-PLA Document 357 Filed 03/25/19 Page 4 of 12 Page ID #:20375 SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO INVALIDITY BASED ON THE REJAIE REFERENCE 2 Case No. LACV17-04146 JAK (PLAx) 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 Patent, the Court should grant summary judgment of no invalidity in view of the Rejaie Reference. II. ARGUMENT A. There Is No Genuine Dispute That The Rejaie Reference Is Not A Prior Art Printed Publication. Sound View moved for summary judgment of no invalidity in view of the “Rejaie Reference”: an article entitled “Proxy Caching Mechanism for Multimedia Playback Streams in the Internet” and dated January 22, 1999. In its Opposition to Sound View’s Motion, Hulu submitted a declaration from Mr. Reza Rejaie, who purports to be the author of the Rejaie Reference. See Dkt. No. 313-2 ¶ 3. Mr. Rejaie’s declaration states that the Rejaie Reference is a draft article he sent to the organizers of the Fourth International Web Caching Workshop “on or about January 22, 1999.” See id. ¶¶ 4, 9. Mr. Rejaie also explains that, after the organizers accepted the Rejaie Reference, he and others revised it several times, and those various revised versions were distributed throughout March and April 1999 at the Web Caching Workshop, on the Workshop’s web site, and via Mr. Rejaie’s own university web site. Id. ¶¶ 5-7, 10-11. Mr. Rejaie does not, however, indicate that the Rejaie Reference (the document dated January 22, 1999) was published or otherwise made available to anyone but the conference organizers at any time. When no pertinent facts are in dispute-as is the case here regarding the Rejaie Reference-whether an alleged prior art reference is a prior art “printed publication” is a question of law. Cordis Corp. v. Bos. Sci. Corp., 561 F.3d 1319, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Under Federal Circuit precedent, an article shared with others is publicly accessible, and thus a prior art printed publication, only if it “has been disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art, exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it[.]” Id. at 1333. Case 2:17-cv-04146-JAK-PLA Document 357 Filed 03/25/19 Page 5 of 12 Page ID #:20376 SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO INVALIDITY BASED ON THE REJAIE REFERENCE 3 Case No. LACV17-04146 JAK (PLAx) 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 Hulu does not contend that Mr. Rejaie published the Rejaie Reference by sharing it with the Web Caching Workshop organizers. Nor could it: as the Federal Circuit held in Cordis, an article distributed “to a limited number of entities without a legal obligation of confidentiality” is not a printed publication absent evidence that the article was shared more broadly with members of the interested public. Id. at 1333-35. As with the reference at issue in Cordis, there is no evidence here that the Rejaie Reference dated January 22, 1999 was shared with or made available to members of the interested public, rather than just the individuals responsible for vetting articles for the Web Caching Workshop. Instead, Hulu’s Opposition, and the facts cited therein, indicate only that subsequent versions of the Rejaie Reference (i.e., other documents that Hulu chose not to pursue as the basis of an invalidity theory) were made available to the public. Accordingly, no genuine dispute exists that the Rejaie Reference is not prior art under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103, and the Court should grant summary judgment of no invalidity in view of the Rejaie Reference. B. Hulu May Not Now Substitute The Rejaie Reference For A Different Reference From The Same Authors. In arguing that Sound View is not entitled to summary judgment, Hulu’s Opposition takes as given that it may replace the Rejaie Reference (the document dated January 22, 1999) with other, similar documents that Hulu did not elect as the basis for invalidity theories in its invalidity contentions or expert report. But that assumption runs counter to the Court’s Standing Patent Rules, which require an accused infringer to give early and adequate notice of the specific prior art references that form the basis of its invalidity defense. Because Hulu did not disclose those other documents at the appropriate stages of discovery, Hulu may not now rely on those references as the basis for an invalidity defense. Case 2:17-cv-04146-JAK-PLA Document 357 Filed 03/25/19 Page 6 of 12 Page ID #:20377 SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO INVALIDITY BASED ON THE REJAIE REFERENCE 4 Case No. LACV17-04146 JAK (PLAx) 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 1. Hulu’s Public Availability Arguments Relate To Three Different Documents-None Of Which Is The Rejaie Reference. Hulu’s Opposition to Sound View’s Motion contends that revised versions of the Rejaie Reference were published in March or April 1999. First, Hulu contends that a revised version of the Rejaie Reference (the “March 24, 1999 Revision”) was distributed to attendees of the International Web Caching Workshop. See Opp. at 2, 3 (arguing that inventors of the ’213 Patent cited this document in an article). Second, Hulu contends that another version of Rejaie (the “Web Site Revision”), containing further revisions, was posted to the Workshop’s web site. See id. at 2, 4 (noting that print-out of this web page was cited during prosecution of the ’796 patent). Finally, Hulu contends that Mr. Rejaie posted a fourth version of his article (the “April 16, 1999 Revision”), containing still further revisions, on his own university web site. See id. at 2-3. Mr. Rejaie’s declaration confirms that all three of those documents (collectively, “the new Rejaie documents”) differ from one another, and from the Rejaie Reference (the document dated January 22, 1999). Dkt. No. 313-2 ¶¶ 5-7, 9-11. 2. Hulu Did Not Disclose The Three New Rejaie Documents As Invalidating Prior Art At Appropriate Stages Of Discovery. “The local patent rules [...] requir[e] both the plaintiff and the defendant in patent cases to provide early notice of their infringement and invalidity contentions, and to proceed with diligence in amending those contentions when new information comes to light in the course of discovery.” CH2O, Inc. v. Meras Eng’g, Inc., Case No. 13-CV- 8418-JAK-GJSX, 2016 WL 7645734, at *9 (C.D. Cal. May 9, 2016) (quoting O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Monolithic Power Sys., Inc., 467 F.3d 1355, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 2006)) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court’s Initial Standing Order for Patent Cases provides that, within fourteen days of the scheduling conference in a patent case, a party opposing a claim of patent infringement must serve Invalidity Contentions containing “[t]he identity of each item of prior art that allegedly anticipates each asserted claim or Case 2:17-cv-04146-JAK-PLA Document 357 Filed 03/25/19 Page 7 of 12 Page ID #:20378 SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO INVALIDITY BASED ON THE REJAIE REFERENCE 5 Case No. LACV17-04146 JAK (PLAx) 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 renders it obvious.” S.P.R. 2.5-2.5.1. In such contentions, alleged prior art publications must be identified by “title, date of publication, author and publisher,” and a copy of each piece of prior art must be produced along with the contentions. Id. (emphasis added); S.P.R. 2.6.2. The Standing Order further requires that invalidity contentions state “[w]hether each item of prior art anticipates each asserted claim or renders [the claim] obvious” and attach a chart “identifying where specifically in each alleged item of prior art each limitation of each asserted claim is found[.]” S.P.R. 2.5.2, 2.5.3. These contentions may be updated only “for good cause” after claim construction. S.P.R. at 4.2.2. The Standing Order also requires service of “Rule 26 expert reports on issues where the party opposing a claim of patent infringement bears the burden of proof.” S.P.R. 4.2.1. In this case, Hulu’s final deadline for serving invalidity-related expert reports and good cause amendments to its invalidity contentions was August 31, 2018. Dkt. No. 95 at 2. Although Hulu’s Opposition refers to the Rejaie Reference and the three new Rejaie documents as though they are a single prior art reference, Hulu did not treat or assert the four references as a single reference during discovery, including in its contentions and expert report. Hulu produced to Sound View just three of the documents cited in its Opposition: the Rejaie Reference, the Web Site Revision, and the April 16, 1999 Revision. Dkt. No. 313-2, Exhs. A-D (only Exhs. B-D including Bates numbers). Hulu identified and charted only two of those documents in its Initial and Final Invalidity Contentions: the Rejaie Reference and the April 16, 1999 Revision. See Dkt. No. 262-8 at 139. And Dr. Chase’s invalidity report offers opinions about only the Rejaie Reference.3 See Dkt. No. 262-3 ¶¶ 189, 220. 3 Dr. Chase’s expert report also claims that his opinions regarding the Rejaie reference “apply fully” to a different reference, “Rejaie II,” dated “4/1/99” and running 15 pages in length (whereas the Rejaie Reference is 11 pages long). See Dkt. No. 262-3 (Chase Opening Rprt.) ¶¶ 189, 220. To the extent Dr. Chase uses “Rejaie II” to refer to the March 24, 1999 Revision or Web Site Revision of the Rejaie Reference, those portions of his report should be stricken because Hulu did not disclose either reference as required by the Local Patent Rules. See Signal IP v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., Case No. 14- Case 2:17-cv-04146-JAK-PLA Document 357 Filed 03/25/19 Page 8 of 12 Page ID #:20379 SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO INVALIDITY BASED ON THE REJAIE REFERENCE 6 Case No. LACV17-04146 JAK (PLAx) 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 Hulu now argues-or, more accurately, assumes-that it may nevertheless replace the Rejaie Reference with these alternative references. But Hulu offers no reason why it should be allowed to do so. Following the service of its initial invalidity contentions, Hulu had nine months in which to investigate the public availability and disclosures of possible prior art references and to decide which to select as the basis for prior art invalidity defenses. See Dkt. No. 46 at 1 (initial contentions due November 2017); Dkt. No. 95 at 2 (final contentions due August 2018). After a process of winnowing prior art-opting to produce only three of the four Rejaie documents, providing invalidity contentions regarding only two of the three documents it produced, and ultimately soliciting an expert opinion regarding just one of the documents identified in its contentions-Hulu elected to base its invalidity defense on the Rejaie Reference alone. Hulu’s Opposition does not identify good cause to permit Hulu to reverse its considered decision now, almost six months after the due date of expert reports, and less than three months from trial. Nor does Hulu cite any legal basis for treating the four different Rejaie documents as a single prior art reference. Although Mr. Rejaie’s declaration makes several statements about the “substantive” similarity of the “technical disclosures and subject matter” of the Rejaie Reference (the document dated January 22, 1999) and the three other Rejaie documents (see, e.g., Dkt. No. 313-2 ¶¶ 9-12), his assertions-coming, as they do, from a third party who did not provide an expert opinion in this case and who does not purport to know about the parties’ factual and legal disputes regarding the Rejaie Reference-do not show that the documents are identical in all relevant respects.4 CV-2457-JAK-JEMX, 2016 WL 4923575, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2016) (explaining that “expert reports may not introduce theories not set forth in contentions”). 4 Until Hulu submitted his declaration with its Opposition to Sound View’s Motion, Mr. Rejaie had no involvement in this case. Hulu did not even name Mr. Rejaie in its Initial Disclosures as an “individual likely to have discoverable information . . . that [Hulu might] use to support its claims or defenses[,]” as it was required to do if it intended to rely upon Mr. Rejaie’s testimony in this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(i); Exh. Case 2:17-cv-04146-JAK-PLA Document 357 Filed 03/25/19 Page 9 of 12 Page ID #:20380 SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO INVALIDITY BASED ON THE REJAIE REFERENCE 7 Case No. LACV17-04146 JAK (PLAx) 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 Moreover, even assuming the various Rejaie references are substantively similar, Hulu’s Opposition cites no legal authority for the proposition that a reasonable jury could find that a specific reference is a prior art printed publication simply because other, similar references were allegedly available before the critical date. In fact, as, Sound View explained in its Motion, pertinent legal authority points in the opposite direction: a party cannot prove the public availability of a reference by demonstrating that a related reference was publicly available at the relevant time. See Motion at 10- 11 (citing Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-01197-WHO, 2016 WL 2988834, at *25 (N.D. Cal. May 24, 2016)) (public availability of a prior art software program did not demonstrate public availability of user manual for that program). Thus, the existence of a genuine dispute as to whether the three new Rejaie documents are prior art to the ’213 Patent cannot create a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the public availability of the Rejaie Reference. III. CONCLUSION Because Hulu cannot prove that the Rejaie Reference (the document dated January 22, 1999) was publicly available before the filing date of the ’213 Patent, the Court should grant summary judgment that the Rejaie Reference is not prior art and, accordingly, that the ’213 Patent is not invalid based on the Rejaie Combinations cited in Sound View’s Motion. 1 to the Supplemental Declaration of Jennifer M. Przybylski in Support of Sound View’s Reply in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment of No Invalidity Based on the Rejaie Reference. Case 2:17-cv-04146-JAK-PLA Document 357 Filed 03/25/19 Page 10 of 12 Page ID #:20381 SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO INVALIDITY BASED ON THE REJAIE REFERENCE 8 Case No. LACV17-04146 JAK (PLAx) 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 Dated: March 25, 2019 By: /s/ Kent N. Shum RUSS AUGUST & KABAT Marc A. Fenster Benjamin T. Wang Kent N. Shum 12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor Los Angeles, California 90025 Tel: (310) 826-7474 Fax: (310) 826-6991 mfenster@raklaw.com bwang@raklaw.com kshum@raklaw.com Of Counsel: DESMARAIS LLP Alan S. Kellman (admitted pro hac vice) Richard M. Cowell (admitted pro hac vice) C. Austin Ginnings (admitted pro hac vice) Kerri-Ann Limbeek (admitted pro hac vice) Jennifer M. Przybylski (admitted pro hac vice) Steven M. Balcof (admitted pro hac vice) 230 Park Avenue New York, NY 10169 Tel: (212) 351-3400 Fax: (212) 351-3401 akellman@desmaraisllp.com rcowell@desmaraisllp.com aginnings@desmaraisllp.com klimbeek@desmaraisllp.com jprzybylski@desmaraisllp.com sbalcof@desmaraisllp.com Peter C. Magic (SBN 278917) 101 California Street, Suite 3070 San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: (415) 573-1900 Fax: (415) 573-1901 pmagic@desmaraisllp.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Sound View Innovations, LLC Case 2:17-cv-04146-JAK-PLA Document 357 Filed 03/25/19 Page 11 of 12 Page ID #:20382 SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO INVALIDITY BASED ON THE REJAIE REFERENCE 1 Case No. LACV17-04146 JAK (PLAx) 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 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was filed electronically in compliance with Local Rule 5-3.2. Therefore, this document was served on all counsel who are deemed to have consented to electronic service. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(d) and Local Rule 5-3.2, all other counsel of record not deemed to have consented to electronic service were served with a true and correct copy of the foregoing by email on March 25, 2019. /s/ Kent N. Shum Case 2:17-cv-04146-JAK-PLA Document 357 Filed 03/25/19 Page 12 of 12 Page ID #:20383