Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Hulu, LLC

REPLY IN SUPPORT NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Exclude IN PART THE TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL JEFFORDS 247

C.D. Cal.March 25, 2019

SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO EXCLUDE IN PART THE TESTIMONY OF MR. MICHAEL JEFFORDS 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) pmagic@desmaraisllp.com 101 California Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: (415) 573-1900 Fax: (415) 573-1901 Attorneys for Plaintiff SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC IN THE 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) PLAINTIFF SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO EXCLUDE IN PART THE TESTIMONY OF MR. MICHAEL JEFFORDS Date: April 15, 2019 Time: 8:30am Hon. John A. Kronstadt Courtroom 10B Redacted Version Of Document Proposed To Be Filed Under Seal Case 2:17-cv-04146-JAK-PLA Document 359 Filed 03/25/19 Page 1 of 13 Page ID #:20462 SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO EXCLUDE IN PART THE TESTIMONY OF MR. MICHAEL JEFFORDS 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 Hulu’s opposition focuses on whether comparison with an available, acceptable, non-infringing alternative (“NIA”) is a valid measure of damages.1 But the problem with Mr. Jeffords’s opinions is that there is no evidence that any NIA on which he relies is actually non-infringing, available, and acceptable. Hulu cannot show otherwise; the Court should thus exclude Mr. Jeffords’s affirmative testimony and royalty numbers. I. ARGUMENT A. Hulu Cannot Justify Mr. Jeffords’s Uncritical Reliance On Hulu’s Engineers’ Lay Opinions As set out in Sound View’s opening brief, Mr. Jeffords parroted the lay opinions of Hulu engineers, Mr. Rangel and Mr. Darnault, with respect to the availability and acceptability of each supposed NIA. (D.I. 2492 at 7-10, 13-15.) Throughout its opposition, Hulu attempts to overcome this deficiency by claiming that the engineers were providing facts, not opinions, to Hulu’s experts. Hulu also claims that Sound View is presenting a “double standard” by using the engineers’ sworn testimony evidence in its own reports, while objecting to Hulu’s use of unsworn, unrecorded conversations in Hulu’s reports. (D.I. 304 at 14, 16; see also D.I. 249 at 13-14.) Hulu is wrong. First, there is no foundation for Hulu’s engineers to provide factual testimony of availability-whether Hulu could have implemented the NIA-and acceptability- what kind of impact the NIA would have had on Hulu. Neither engineer worked at Hulu in 2010 (the time of the hypothetical negotiation for the ’062 and ’213 patents), and there is no evidence that either engineer has any personal knowledge of Hulu’s operations at that time. (See D.I. 249 at 7, 9.) Hulu attempts to overcome this deficiency 1 Hulu cites repeatedly to Prism Techs. LLC, 849 F.3d at 1360, to support Mr. Jeffords’s model. (See D.I. 304 at 6.) But there was no dispute as to the availability and acceptability of the NIAs in that case. See Prism, 849 F.3d at 1376 (“[T]he uncontroverted evidence showed that Sprint would have chosen to build its own backhaul network in the absence of a license.”). 2 Citations to D.I. 249 and 304 without specification as to an exhibit are citations to the sealed copy of Plaintiff Sound View’s Motion To Exclude In Part The Testimony Of Mr. Michael Jeffords and Hulu’s corresponding opposition brief, respectively. Redacted Version Of Document Proposed To Be Filed Under SealCase 2:17-cv-04146-JAK-PLA Document 359 Filed 03/25/19 Page 2 of 13 Page ID #:20463 SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO EXCLUDE IN PART THE TESTIMONY OF MR. MICHAEL JEFFORDS 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 by noting that both were experienced software engineers at 2010, but that does not show that they have “personal knowledge” of Hulu with respect to the NIAs, as required. Fed. R. Evid. 602. Instead of factual testimony based on their personal knowledge, Hulu seeks to use the engineers to analyze hypothetical situations based on their experience; that is exactly the subject of expert testimony. (D.I. 304 at 7-9.) Second, there is no double standard at work here. The engineers’ sworn deposition testimony is evidence, developed through discovery, and equally available to both sides. The engineers’ phone discussions with Hulu’s experts are unrecorded, unsworn, and not even present in the memory of Mr. Jeffords. (E.g., Cowell Decl. Ex. 13 at 65:2-13, 212:1-12.) Moreover, Sound View never even had the opportunity to obtain these opinions. Neither witness was disclosed as having knowledge of any NIAs until long after their deposition, and Hulu did not designate them as its 30(b)(6) witness for Sound View’s NIA topics. Instead, Hulu’s 30(b)(6) witness on NIAs,4 Mr. Skotarczyk, stated “I don’t know” to each question when asked: i) if Hulu was aware of any non-infringing alternatives; ii) what it would cost for Hulu to avoid infringement; and iii) what it would cost Hulu to implement any non-infringing alternatives. (Cowell Decl. Ex. 3 at 188:5-189:7.) B. Hulu Fails To Identify Any Evidence Supporting Mr. Jeffords’ ’062 Patent Opinions As Sound View explained in its opening brief, the Court should exclude Mr. Jeffords’s ’062 patent opinions because Hulu cannot show at trial that any of the five supposed NIAs were non-infringing, available, and acceptable. (D.I. 249 at 7-8.) Hulu 3 Included in Exhibit 1 are pages 172-192, 212, and 213 of Mr. Jeffords’s deposition, which were cited in Sound View’s opening memorandum in support of this motion, but inadvertently not included with it. 4 Mr. Skotarczyk was designated to testify regarding Topic No. 16 in Sound View’s 30(b)(6) notice: “Your efforts to avoid infringement or design around the Patents-In- Suit, including the availability of alleged non-infringing alternatives and the actual or anticipated cost of avoiding infringement or designing around the Patents-In-Suit.” (Cowell Decl. Ex. 4 at Schedule B, page 3.) Redacted Version Of Document Proposed To Be Filed Under SealCase 2:17-cv-04146-JAK-PLA Document 359 Filed 03/25/19 Page 3 of 13 Page ID #:20464 SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO EXCLUDE IN PART THE TESTIMONY OF MR. MICHAEL JEFFORDS 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 does not dispute that it bears the burden on these issues. (D.I. 304 at 7-9, 13-14.) But Hulu’s opposition, which solely discusses one alternative (Dr. Crovella’s script),5 fails to identify any evidence that could meet that burden. With respect to non-infringement, Hulu argues that only “chained” jQuery operators can infringe, and, because Dr. Crovella’s script purportedly removes the chains, the resulting code cannot infringe. (D.I. 304 at 13-14.) Hulu is wrong. Claim 14 of the ’062 patent requires “combining at least two” operators; chaining is one way to meet that step. (Meldal Decl. Ex. 1 at ¶ 97.) At most, all Hulu (and Dr. Crovella) have provided is an alternative to chained operators, and not an alternative to claim 14. Hulu cannot identify any part of Dr. Crovella’s report showing any limitation of claim 14 is missing from the resulting code. (D.I. 304 at 8, 13.) This is not surprising; Dr. Crovella’s report is silent on whether the code resulting from his script would meet claim 14’s limitations (D.I. 247 Ex. C at ¶ 143-54), and he admitted that he has no opinion on the resulting code’s infringement. (D.I. 247 Ex. E at 176:7-12.) In contrast, Dr. Meldal explained why the code from Dr. Crovella’s script would meet claim 14’s limitations and thus infringe. (Meldal Decl. Ex. 2 at ¶ 168.) Hulu’s expert has no opinion with which to respond. (D.I. 247 Ex. E at 176:7-12.) Accordingly, Hulu will have no expert testimony (nor any other evidence) to show that Dr. Crovella’s script is non-infringing. This alone requires that the Court grant Sound View’s motion. Even if Hulu had provided evidence of non-infringement, it cannot identify any opinions from Dr. Crovella as to availability and acceptability. (D.I. 304 at 13-14.) Hulu instead points to his statements that: i) there would be no functional difference in the resulting code; ii) his program could have been created by a Hulu engineer or someone else “with a few years of post-undergraduate programming experience”; and iii) Dr. Crovella ran his own code. (D.I. 304 at 13-14.) None of these statements suffice. 5 Dr. Crovella’s script replaces a “chained” jQuery operator with two or more separate function calls. (D.I. 247 Ex. C at ¶ 145.) Dr. Crovella admits that there is no functional difference in the resulting code. (D.I. 247 Ex. E at 171:23-172:12.) Redacted Version Of Document Proposed To Be Filed Under SealCase 2:17-cv-04146-JAK-PLA Document 359 Filed 03/25/19 Page 4 of 13 Page ID #:20465 SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO EXCLUDE IN PART THE TESTIMONY OF MR. MICHAEL JEFFORDS 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 Dr. Crovella’s report is silent on the equivalence of the code; the only mention close to equivalence is that his script worked without error on 90% of cases, leaving a 10% error rate. (D.I. 247 Ex. C at ¶ 152.) Mr. Jeffords ignores Dr. Crovella’s statement that a Hulu engineer could write and test the code “within a few days” and instead relies on Mr. Rangel’s estimate of 2 weeks of testing. (D.I. 249 Ex. A at 9 n.133.) Finally, Dr. Crovella’s running of his script provides no evidence of acceptability or availability; there is no evidence that he actually tested the resulting code to ensure that it did not introduce errors or degrade performance. Third, as explained above, Hulu cannot remedy the deficiencies in Mr. Rangel’s lay opinions, on which both Dr. Crovella and Mr. Jeffords rely. Finally, Hulu chooses to raise no argument as to the other four supposed NIAs on which Mr. Jeffords relies. (See D.I. 249 at 7-8; D.I. 304 at 7-9, 12-14.) Accordingly, the Court should exclude Mr. Jeffords’s testimony as to those NIAs. C. Mr. Jeffords’s Opinions As To Alternate CDNs Is Unsupported Even in its opposition, Hulu provides no evidence-because there is none-that any or all of the alternate CDNs could handle the increase in Hulu’s traffic if it stopped using (See D.I. 304 at 14-16.) This alone means that Hulu cannot show that the alternate CDNs were an available and acceptable NIA. As set forth in Sound View’s opening brief, Hulu’s resort to undisclosed conversations with its fact witnesses cannot fill in the gap. (D.I. 249 at 9-10.) Hulu argues that Mr. Jeffords’s single phone conversation with Mr. Darnault supplies the necessary evidence that one or more of the alternate CDNs could have handled all of Hulu’s traffic. (D.I. 304 at 15-16 (“Mr. Jeffords, however, relied on information provided by Mr. Darnault.”).)6 But as stated in Sound View’s brief, and not challenged by Hulu, Mr. Darnault disclaimed knowledge of whether those CDNs could do so. (D.I. 249 at 10 (citing D.I. 249 Ex. F at 278:13-279:18.).) Hulu’s 6 Mr. Jeffords could not recall whether he or Mr. Darnault asked a single question on the call. (Cowell Decl. Ex. 1 at 65:2-13.) Redacted Version Of Document Proposed To Be Filed Under SealCase 2:17-cv-04146-JAK-PLA Document 359 Filed 03/25/19 Page 5 of 13 Page ID #:20466 Redacted Version Of Document Proposed To Be Filed Under SealCase 2:17-cv-04146-JAK-PLA Document 359 Filed 03/25/19 Page 6 of 13 Page ID #:20467 SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO EXCLUDE IN PART THE TESTIMONY OF MR. MICHAEL JEFFORDS 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 need to coordinate with CDN providers to implement his NIA for claim 16 of the ’213 patent. (D.I. 247 Ex. B at ¶ 166 (“One non-infringing alternative to Claim 16 of the ’213 Patent is for Hulu to agree with Akamai and Level 3 . . . that a single edge server would serve only segments with same bit rate encoding . . . this change could require some coordination with the CDN providers . . . .” (emphasis added).) Hulu’s opposition ignores this plain statement and states that, because Dr. Chase only said that the change “could” require coordination, coordination might not be necessary. (D.I. 304 at 16-17.) Hulu’s argument-which can only mean that Dr. Chase does not know if coordination is necessary-reveals Dr. Chase’s opinion as pure speculation. In any event, while Hulu states that Dr. Chase and Mr. Darnault opined that the alteration was available, it fails to identify any portion of Dr. Chase’s report setting out that opinion. (See D.I. 304 at 10, 16-17.) And Hulu does not explain Dr. Chase’s admission that he did not speak to any CDN engineer to confirm that his proposed change was feasible or available at any time, much less in 2010. Hulu further does not remedy the fatal deficiencies underlying Mr. Jeffords’s reliance on Mr. Darnault’s opinions on availability and acceptability. (See D.I. 304 at 10, 16-17; see also D.I. 249 at 10-11.) Accordingly, the Court should exclude Mr. Jeffords’s testimony on regarding this NIA for claim 16.9 E. Mr. Jeffords’s Remaining NIA Opinions Are Unsupported Mr. Jeffords opined on two NIAs for the ’074 patent.10 As Sound View pointed out in its opening brief, Dr. Chase’s expert report sets out no opinion on availability for either. (D.I. 249 at 11-12.) Hulu tries to justify this lack by explaining that Mr. Jeffords relied on his phone conversation with Dr. Chase, rather than Dr. Chase’s expert report, 9 Hulu attempts to distinguish Sound View’s cited cases, which hold that opinions based on speculation are not reliable, with irrelevant factual differences. (D.I. 304 at 21-22.) Sound View’s cases properly state the law as discussed in Sound View’s opening brief. 10 In view of the parties’ stipulation regarding Hulu’s Live product (D.I. 336), the issues regarding Mr. Jeffords’s opinions on NIAs for the ’796 patent and claims 1, 7, and 8 of the ’213 patent are moot. Redacted Version Of Document Proposed To Be Filed Under SealCase 2:17-cv-04146-JAK-PLA Document 359 Filed 03/25/19 Page 7 of 13 Page ID #:20468 SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO EXCLUDE IN PART THE TESTIMONY OF MR. MICHAEL JEFFORDS 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 for availability. (D.I. 304 at 17; D.I. 249 Ex. D at 207:24-208:12.) But Hulu still does not identify any portion of Dr. Chase’s expert report setting out an opinion on availability. (See D.I. 304 at 17-18.) Therefore, regardless of what Dr. Chase may have told Mr. Jeffords in their 1-hour conversation, Dr. Chase cannot testify about availability at trial. Hulu argues that Mr. Darnault provided the evidence of availability and references the end of Mr. Jeffords’s ambiguous sentence from his expert report: “Dr. Chase explained that each of these options would have been readily available at that time, and would have required no more than one to two weeks of engineering time for a single engineer to implement, and another two weeks for testing, an understanding that was confirmed by Mr. Darnault.” (D.I. 304 at 17 (citing D.I. 249 Ex. A at 13-14).) At his deposition, Mr. Jeffords interpreted this sentence as Mr. Darnault both confirming availability and the time to implement, but had no actual recollection of what Mr. Darnault told him. (Cowell Decl. Ex. 1 at 244:2-18 (“I don’t have a specific recollection of him saying those words. That’s my interpretation of what I’ve written in the report which was certainly intended to be accurate.”).) Even if Mr. Jeffords’s interpretation of his own report is correct, his reliance on Mr. Darnault’s opinions as to acceptability and availability it still flawed as discussed above and in Sound View’s opening brief. F. Hulu Admits That Mr. Jeffords’s Use Of Hulu’s Experts’ Billing Rates Is Untethered To The Facts Of The Case Hulu argues that Mr. Jeffords’s use of its experts’ billing rates is an acceptable and conservative estimate. (D.I. 304 at 18.) But there is no evidence in the record as to whether those billing rates are less, more, or close to what Hulu spends on its video engineers. While that information was surely available, and totally within Hulu’s control, Mr. Jeffords did not attempt to obtain it. Instead, Hulu simply asks the Court to join Mr. Jeffords in his assumption that the billing rates are conservative. Such judicial fact-finding is not appropriate, especially on a Daubert motion, and the Court Redacted Version Of Document Proposed To Be Filed Under SealCase 2:17-cv-04146-JAK-PLA Document 359 Filed 03/25/19 Page 8 of 13 Page ID #:20469 SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO EXCLUDE IN PART THE TESTIMONY OF MR. MICHAEL JEFFORDS 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 should exclude Mr. Jeffords’s opinions.11 G. Mr. Jeffords’s Parroting Of Hulu Engineers Is Unreliable Hulu’s opposition misses the mark as regards to Mr. Jeffords’s parroting of Hulu’s engineers. Since Mr. Jeffords’s damages numbers are a result of taking Hulu engineers’ opinions as to the time it would take to implement an NIA and performing simple arithmetic, his testimony does not meet Rule 702 because it is not helpful to the jury in understanding the evidence or determining a fact in issue. (D.I. 249 at 13-14.) Hulu does not address these issues with Mr. Jeffords’s testimony. Instead, it attempts to distinguish Sound View’s cited cases, largely because Hulu’s engineers have been deposed.12 (See D.I. 304 at 20-21.) But neither engineer was disclosed as having knowledge of NIAs until Hulu served its expert reports, well after their depositions.13 In short, Hulu does not dispute that Mr. Jeffords uncritically accepted Hulu’s engineers’ opinions of the time necessary to implement NIAs, and multiplied that time by Hulu’s experts’ billing rates. His testimony would not help the jury to “determine a fact in issue” and the Court should exclude it. Fed. R. Evid. 702. H. Hulu Admits That Its Experts Did Not Disclose An Opinion That Hulu Receives No Benefits From The Patents-in-Suit Hulu’s technical experts cannot testify that Hulu receives no benefit from the 11 Hulu’s attempted distinction between this case and Bakst, 2011 WL 13214315 at *1 is unsuccessful. In both, the expert relied on costs for which there was no evidence. 12 Hulu’s other distinctions are even less relevant. In Loeffel, the expert’s uncritical reliance on the employees’ amount of hours needed to rectify the harm was held to be improper under the Rules. 387 F. Supp. 2d at 807, 824-26. The expert’s equally improper lost profits opinion is not relevant here. And in Waymo, the expert was excluded, not because his credentials were deficient, but because the expert’s analysis “amounted to nothing more than uncritical acceptance of other evidence in the case, which can speak for itself, plus some basic arithmetic using a straightforward $20 million figure from Uber’s internal documents.” 2017 WL 5148390, at *6. 13 Hulu did not list either engineer as knowledgeable about NIAs in its initial disclosures until the last day of discovery. (D.I. 247 Ex. J at 122.) Redacted Version Of Document Proposed To Be Filed Under SealCase 2:17-cv-04146-JAK-PLA Document 359 Filed 03/25/19 Page 9 of 13 Page ID #:20470 Redacted Version Of Document Proposed To Be Filed Under SealCase 2:17-cv-04146-JAK-PLA Document 359 Filed 03/25/19 Page 10 of 13 Page ID #:20471 SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO EXCLUDE IN PART THE TESTIMONY OF MR. MICHAEL JEFFORDS 10 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 Even if Hulu were correct that Mr. Jeffords properly accounted for economic differences, it does not address Mr. Jeffords’s failure to discuss technical differences. All the cases Hulu cites require technical comparability and analysis to account for any differences in the licensed patents and patents-in-suit. For example, in Gen-Probe, the court allowed the experts to testify as to licenses because the patents in those licenses were comparable to the patents at issue.16 2012 WL 9335913, at *2-3. Similarly, in Finjan, the Federal Circuit reiterated that “use of past patent licenses under factors 1 and 2 must account for differences in the technologies and economic circumstances of the contracting parties.” 626 F.3d at 1211. Hulu’s distinction of Utah Med. is even less apt. 350 F.3d at 1385. The Court affirmed the exclusion of license testimony because the licenses were not comparable, not because they established a 6% royalty. Id. (“The district court concluded . . . that Graphic Controls had not shown that the license agreements used in its expert’s analysis were in any way comparable to the ’822 patent.”). And in Wordtech, the court specifically noted that the licenses were not comparable and could not support the jury verdict, thus requiring the Federal Circuit to remand for a new trial on damages. 609 F.3d at 1320 (“[C]omparisons of past patent licenses to the infringement must account for ‘the technological and economic differences’ between them.”). Hulu’s failure to even address the lack of technical comparability necessitates excluding Mr. Jeffords’s testimony. E.g., Zimmer Surgical, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 2019 WL 1082336, at *16 (D. Del. Mar. 7, 2019) (“Because Dr. Vellturo’s analysis fails to demonstrate how technologically and economically similar or dissimilar the Bemis license is, it is unreliable.”). II. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant Sound View’s Motion and exclude Mr. Jeffords’s testimony and affirmative damages opinions. 16 Barnes & Noble, on which Hulu relies, merely held that certain licenses were discoverable, not admissible. 2012 WL 1564734, at *3. Redacted Version Of Document Proposed To Be Filed Under SealCase 2:17-cv-04146-JAK-PLA Document 359 Filed 03/25/19 Page 11 of 13 Page ID #:20472 SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO EXCLUDE IN PART THE TESTIMONY OF MR. MICHAEL JEFFORDS 11 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 Dated: March 25, 2019 By: /s/ Kent N. Shum 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 101 California Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: (415) 573-1900 Fax: (415) 573-1901 pmagic@desmaraisllp.com Attorneys for Plaintiff SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC Redacted Version Of Document Proposed To Be Filed Under SealCase 2:17-cv-04146-JAK-PLA Document 359 Filed 03/25/19 Page 12 of 13 Page ID #:20473 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 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 R U SS , A U G U ST & K A B A T 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 359 Filed 03/25/19 Page 13 of 13 Page ID #:20474