No claim to original U.S. Government Works. EXHIBIT C Case 2:15-cv-01698-TLN-EFB Document 42-4 Filed 05/04/17 Page 52 of 54 Rule 26. Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery, FRCP Rule 26 © 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

" See, e.g., Kondragunta v. Ace Doran Hauling & Rigging Co., No. 11-1094, 2013 WL 1189493, at *9 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 21, 20 13). Therefore, to the extent any treating physician offers opinions based on facts gathered from you, the documents or pleadings in this case, or any other source other than the physician's own recollection of treating Plaintiff, Thomas & Betts will object on the basis that there is no written report required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) by the deadline in the Scheduling Order. Additionally, Plaintiff has disclosed eleven treating physicians as experts who may testify at trial in this case. To the extent Plaintiff does not call any of the listed physicians to testify at trial, or to the extent the Court prohibits any of the listed physicians from testifying at the trial in this matter because they did not provide a written report, Thomas & Betts will object to the recovery of related attorney's fees or costs. Regarding a related matter, we sent an email on Friday, July 28, 2017, asking for supplementation to Plaintiff's discovery responses with the documents and information contained on the flash drive in Plaintiff's possession referenced by Plaintiff in his deposition.

Keithley v. Homestore.com, Inc., No. C-03-04447 SI (EDL), 2009 WL 55953, *10 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2009) (awarding fees and costs relating to witness fees, subpoenaing, preparing for, and retaking depositions incurred as a result of examining and trying to make use of late produced documents). WHEREFORE, Defendants World Avenue USA, LLC and World Avenue Holdings, LLC respectfully request that the Court enter an Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Determination of Timeliness and Sufficiency of Initial Rule 26(a)(2) Expert Designations, And/Or For Extension of Time and precluding Plaintiff from presenting any expert testimony at trial, and for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs incurred pursuant to Rules 16 and 37.

United States v. Antonakeas, 255 F.3d 714, 724 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Wegener v. Johnson, 527 F.3d 687, 690–91 (8th Cir. 2008) (rejecting argument that witness should be excluded under Rule 26 and explaining that “[t]o attack the credibility of witnesses by the presentation of evidence showing that facts asserted or relied upon in their testimony are false is to impeach by contradiction”). At a minimum, then, Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(i) entitles Defendants to call the Witnesses for purposes of impeaching Mr. Yurkerwich’s flawed damages calculation by contradiction. This Court should reject Songkick’s attempt to keep the jury from learning that Mr. Yurkerwich’s estimate of nearly $130 million in lost profits is squarely contradicted by easily knowable facts. // // // // // // // // // // Case 2:15-cv-09814-DSF-AGR Document 361 Filed 10/02/17 Page 17 of 22 Page ID #:52199 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 ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO 14 DEFENDANTS AND COUNTER-CLAIMANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 CASE NO. 2:15-CV-09814 DSF (AGRX) IV. CONCLUSION. For the foregoing reasons, Songkick’s Motion in Limine No. 2 should be denied.

B. Hapag-Lloyd has failed to sufficiently demonstrate it was actually harmed by the substance of GOT’s disclosures. The Fifth Circuit has further acknowledged that “[t]he basic purpose of Rule 26 is to prevent prejudice and surprise.” Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Chios, Inc., 544 Fed. App’x 444, 446 (5 Cir.th 2013) (internal quotations and citations omitted); Anders, 311 F.R.D. at 164.

Diamond State, 157 F.R.D. at 697-98 (D. Nev. 1994). Moreover, the Scheduling Order requires that “[a] Party claiming that any item within the scope of discovery is protected as either privileged or as trial preparation material, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(5), shall submit a privilege log detailing the nature of the privilege or the basis for the item’s or items’ protection as trial preparation material.” Doc.

In the amended report and recommendation no. 4, the special master, among other things: (1) determined that the only discovery request properly before him was a request for Highmark's base rates and rates Highmark actually charged its customers for specific time periods; (2) determined that under Rule 26 and pursuant to the filed rate doctrine, Cole's Wexford did not satisfy its burden to show that information was relevant to the subject matter of the litigation; and (3) certain data sought but not specifically identified by Cole's Wexford may be relevant and proportional to this case. (ECF No. 403.)

Plaintiffs further object to this interrogatory as premature- and on that ground, as unduly burdensome. Plaintiffs have not yet made a computation of any category of damages Case 1:14-cv-24517-KMM Document 182 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/07/2015 Page 25 of 27 ptlrsuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) (1)(A)(iii) and will require discovery from Defendant and perhaps one or m ore third parties as well in order to do so. Plaintiffs expect that they will produce such information and suppol4ing documentation through an cxpert witness and report at the appropriate til-nc ptlrsuant to Fcd. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) and/or the Court's case schedtlling orders in this luatter.

Thus, P&C’s work product falls outside the scope of discovery. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(b)(1); see also Andrades v. Holder, 286 F.R.D. 64, 66 (D.D.C. 2012) (“[a] showing of relevance can be Case 1:13-mc-00405-JEB-DAR Document 14 Filed 06/21/13 Page 21 of 26 {00049531; 2} 17 NON-PARTY P&C’S REPLY RE MOTION TO QUASH OR FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER viewed as a showing of need; … one is presumed to have no need of a matter not relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action”)

) Apparently, Plaintiff intends to have both Case 2:17-cv-00118-RWS Document 82 Filed 07/30/18 Page 12 of 21 PageID #: 1440 9 witnesses testify as experts as to any topic relating to infringement, validity, and damages. (Id.) Further, Plaintiff’s attempt to satisfy the requirements of Rule 26(a)(2)(C)(ii) with respect to these topics falls far short of satisfying Plaintiff’s disclosure obligations. Regarding damages, the Late Disclosure merely recites the Georgia Pacific factors, and states that “the facts and opinions will include particularly these witnesses’ personal knowledge and familiarity with the facts relevant to a consideration of the Georgia-Pacific factors for setting a reasonable royalty.”