1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 OMNITRACS, LLC and XRS Case No.: 20-cv-958-CAB-DDL CORPORATION, 12 ORDER GRANTING IN PART Plaintiffs, 13 DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR v. ISSUANCE OF LETTER 14 ROGATORY PLATFORM SCIENCE, INC., 15 Defendant. [Dkt. No. 279] 16
17 18 Before the Court is Defendant Platform Science, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) unopposed 19 Motion for Issuance of Letters Rogatory to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for Colin 20 D. Warkentin (the “Motion”). Dkt. No. 279. The Court held a hearing on the Motion on 21 March 22, 2023, at which counsel for Plaintiffs Omnitracs, LLC and XRS Corporation 22 (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendant appeared. The Court has considered the moving papers, the 23 applicable law, and the arguments of counsel. For the reasons stated below and at the 24 hearing, the Motion is GRANTED IN PART. 25 Defendant seeks documents and testimony from Colin D. Warkentin, who is the first 26 named inventor on two of the patents-in-suit (the ‘568 and ‘575 patents) and a former 27 employee of XRS Corporation. Dkt. No. 279 at 4. According to Defendant, Mr. Warkentin 28 possesses unique knowledge regarding the conception and reduction to practice regarding 1 the ‘568 and ‘575 patents. Id. at 4-5, 11. Defendant further asserts that Mr. Warkentin is 2 uniquely knowledgeable about the “key prior art products” that were developed by XRS 3 Corporation during his employment there. Id. at 11. Defendant also seek any documents 4 that Mr. Warkentin has in his possession, custody and control related to the development 5 of these products. Plaintiffs do not oppose the Motion and indeed have identified Mr. 6 Warkentin as a witness with relevant knowledge in their Rule 26 disclosures. See Dkt. No. 7 279-9 at 9. Defendants have tried to contact Mr. Warkentin to solicit his voluntary 8 cooperation with their discovery efforts, but to no avail. Dkt. No. 279 at 9. 9 “A letter rogatory is ‘a formal written request sent by a court to a foreign court’ for 10 the purpose of obtaining evidence, including depositions and documents, in a pending 11 action.” Scalia v. Int’l Longshore & Warehouse Union, 337 F.R.D. 281, 287 (N.D. Cal. 12 2020) (citation omitted). The issuance of such a request is within the Court’s inherent 13 powers and is also implicitly authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1781. See Asis Internet Servs. v. 14 Optin Global, Inc., No. C-05-05124 JCS, 2007 WL 1880369, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 29, 15 2007); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 28(b)(1)(B) (providing for the taking of foreign depositions 16 by means of a letter rogatory). Whether to do so is a matter of the Court’s discretion. 17 Scalia, 337 F.R.D. at 288. As with any other discovery request, discovery sought by means 18 of a letter rogatory must be within the scope of discovery defined by Rule 26(b). See id. 19 Defendant has provided the Court with its proposed letter rogatory setting forth the 20 requested discovery, which consists of 11 document requests and 13 topics for examination 21 at deposition. See Dkt. No. 279-1. 22 Having reviewed Defendant’s Motion and considered the information provided by 23 counsel at the March 22 hearing, the Court finds that the deposition testimony and 24 documents sought by Defendant are within the scope of Rule 26(b) with the exception of 25 proposed deposition topic number 13. Therefore, and for good cause shown, Defendant’s 26 Motion is GRANTED IN PART. The Court hereby authorizes a request for discovery 27 from Colin D. Warkentin consistent with the terms of this Order and as reflected in the 28 attached Letter Rogatory. It shall be the responsibility of the parties to deliver the Letter | || Rogatory to the appropriate authorities in Canada. A signed copy of the Letter Rogatory 2 || bearing the Court’s seal is available to be picked up from the Clerk of the Court, whose 3 address and business hours are available on the Court’s website. 4 IS SO ORDERED. 5 || Dated: March 24, 2023 That! bahar. ; Ge □□ United States Magistrate Judge. am □□ □
10 □□□□□□□□ OF 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 OMNITRACS, LLC and XRS Case No.: 20-cv-958-CAB-DDL CORPORATION, 12 LETTER ROGATORY TO THE Plaintiffs, 13 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT FOR v. JUSTICE 14 PLATFORM SCIENCE, INC., 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 TO THE APPROPRIATE JUDICIAL AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF 19 CANADA: 20 The United States District Court for the Southern District of California (hereafter 21 “United States District Court”) presents its compliments to the Ontario Superior Court of 22 Justice and respectfully requests international judicial assistance to obtain evidence to be 23 used in the above-captioned civil action proceeding before this Court. The United States 24 District Court has determined that it would further the interests of justice if the Ontario 25 Superior Court of Justice utilizes its proper and usual process to summon Colin D. 26 Warkentin to appear before a person empowered under Canadian law to administer oaths 27 and take testimony forthwith, to give testimony under oath or affirmation by questions and 28 answers upon oral examination in respect of the matters and issues identified in Schedule 1 B, and permit the parties to create a written transcript and video recording of such 2 testimony. The United States District Court has also determined that it would further the 3 interests of justice if the Ontario Superior Court of Justice utilizes its proper and usual 4 process to summon Colin D. Warkentin to produce copies of the documents in his 5 possession, custody, or control that are identified in Schedule A. 6 The applicant for this letter is Defendant Platform Science, Inc. Counsel is available 7 to answer any questions the Ontario Superior Court of Justice may have. 8 This request is made pursuant to Rule 4(f)(2)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil 9 Procedure; the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. §1651, and 28 U.S.C. §1781 (permitting the 10 transmittal of letters rogatory through the district courts and the Department of State); the 11 Ontario Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E. 23; and the Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C., 1985, 12 c. C-5. The United States District Court is a competent court of law and equity which 13 properly has jurisdiction over this proceeding and has the power to compel the attendance 14 of witnesses and production of documents both within and outside its jurisdiction. 15 According to information provided by the parties in the above-captioned matter, Colin D. 16 Warkentin resides in Canada, within the Province of Ontario, and has or is likely to have 17 possession of the documents specified in Schedule A and knowledge of the subject matter 18 specified in Schedule B herein. 19 The testimony and production of documents are intended for use at trial or directly 20 in the preparation for trial in this case, and in the view of the United States District Court, 21 will be relevant to claims and defenses in this case. This request is made with the 22 understanding that it will in no way require any person to commit any offense, or to 23 undergo a broader form of inquiry than he or she would if the litigation were conducted in 24 a Canadian court. The United States District Court is satisfied that the evidence sought to 25 be obtained through this request is relevant and necessary and cannot reasonably be 26 obtained by other methods. Because the United States District Court lacks authority to 27 compel participation of Mr. Warkentin and, such participation being necessary in order that 28 1 justice be served in the above-captioned proceedings, the United States District Court 2 respectfully requests assistance from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. 3 1. SENDER 4 Honorable David D. Leshner 5 United States Magistrate Judge 6 United States District Court for the Southern District of California 7 333 West Broadway 8 San Diego, CA 92101 9 2. CENTRAL AUTHORITY OF THE REQUESTED STATE 10 Ontario Superior Court of Justice, St. Catharines Courthouse 11 59 Church Street 12 St. Catharines, ON 13 L2R 7N8 14 3. PERSON TO WHOM THE EXECUTED REQUEST IS TO BE 15 RETURNED 16 Brent P. Ray 17 bray@kslaw.com 18 KING & SPALDING LLP 19 110 N. Wacker Dr., Ste. 3800 20 Chicago, IL 60606 21 Tel: 312-764-6925 22 4. SPECIFICATION OF DATE BY WHICH REQUESTING 23 AUTHORITY REQUIRES RECEIPT OF THE RESPONSE TO THE 24 LETTER OF REQUEST 25 A response is requested as soon as possible, in order to ensure that the evidence may 26 be obtained before the deadline for discovery in this case, currently set for June 23, 2023. 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 5. NAMES AND ADDRESS OF THE PARTIES AND THEIR 2 REPRESENTATIONS OF THE CASE (ARTICLE 3(B)) 3 The evidence requested relates to the action Omnitracs, LLC and XRS Corporation 4 v. Platform Science, Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-0958-CAB-DDL, pending in the United States 5 District Court for the Southern District of California. 6 The parties and their representatives are listed herein as follows: 7 a. Plaintiffs 8 Omnitracs, LLC and XRS Corporation 9 Contact through counsel identified below: 10 Michael W. De Vries (S.B.N. 211001) michael.devries@kirkland.com 11 Justin Singh (S.B.N. 266279) 12 Justin.singh@kirkland.com KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 13 555 South Flower Street, Suite 3700 14 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 680-8400 15
16 Adam R. Alper (S.B.N. 196834) adam.alper@kirkland.com 17 Akshay S. Deoras (S.B.N. 301962) 18 akshay.deoras@kirkland.com KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 19 555 California Street 20 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 439-1400 21
22 Gianni Cutri (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) gianni.cutri@kirkland.com 23 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 24 300 North LaSalle Chicago, IL 60654 25 Telephone: (312) 862-2000 26 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 Leslie M. Schmidt (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) leslie.schmidt@kirkland.com 2 Aaron D. Resetarits (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 3 aaron.resetarits@kirkland.com KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 4 601 Lexington Avenue 5 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 446-4800 6
7 b. Defendant 8 Platform Science, Inc. 9 Contact through counsel identified below: 10 Brent P. Ray (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 11 bray@kslaw.com KING & SPALDING LLP 12 110 N. Wacker Dr., Ste. 3800 13 Chicago, IL 60606 Tel: 312-764-6925 14
15 Angela Tarasi (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) atarasi@kslaw.com 16 KING & SPALDING LLP 17 1401 Lawrence St., Ste. 1900 Denver, Co 80202 18 Tel: 720-535-2300 19 20 6. NATURE AND PURPOSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND SUMMARY 21 OF THE FACTS 22 A. NATURE AND PURPOSE OF THE CLAIMS 23 Omnitracs, LLC and XRS Corporation (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action against 24 Platform Science, Inc. (“Defendant”) alleging infringement of five United States patents 25 including U.S. Patent Nos. 8,626,568 (“the ’568 patent”) and 10,255,575 (“the ’575 26 patent”). Counsel for Defendant will provide copies of the U.S. Patents referenced herein 27 for the Ontario Superior Court of Justice’s review. Defendant has asserted affirmative 28 defenses and counterclaims of noninfringement and invalidity as to the asserted patents. 1 Plaintiff XRS Corporation (“XRS”), formerly known as XATA Corporation, is a 2 provider of fleet management solutions to transportation and logistics companies. Their 3 solutions include smartphone- and tablet-based systems that enable trucking companies to 4 manage their fleets and comply with Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations 5 promulgated by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMSCA). 6 Defendant is an enterprise-grade Internet of Things (“IoT”) fleet management 7 platform. Defendant offers an open platform upon which commercial fleets may freely 8 develop, customize, and integrate telematics, applications and IoT solutions for their 9 businesses and end-users. Its customers have the power to create or choose solutions and 10 apps they need from among a variety of partners, which can be deployed in their vehicles. 11 B. COLIN D. WARKENTIN 12 Colin D. Warkentin is a former employee of XRS, but he is no longer employed by 13 any party to this suit. During his employment at XRS, Mr. Warkentin served as Vice 14 President of Development and Chief Operating Officer. Whether Mr. Warkentin is 15 represented by counsel and, if so, the identity of his counsel, is unknown. 16 Mr. Warkentin is listed as the first named inventor on the ’568 and ’575 patents. Mr. 17 Warkentin has also been identified by Plaintiffs as being knowledgeable of the work and 18 invention that led to the ’568 and ’575 patents. Furthermore, documents provided by 19 Plaintiffs evidencing the date of conception and reduction to practice of the asserted claims 20 of the ’528 and ’575 patents explicitly show that Mr. Warkentin authored revisions in 21 design documents for implementing key limitations found in the claims of the ’568 and 22 ’575 patents. 23 C. EVIDENCE TO BE OBTAINED AND PURPOSE 24 The evidence to be obtained consists of documents for use at trial or in preparing for 25 trial in this matter. Defendant has also requested oral testimony from Mr. Warkentin. 26 Based on information provided by the parties to these proceedings, the United States 27 District Court concludes that Mr. Warkentin may possess of information and documents 28 relevant to the parties’ claims and defenses and defenses pertaining the infringement and 1 validity of the ’528 and ’575 patents. The requested documents may therefore be needed 2 for use in the trial or other adjudication of the action. 3 The United States District Court further concludes that it is in the interests of justice 4 for Mr. Warkentin to be examined on the topics listed in Schedule B and to produce the 5 documents listed in Schedule A. Production of the documents in Schedule A is within the 6 scope of permissible discovery in these proceedings. 7 To the extent that some of the documents in Schedule A, and the testimony sought 8 in Schedule B, may call for confidential, or trade secret information. The United States 9 District Court has issued a Protective Order [Dkt. 176] that governs this case, and extends 10 to the document productions or testimony of third parties including Mr. Warkentin. 11 Counsel for Defendant will provide a copy of the governing Protective Order for the 12 Ontario Superior Court of Justice’s review. 13 Mr. Warkentin resides in Ontario, Canada, and the United States District Court has 14 not been presented any evidence that he is domiciled or otherwise subject to process in the 15 United States. Thus, the United States District Court cannot directly compel Mr. Warkentin 16 to provide the requested documents and testimony. 17 The United States District Court therefore respectfully asks that the Ontario Superior 18 Court of Justice compel Mr. Warkentin to produce documents responsive to the requests 19 for production set forth in Schedule A to this Letter of Request, to the extent that they are 20 in his possession, custody, or control, and are not privileged under the applicable laws of 21 Canada or the United States. The United States District Court also respectfully asks that 22 the Ontario Superior Court of Justice compel the appearance of Mr. Warkentin to testify 23 under oath, concerning the topics set forth in Schedule B to this Letter of Request. 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 D. IDENTITY AND ADDRESS OF THE ENTITIES AND PERSON 2 TO BE EXAMINED 3 The identity and address of the person to be examined is set forth below. The address 4 provided is based on currently available information and may be supplemented. 5 Colin D. Warkentin 162 Martindale Rd, 810 6 St. Catharines, ON L2S 3S4 7 Canada 8 E. STATEMENTS OF THE SUBJECT MATTER ABOUT WHICH 9 THE PERSON WILL BE EXAMINED 10 The United States District Court requests that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice 11 summon Colin D. Warkentin to testify regarding the topics listed in Schedule B to this 12 Letter of Request. 13 F. DOCUMENTS AND OTHER EVIDENCE TO BE EXAMINED 14 The United States District Court requests that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice 15 summon Colin D. Warkentin to produce or make available for inspection the documents 16 set forth in Schedule A to this Letter of Request. 17 G. REQUIREMENTS THAT THE EVIDENCE BE GIVEN ON 18 OATH OR AFFIRMATION 19 The United States District Court requests that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice 20 summon Colin D. Warkentin to appear before a person empowered under Canadian law to 21 administer oaths and take testimony and give testimony under oath or affirmation on the 22 topics listed in Schedule B by questions and answers upon oral examination at a convenient 23 location in Ontario. 24 H. SPECIAL PROCEDURES AND METHODS TO BE 25 FOLLOWED 26 The examinations shall be conducted pursuant to the discovery rules as provided for 27 in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of the United States, except to the extent such 28 procedure is incompatible with the laws of Canada. The United States District Court further 1 requests: (1) that the examination be taken orally; (2) that the examination be taken before 2 a commercial stenographer and videographer selected by Plaintiffs; (3) that the 3 videographer be permitted to record the examination by audiovisual means; (4) that the 4 stenographer be allowed to record a verbatim transcript of the examination; (5) that the 5 examination be conducted in English, or, if necessary, with the assistance of an interpreter 6 selected by Plaintiffs; (6) that, if the examination is conducted through an interpreter, 7 verbatim transcripts of the proceeding in both English and French be permitted; (7) that 8 Mr. Warkentin be examined for no more than ten and a half (10.5) hours if he requires an 9 interpreter or seven (7) hours if he does not require an interpreter; (8) that the time allotted 10 for the examination be divided equally between Plaintiffs and Defendant; and (9) that Mr. 11 Warkentin be examined as soon as possible. 12 In the event that the evidence cannot be taken according to some or all of the 13 procedures described above, this Court requests that it be taken in such manner as provided 14 by the laws of Canada for the formal taking of testimonial evidence. 15 I. REQUEST FOR NOTIFICATION 16 None. 17 J. REQUEST FOR ATTENDANCE OR PARTICIPATION OF 18 JUDICIAL PERSONNEL OF THE REQUESTING AUTHORITY 19 AT THE EXECUTION OF THE LETTER OF REQUEST 20 None. 21 K. SPECIFICATION OF PRIVILEGE OR DUTY TO REFUSE TO 22 GIVE EVIDENCE UNDER THE LAW OF THE STATE OF 23 ORIGIN 24 Under the laws of the United States, a witness has a privilege to refuse to give 25 evidence if to do so would disclose a confidential communication between the witness and 26 his or her attorney that was communicated specifically for the purpose of obtaining legal 27 advice and which privilege has not been waived. United States law also recognizes a 28 privilege against criminal self-incrimination. Other limited privileges on grounds not | applicable here also exist, such as certain communications between doctors and patients, 2 || husband and wife, and clergy and penitent. Certain limited immunities are also recognized 3 || outside the strict definition of privilege, such as the limited protection of work product 4 ||created by attorneys during or in anticipation of litigation. 5 L. REIMBURSEMENT 6 The fees and costs incurred in the execution of this Request which are reimbursable 7 be borne by the above-named Defendant. Defendant is willing to reimburse the 8 ||reimbursable fees and costs incurred by Colin D. Warkentin complying with any order of 9 || the Ontario Superior Court of Justice giving effect to this Request for International Judicial 10 || Assistance. 11 RECIPROCITY 12 The United States District Court also assures your authority that it will reciprocate 13 || with similar assistance in like cases and extends to the Judicial Authorities of Canada, 14 including the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the assurances of its highest consideration. 15 || Date of Request: March 24, 2023 16 || Signature and Seal of the Requesting Authority: 17 18 19 20 ene
22 wy Honorable David D. Leshner6/s25"" 27 23 United States Magistrate Judg ee □ 24 ay) NORTE 25 26 27 28
1 SCHEDULE A 2 I. DEFINITIONS 3 The words and phrases used in these Requests shall have the meanings ascribed to 4 them under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the United States 5 District Court for the Southern District of California. In addition, the following terms shall 6 have the meanings set forth below whenever used in any request: 7 1. “Litigation” means Omnitracs LLC and XRS Corporation v. Platform Science, 8 Inc. (No. 3:20-cv-00958-CAB-DDL), pending in the United States District Court for the 9 Southern District of California. 10 2. “You,” “Your,” or “Colin D. Warkentin” refer to Colin D. Warkentin. 11 3. The “Patents-in-Suit” means U.S. Patent Nos. 8,626,568; 10,255,575; and 12 9,262,934. 13 4. “2010 DOT Regulations” refers to 75 Fed. Reg. 17207 (April 5, 2010) (to be 14 codified at 49 C.F.R. §§350, 385, 395, and 396), p. 17208. 15 5. “Document” or “Documents” is synonymous in meaning and equal in scope 16 to the usage of this term in Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a) and includes, without limitation, any 17 written, printed, typed, stored, electronic, photostated, photographed, recorded, or 18 otherwise reproduced communication or representation, including computer or 19 electronically generated or stored information, data, or source code, whether assertedly 20 privileged or not. “Document” specifically includes all forms of electronic data and 21 tangible things. A draft or non-identical copy is a separate document within the meaning 22 of the term. 23 6. “Thing(s)” has the broadest meaning allowable under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 34 24 and Commission Rule 210.30 and includes every tangible object other than a Document 25 including, without limitation, objects of every kind and nature, as well as prototypes, 26 models, or physical specimens thereof. 27 7. “Person” or “Persons” means any natural person or any business, legal, or 28 governmental entity or association or any other cognizable entity, including, without 1 limitation, corporations, proprietorships, partnerships, joint ventures, consortiums, clubs, 2 associations, foundations, governmental agencies or instrumentalities, societies, and 3 orders. 4 8. “Vehicle Onboard Computing Product” means any device or component that 5 may generate, receive, transmit, capture, or record information from one or more vehicle 6 components (such as engine data, electronic control module (ECM) data, diagnostics, 7 telematics, etc.) and includes but is not limited to onboard computers; display devices (e.g., 8 connected physically or wirelessly); automatic onboard recording devices; and devices or 9 components that (a) record, generate, process, store, or transmit hours of service 10 information and/or driver logs, including devices in compliance with 49 C.F.R. §395.15, 11 (b) generate, receive, or monitor trip schedules, (c) collect driver, route, and delivery 12 information in real-time, (d) receive or interface navigation (GPS) information and 13 geofencing; and/or (e) interface with any such device or component. 14 “Vehicle Onboard Computing Product” also includes any device or component that 15 may be more commonly referred to as an electronic logging device (ELD), electronic on- 16 board recorder (EOBR), electronic driver logs (EDLs), automatic on-board recording 17 device (AOBRD), computer assisted logs (CALs), and digital tachograph. 18 “Vehicle Onboard Computing Product” also includes any software, application, or 19 program designed to operate on or integrate with the above-mentioned onboard devices or 20 components. This includes but is not limited to software, applications, or programs for 21 vehicle routing, dispatch, customer service, and regulatory compliance. 22 “Vehicle Onboard Computing Product” includes but is not limited to XRS 23 Corporation’s Routetracker and Routetracker2 products as well as any related or 24 substantially similar products. 25 This definition is limited to products, devices, and components that were made, used, 26 sold, or offered for sale, prior to February 16, 2016. 27 9. The words “and” and “or” shall be construed conjunctively or disjunctively, 28 whichever makes the request most inclusive. 1 10. “Time Period” means prior to February 16, 2016. 2 II. INSTRUCTIONS 3 1. These Requests shall apply to all Documents in your possession, custody, or 4 control at the present time or coming into your possession, custody, or control prior to the 5 date of production. 6 2. With respect to documents, communications, or information you contend are 7 privileged, please provide the following information for any responsive document or thing 8 withheld from production on the grounds that it is protected from disclosure by the 9 attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other relevant privilege: 10 a. The author of the document; 11 b. The person(s) for whom the document was prepared, to whom it was sent, and 12 who received copies; 13 c. The date of the document; 14 d. The subject matter of the document; 15 e. The type of document (e.g., letter, memorandum, note, report, etc.); 16 f. The number of pages and attachments; and 17 g. The nature and the basis for the claim of privilege. 18 3. Documents and things requested herein shall be produced in the same 19 sequence as they are contained or found and with the file folders and other identifying 20 documents or containers (e.g., copy of envelope, file cabinet market, binder tab) in which 21 such documents were located when these requests were served. If you do not produce each 22 document requested herein as kept in the usual course of business, you are requested to 23 organize and label the documents or things produced to correspond with the particular 24 document request to which the document or thing is responsive. 25 4. Electronic and computerized materials must be produced in an intelligible 26 format or together with a description of the system from which it was derived sufficient to 27 permit review of the material. 28 / / / 1 5. If you object to a request, or any part of a request, please produce all 2 documents to which your objection does not apply. 3 III. DOCUMENTS AND THINGS TO BE PRODUCED 4 1. Documents and Things related to the design, development, components, 5 features, functionality, architecture, and operation of each Vehicle Onboard Computing 6 Product, including Routetracker and Routetracker2, made, used, sold, or offered for sale 7 during the Time Period. This includes but is not limited to any design specifications, 8 requirement documents, user manuals, installation manuals, architecture documents, 9 reference manuals, data sheets, and programming instructions. 10 2. Documents and Things related to how each Vehicle Onboard Computing 11 Product, including Routetracker and Routetracker2, recorded, generated, processed, 12 displayed, stored, and transmitted hours of service (HOS) information and/or driver logs, 13 including but not limited to which component(s) were involved in each process, which 14 component(s) generated the HOS information or logs, what data was used in the process 15 and from where the data was collected or provided, and how the HOS information and logs 16 were transferred between components in the vehicle and to remote computers (such as an 17 inspection agent). 18 3. Documents and Things related to how each Vehicle Onboard Computing 19 Product, including Routetracker and Routetracker2, generated, modified, transmitted, 20 received, displayed, and monitored trip schedules, including information such as the 21 driver’s current location; destinations for the trip; times when the vehicle is expected to 22 reach its destination; a time remaining to complete route; a trip route; a trip map; a time for 23 which the driver may remain on duty; and one or more safety graphics. 24 4. Documents and Things related to how each Vehicle Onboard Computing 25 Product, including Routetracker and Routetracker2, collected, generated, transmitted, and 26 displayed driver, route, communications (e.g., messages, such as emails or SMS), and 27 delivery information, including whether any of these functions were performed in real- 28 time. 1 5. Documents and Things related to how each Vehicle Onboard Computing 2 Product, including Routetracker and Routetracker2, used or interfaced with navigation 3 (GPS) systems, including how the information was used, transmitted, displayed, or 4 presented to a driver, as well as any geofencing features. 5 6. Documents and Things related to how each Vehicle Onboard Computing 6 Product, including Routetracker and Routetracker2, interfaced with or connected to vehicle 7 systems or components (such as electronic control modules), including, for example, 1) 8 whether it connected to a diagnostic port or was hardwired into the vehicle systems, 2) 9 which vehicle protocols it was compatible with, 3) how it determined which vehicle 10 protocol were in use in the vehicle; and 4) how it selected which protocol to transmit or 11 receive data; and 5) how received data from each vehicle system or component. 12 7. Documents related to the 2010 DOT Regulations, including how you used, 13 relied on, and/or otherwise considered them during the design or development of any 14 Vehicle Onboard Computing Product, including Routetracker and Routetracker2. This 15 includes, for example, any documents related to whether any features of the Vehicle 16 Onboard Computing Product were added to comply with, or based on, the 2010 DOT 17 regulations, such as USB ports, the ability to transfer logs from the device out the USB 18 port, file transfer from a mobile device to the device, and that the file transfer comprised 19 HOS information. 20 8. Documents related to the first offer for sale and first sale in the United States 21 of each Vehicle Onboard Computing Product, including Routetracker and Routetracker2, 22 during the Time Period. This includes but is not limited to the date of the offer or sale, date 23 of delivery, the buyer and seller, the quantity, and the sale price. 24 9. Documents related to the first public use or display in the United States of 25 each Vehicle Onboard Computing Product, including Routetracker and Routetracker2, 26 during the Time Period. This includes but is not limited to the date, location, parties 27 involved, and the subject matter shown, used, or displayed. 28 1 10. Documents related to how each Vehicle Onboard Computing Product, 2 including Routetracker and Routetracker2, was marketed to the public dated, published, or 3 otherwise distributed during the Time Period. 4 11. Documents related to the Patents-in-Suit, including any documents related to 5 any search for prior art to the Patents-in-Suit. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 SCHEDULE B 2 I. DEFINITIONS 3 The words and phrases used in these Requests shall have the meanings ascribed to 4 them under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the United States 5 District Court for the Southern District of California. In addition, the following terms shall 6 have the meanings set forth below whenever used in any request: 7 1. “Litigation” means Omnitracs LLC and XRS Corporation, v. Platform 8 Science, Inc. (No. 3:20-cv-00958-CAB-DDL), pending in the Southern District of 9 California. 10 2. “You,” “Your,” or “Colin D. Warkentin” refer to Colin D. Warkentin. 11 3. The “Patents-in-Suit” means U.S. Patent Nos. 8,626,568; 10,255,575; and 12 9,262,934. 13 4. “2010 DOT Regulations” refers to 75 Fed. Reg. 17207 (April 5, 2010) (to be 14 codified at 49 C.F.R. §§350, 385, 395, and 396), p. 17208. 15 5. “Person” or “Persons” means any natural person or any business, legal, or 16 governmental entity or association or any other cognizable entity, including, without 17 limitation, corporations, proprietorships, partnerships, joint ventures, consortiums, clubs, 18 associations, foundations, governmental agencies or instrumentalities, societies and orders. 19 6. “Vehicle Onboard Computing Product” means any device or component that 20 may generate, receive, transmit, capture, or record information from one or more vehicle 21 components (such as engine data, electronic control module (ECM) data, diagnostics, 22 telematics, etc.) and includes but is not limited to onboard computers; display devices (e.g., 23 connected physically or wirelessly); automatic onboard recording devices; and devices or 24 components that (a) record, generate, process, store, or transmit hours of service 25 information and/or driver logs, including devices in compliance with 49 C.F.R. §395.15, 26 (b) generate, receive, or monitor trip schedules, (c) collect driver, route, and delivery 27 information in real-time, (d) receive or interface navigation (GPS) information and 28 geofencing; and/or (e) interface with any such device or component. 1 “Vehicle Onboard Computing Product" also includes any device or component that 2 may be more commonly referred to as an electronic logging device (ELD), electronic on- 3 board recorder (EOBR), electronic driver logs (EDLs), automatic on-board recording 4 device (AOBRD), computer assisted logs (CALs), and digital tachograph. 5 “Vehicle Onboard Computing Product” also includes any software, application, or 6 program designed to operate on or integrate with the above-mentioned onboard devices or 7 components. This includes but is not limited to software, applications, or programs for 8 vehicle routing, dispatch, customer service, and regulatory compliance. 9 “Vehicle Onboard Computing Product” includes but is not limited to XRS 10 Corporation’s Routetracker and Routetracker2 products (with or without TP Mobile) as 11 well as any related or substantially similar products. 12 This definition is limited to products, devices, and components that were made, used, 13 sold, or offered for sale, prior to February 16, 2016. 14 7. The words “and” and “or” shall be construed conjunctively or disjunctively, 15 whichever makes the request most inclusive. 16 8. “Time Period” means prior to February 16, 2016. 17 II. TOPICS FOR DEPOSITION 18 1. The design, development, components, features, functionality, architecture, 19 and operation of each Vehicle Onboard Computing Product made, used, sold, or offered 20 for sale during the Time Period. 21 2. The recording, generation, processing, display, storage, and transmission of 22 hours of service (HOS) information and/or driver logs for each Vehicle Onboard 23 Computing Product. 24 3. The generation, modification, transmission, reception, display, and 25 monitoring of trip schedules for each Vehicle Onboard Computing Product. 26 4. The collection, generation, transmission, and display of driver, route, 27 communication, and delivery information for each Vehicle Onboard Computing Product. 28 / / / 1 5. The use and interface of navigation (GPS) systems for each Vehicle Onboard 2 Computing Product. 3 6. The interface and connection to vehicle systems for each Vehicle Onboard 4 Computing Product. 5 7. The use, reliance upon, or otherwise consideration of the 2010 DOT 6 Regulations in the design and development of each Vehicle Onboard Computing Product 7 during the Time Period. 8 8. The first offer for sale and first sale in the United States of each Vehicle 9 Onboard Computing Product during the Time Period. 10 9. The first public use or display in the United States of each Vehicle Onboard 11 Computing Product during the Time Period. 12 10. The marketing for each Vehicle Onboard Computing Product. 13 11. The Patents-in-Suit and any search for prior art to the Patents-in-Suit. 14 12. The authenticity of the documents and things produced in response to the 15 Document Requests. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28