Spectrum Dynamics Medical Limited v. General Electric Company

Opinion

LAW OFFICES GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. NEIL F. GREENBLUM PATENT, COPYRIGHT AND TRADEMARK MATTERS HARRY J. GWINNELLO 1950 ROLAND CLARKE PLACE ARNOLD TURK A RESTON, VA 20191-1411 SOK K. HONG 0 0 TEL: (703) 716-1191 IEFEREY R. BOUSQUET © ROBERT W. MUELLER FAX: (703) 716-1180 GARY M. JACOBS © WILLIAM 5. BOSHNICK EMAIL: gbpatent@gbpatent.com SHAWN A. □□□□□□□□□□ PhD. www.gbpatent.com CHAD □□ □□□□□ BRUCE H. STONER, JR. © a CHUONG T. NGUYEN * mun USDC SDNY c □□□□ DOCUMENT -snrnn ELECTRONICALLY FILED REGISTERED PATENT AGEN DOC NAOKO DATE FILED: 7/23/2021

July 22, 2021 VIA ECF Hon. Katharine H. Parker APPLICATION GRANTED United States Magistrate Judge, Southern District of New York ~ Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse Kethanre tf □□□□ 500 Pearl Street, Room 750 Hon. Katharine H. Parker, U.S.M.J New York, New York 10007 7/23/2021 Re: Spectrum Dynamics Medical Limited v. GE; Case No.: 18-cv-11386 (VSB) Dear Magistrate Judge Parker: We represent Plaintiff Spectrum Dynamics Medical Limited (“Spectrum”) in the above- captioned matter. On behalf of Spectrum and Defendant General Electric Company (“GE”), we write pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(e), Your Honor’s Individual Rule of Practice HI(d), and the parties’ Stipulated Confidentiality and Protective Order (the “Protective Order”) (Doc. 156) to request that several passages contained in Document Number 300, the transcript of the parties’ appearance before Your Honor on June 30, 2021, be redacted and filed under seal. The parties jointly respectfully request that before the transcript is made publicly available, the court reporter be directed to redact the passages highlighted on pages 24-26, 30, 33, and 35 as set forth in Exhibit 1 hereto. The presumption of public access to judicial documents can be overcome if countervailing factors warrant confidentiality. See Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2006); see also Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978). Sealing of records may be justified to preserve “higher values,” including the need to protect an entity from competitive injury. Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 124; see also Tropical Sails Corp. v. Yext, Inc., No. 14- cv-7582, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49029, at *10-11 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 12) (risk of “competitive injury is sufficiently serious to warrant protection” of proprietary business information). Consistent with this, courts routinely permit sealing and redaction of competitively sensitive proprietary business information. See, e.g., Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Sunny Merch. Corp.,

Hon. Katharine H. Parker July 22, 2021 Page -2- 97 F. Supp. 3d 485, 511 (S.D.N.Y. 2015); Encyclopedia Brown Prods., Ltd. v. Home Box Office. Inc., 26 F. Supp. 2d 606, 614 (S.D.N.Y. 1998); see also Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598 (recognizing need to seal information that might “harm a litigant’s competitive standing”). Here, the discussions in the transcript concern documents containing internal GE information and communications that are not publicly available and confidential details of Spectrum’s involvement in an unrelated third-party proceeding. This information is competitively sensitive and proprietary information of GE or Spectrum, respectively, that, if disclosed, would pose a substantial risk of harm to GE or Spectrum, and constitutes “Highly Confidential — Attorneys’ Eyes Only” information under the Protective Order. (Doc. 156.). This is the sort of competitively sensitive information that courts consistently protect from disclosure. See, e.g., Ferring B.V. v. Allergan, Inc., No. 12-cv-2650, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150239, at *16 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 7) (granting motion to seal documents containing proprietary information related to product development); Encyclopedia Brown, 26 F. Supp. 2d at 612 (sealing documents reflecting sensitive trade secret information). This is particularly the case where, as here, the information to be sealed was not relevant to the Court’s resolution of any issue. Cf Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, 814 F. 3d 132, 143 (2d Cir. 2016)(denying sealing request where documents were “highly relevant to the exercise of Article III judicial power’). The parties’ request is narrowly tailored to protect highly confidential information and does not deprive the public of access to critical information. The parties respectfully request that the Court permit the requested redactions in the publicly available version of the June 30, 2021 transcript (Doc. 300).

Respectfully submitted, /Neil F. Greenblum/ Neil F. Greenblum Ce: All counsel of record (via ECF) {3734902 04884221.DOCX}

Exhibit 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK I SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL n re: : Docket #1:18-cv-11386- SPECTRUM DYNAMICS MEDICAL LIMITED, : VSB-KHP Plaintiff, : - against - : GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al., : New York, New York June 30, 2021 Defendants. : TELEPHONE CONFERENCE

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HONORABLE JUDGE KATHARINE H. PARKER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff: RIVKIN RADLER LLP BY: GREGORY D. MILLER, ESQ. 25 Main Street Court Plaza North - Suite 501 Hackensack, NJ 07601

GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. BY: NEIL F. GREENBLUM, ESQ. PETER BRANKO PEJIC, ESQ. JILL BROWNING, ESQ. DANIELLE PFIFFERLING, ESQ. 1950 Roland Clarke Place Reston, VA 20191

Transcription Service: Carole Ludwig, Transcription Services 155 East Fourth Street #3C New York, New York 10009 Phone: (212) 420-0771 Email: Transcription420@aol.com Proceedings conducted telephonically and recorded by electronic sound recording; Transcript produced by transcription service.

APPEARANCES - CONTINUED: For Defendants: THOMPSON HINE BY: MARLA R. BUTLER, ESQ. Two Alliance Center 3560 Lenox Road NE, Suite 1600 Atlanta, GA 30326 THOMPSON HINE LLP BY: JESSE L. JENIKE-GODSHALK, ESQ. 312 Walnut Street - 14th Floor Cincinnati, OH 45202 THOMPSON HINE LLP BY: BRIAN PHILIP LANCIAULT, JR. 335 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10017 THOMPSON HINE LLP BY: JEFFREY C. METZCAR, ESQ. Austin Landing 1 10050 Innovation Drive, Suite 400 Dayton, Ohio 45342-4934

INDEX

E X A M I N A T I O N S

Re- Re- Witness Direct Cross Direct Cross

None E X H I B I T S

Exhibit Voir Number Description ID In Dire

None 2 THE CLERK: Calling case 18cv11386, Spectrum 3 Dynamics Medical versus General Electric Company; the 4 Honorable Katharine H. Parker, presiding. 5 Beginning with counsel for the plaintiffs, can you 6 please make your appearance for the record? 7 MR. GREGORY MILLER: Good morning, Gregory Miller 8 Rivkin Radler, on behalf of the plaintiff. And also with me 9 from the law firm of Greenblum & Bernstein, we have Neil 10 Greenblum, Branko Pejic, Jill Browning, and Danielle 11 Pfifferling. 12 HONORABLE KATHARINE H. PARKER (THE COURT): Good 13 morning. 14 MR. MILLER: Good morning. 15 THE CLERK: And counsel for the defendants, can 16 you please make your appearance for the record? 17 MS. MARLA BUTLER: Yes, this is Marla Butler from 18 Thompson Hine, and with me are my colleagues, Jeff Metzcar, 19 Jesse Jenike-Godshalk and Brian Lanciault, also from Thompson 20 Hine for the defendants. 21 THE COURT: Welcome. So as a reminder, I ask you to 22 keep your phones on mute unless you’re speaking to eliminate 23 background noise, and to state your names before you speak for 24 the benefit of any court reporter who is asked to transcribe

25 the recording of today’s conference. Also, I want to remind 2 you that the court’s conference line is open to the press and 3 public on a listen only basis and that court rules prohibit 4 others from recording and rebroadcasting court conferences. 5 Violations of this rule may result in sanctions. 6 So welcome, everyone, I hope you had a good June, I 7 can’t believe it’s already July. I am not sure whether it was 8 docketed yet but we are going to be able to convert these 9 conferences to in person conferences because of the changing 10 Covid protocol, and so I think that will be a good thing for 11 the counsel to get together, to see each other and to see the 12 Court in person. So that’s going to be coming out. 13 You have a lot of items on your agenda letter. I’m 14 not sure we can get through all of them today, but I 15 understand from your more recent letter that you resolved some 16 of the items at your meet and confer on Monday. So why don’t 17 we start with Spectrum’s topics and then we’ll move on to GE’s 18 topics, does that sound good? 19 MR. MILLER: Very good, Your Honor. 20 MS. BUTLER: Sounds good, Your Honor. 21 THE COURT: Okay, so I guess, first, as I 22 understand it, Spectrum still has concerns about the 23 discovery and the speed of discovery. I was under the 24 impression that GE was nearly complete with its

25 production, so what exactly is the issue? 2 MR. BRANKO PEJIC: This is Mr. Pejic, Your 3 Honor. The issue is we’re not sure how many documents 4 are coming. In late April, we were told that there was 5 about 10,000 documents to complete. Since then, GE has 6 produced about 23,000 documents which is almost 20 7 percent of their production. So it looks like that 8 we’re back loading discovery and we have no sense of 9 what’s coming between here and July 15 while we’re 10 trying to prepare for depositions. And so we’d like 11 some clarity from defendants on whether July 15 is a 12 realistic close of substantial, close of document discovery, 13 and potentially how many more documents are coming, 14 because we’ve already received twice as many as we 15 were anticipating. 16 THE COURT: Okay, so can somebody from GE 17 clarify what’s going on? 18 MR. JESSE GODSHALK: Yes, Your Honor, this is 19 Mr. Godshalk, I’m happy to. I mean, you know, frankly, 20 I had spoken with opposing counsel about this earlier 21 this week and they asked me if I believed that we 22 would substantially complete our production by July 23 15, and I said that we would. So I mean I have already 24 communicated that to opposing counsel.

25 With regard to what is still in the pipeline, 2 I told the Court and opposing counsel what was still 3 in the pipeline at the last conference. I’m happy to 4 do that again and I’ll tell you that what is in the 5 pipeline currently, we are going to make or planning 6 to make another document production at the end of this 7 week. It will have about 5,000 documents. These are 8 documents that were collected from Michael Gazinski 9 (phonetic) and George Mashour (phonetic), these are 10 the documents that were stuck in Israeli customs. 11 We’ve, you know, since received those hard drives and 12 I think we’ve already produced some documents from 13 those custodians, but planning to produce the 14 remainder by the end of this week. 15 We have not yet produced the documents from 16 (indiscernible) Bar-Shalev (phonetic). We may also 17 have some additional documents in response to 18 Spectrum’s sixth set of requests for production but I 19 don’t expect that volume to be large. And as I 20 referenced during the last conference, we may have 21 some additional documents from our privilege review. 22 But again, I do not expect that volume to be large. 23 With regard to the number of documents that 24 we’ve produced since April 28, Your Honor, I did

25 provide an estimate at the April 28 conference that we 2 had 10,000 documents remaining. You know, that was a 3 good faith estimate but it wasn’t a perfect 4 calculation. And, furthermore, after I made that 5 estimate, Spectrum served an additional 28 document 6 requests and demanded that we collect documents from 7 additional custodians, including Mr. Bar-Shalev. And 8 even now, in the most recent agenda letter, they’re 9 demanding that we collect from an additional 10 custodian. 11 So I don’t think Spectrum should be permitted 12 to demand that we produce more documents and then turn 13 around and request relief from the Court because the 14 number of documents that we’ve produced exceeds our 15 earlier estimates. 16 THE COURT: Right. Well the fact that you 17 produced more than you initially estimated is not 18 really a concern given that there’s a continuing 19 document request and additional custodians. So I 20 understand it’s just an estimate. Okay, well it 21 sounds like, regardless, you’re going to be 22 substantially complete by July 15 except it sounds 23 like there’s this other potential custodian. So I 24 guess there’s the Devine and Hodge Yia-Yia (phonetic).

25 MR. JESSE GODSHALK: Correct, Your Honor. 2 MR. PEJIC: Correct. Your Honor, this is Mr. 3 Pejic. We have I believe resolved the Mr. Hodge Yia- 4 Yia issue. We had asked defendants to provide search 5 terms to narrow the 90,000 hits we received after deduping 6 and defendants gave us a set of search terms. We’ve run them 7 and we have somewhere around 13,000 to 15,000 documents to 8 review and produce. So I think that that issue has been 9 resolved. 10 THE COURT: Okay, great, and when do you expect to 11 be able to produce them, by July 15? 12 MR. PEJIC: Oh, certainly by then, Your Honor. 13 THE COURT: Okay, great. And what about 14 Devine. So he’s in-house counsel to GE? 15 MR. PEJIC: Correct, Your Honor. This is Mr. 16 Pejic, correct, Your Honor. 17 THE COURT: Okay. So this all pertains to the 18 claw back issue that’s pending before the Court, is 19 that right? 20 MR. PEJIC: Very much, Your Honor. 21 THE COURT: Okay. So why don’t you summarize 22 your position, Mr. Pejic, and then I’ll hear from GE 23 on this. 24 MR. PEJIC: Our position is, and this was

25 drafted before receiving defendant’s response to the 2 claw back, but it still remains true that there are no 3 entries on the privilege log that would evidence 4 anything as far as a request for legal advice from Mr. 5 Devine or him providing any such information. And the 6 problem there is that Mr. Hefetz who was the recipient 7 of this information, he is a custodian and presumably 8 his documents have been searched and produced. We’ve 9 received about 2,000 documents from him as a 10 custodian, but any documents that he had that evidence 11 those discussions with Mr. Devine are not on the 12 privilege log. And so we believe it would be 13 appropriate for GE to search Mr. Devine’s records 14 because as an in-house counsel he wears two hats and 15 not everything he does is privileged. And so not 16 everything we’d be seeking would be privileged and 17 would help understand his role in this boot camp. And, 18 additionally, any entries of communications with Mr. 19 Hefetz would be on the privilege log and would 20 substantiate the claims of privilege as they relate to 21 the 2004 boot camp. 22 THE COURT: Okay, but Mr. Devine has, there’s 23 going to be a lot of different privileged type of 24 communications in his email because he’s in-house IT

25 counsel. So that’s, are you suggesting that the search 2 be restricted to a very confined set of 3 communications? 4 MR. PEJIC: Yes, Your Honor, in fact, we’d be 5 happy to provide search terms. 6 THE COURT: What do you think that, why do you 7 think that he has relevant information? 8 MR. PEJIC: Well he supposedly organized and 9 prepared a Power Point that was presented at the 2004 boot 10 camp, but he prepared this power point along with Gil 11 Kovalski, I’m sorry about the pronunciation, who is just an 12 inventor and businessperson and, for instance, that actual 13 Power Point has been withheld as privilege but we have no 14 idea who attended the meetings, who it was presented to. And 15 we believe that even that document isn’t privileged in 16 totality because it was authored by a businessperson and an 17 in-house corporate counsel. So we would believe that that 18 would shed a lot of light on what was said at that 2004 boot 19 camp and give a broader understanding of whether what we 20 believe is a commercial statement is actually a privileged 21 statement and a response to a request for legal advice. 22 THE COURT: Well so the Power Point that’s at 23 issue was, is on the privilege log? 24 MR. PEJIC: Correct, Your Honor, but it only

25 has two authors and no recipients. 2 THE COURT: Okay. Because it sounds like it 3 wasn’t sent to anybody, it sounds like it was shown at 4 a meeting. 5 MR. PEJIC: Correct, Your Honor. 6 THE COURT: So do you know what happened at 7 the meeting, are there agendas or anything else? 8 MR. PEJIC: We’ve received approximately ten 9 documents or so related to that meeting and we have a 10 list of proposed attendees and Mr. Devine did not take 11 part in that aspect of it. And we have one slide deck 12 that doesn’t shown Mr. Devine, and other than that, we 13 have some follow-up emails and none of which actually 14 refer to Mr. Devine. And what was discussed there was 15 presumably business strategy as well as some legal 16 strategy. We’re not saying that there’s no privileged 17 information in that Power Point, we’re just saying 18 it’s highly unlikely that that Power Point is 19 privileged in its entirety. And so that’s just 20 another reason why we believe it would be appropriate 21 to search Mr. Devine’s records pursuant to a very 22 limited search. 23 THE COURT: Let me hear from GE on that? 24 MR. BRIAN LANCIAULT: Your Honor, this is Mr.

25 Lanciault. I think, you know, part of the issue here 2 is, you know, the parties are producing privilege logs 3 on a rolling basis. So I suspect, and Mr. Godshalk 4 alluded to this earlier, that, you know, we’re still 5 doing a privilege review and there might be some 6 residual documents produced from that. There’s, of 7 course, going to be more documents logged that will 8 probably shed some light on this. 9 The other point is that, you know, to the 10 extent there are non-privileged, you know, documents 11 about this boot camp, as Mr. Pejic acknowledged, you 12 know, Gil Kovalski is a non-attorney, he’s a custody 13 who we’ve collected from, we’ve produced non- 14 privileged files from his, documents from his files. 15 And so, you know, we think that, it’s GE’s position 16 that to go further to collect from Mr. Devine who, you 17 know, is lead IP counsel or was lead IP counsel during 18 the relevant time at GE is, you know, more burdensome 19 and outside the scope of Rule 26 where we’re going to 20 have to sift through thousands of likely privileged 21 and potentially not relevant documents, you know, 22 simply for I guess the exercise of logging them to, 23 you know, to satisfy what seems to be Spectrum’s 24 curiosity here.

25 We have documents from attendees at the boot 2 camp. As he said, they have an email that shows the 3 attendees or some of the attendees that were there and 4 otherwise, you know, we’ll be logging whatever 5 additional files we have that involve Mr. Devine to 6 the extent they’re privileged, to the extent they’re 7 not, and they, you know, they’ll be produced. 8 THE COURT: Okay. So I don’t believe that 9 it’s appropriate at this point to add Mr. Devine as a 10 custodian. You have not received all of the privilege 11 logs yet and, furthermore, you have received non- 12 privileged documents related to the meeting, Mr. 13 Pejic, and you can depose individuals about what 14 happened at the meeting and then after those 15 depositions, after you’ve had a look at the full 16 privilege log, then maybe you would have a better 17 case. But right now you haven’t demonstrated why the 18 information would be not redundant or proportional to 19 the needs of the case given the other information 20 that’s been produced about this meeting. And also, 21 it’s premature, the request is premature because the 22 production of documents regarding the meeting is not 23 done. 24 So I’m not going to require GE to take a look

25 at, to add Mr. Devine as a custodian. If later in 2 discovery there’s good cause to revisit this, you can 3 raise it again, but at this point I don’t think you’ve 4 made the case to add him as a custodian. 5 MR. PEJIC: Okay, this is Mr. Pejic, thank 6 you, Your Honor. May I ask one question of defendants, 7 though, can they please confirm that they’re not withholding 8 a list of the attendees or any agenda from that 2004 boot 9 camp? Because we certainly haven’t received anything like 10 that. We’ve had -- 11 THE COURT: Well, again, Mr. Pejic, that’s 12 something you can talk about with a meet and confer. What 13 I’ve heard is that they are not done producing the documents 14 yet. So both sides have a requirement to let you know if 15 they’re withholding documents, so I don’t think we need to 16 take up more time on this. 17 So let’s go to GE’s agenda items. So, one, GE 18 thinks that it’s missing documents. So it’s not clear to me 19 whether this issue has been fully resolved from your letter. 20 It seems like some of the things have been resolved but not 21 all, so who wants to address this from GE’s side? 22 MR. JEFFREY METZCAR: Good morning, Your Honor, 23 this is Jeff Metzcar. You’re correct, the parties had 24 a meet and confer on this issue on Monday. I believe

25 that we’ve made progress on some of the items but 2 there is one particular category of documents that I 3 think we need to raise with you now. Defendants have 4 requested documents pertaining to two recent disputes 5 between the plaintiff and a related entity, Molecular 6 Dynamics. 7 Molecular Dynamics claims that it, not the 8 plaintiff, possesses the right to use the trade 9 secrets in this case and, therefore, that plaintiff’s 10 Veriton product infringes Molecular Dynamics’ 11 intellectual property rights. You know, the fact, 12 well, the facts and arguments that Molecular Dynamics 13 would present in those disputes to support its claim 14 that plaintiff does not have the right to make and 15 sell the Veriton and does not have the right to use 16 the very trade secrets that plaintiff has accused GE 17 of misappropriating, those facts and arguments would 18 be highly relevant to this case. Not only to 19 plaintiff’s standing, but also to the issue of 20 plaintiff’s request for damages. 21 So during the last conference with this Court, 22 plaintiff, plaintiff’s counsel represented that it was 23 not withholding any responsive documents. Now we know 24 that plaintiff is withholding all documents relating

25 to this category on the basis of relevance, and that’s 2 why we bring the issue to the Court’s attention. 3 THE COURT: Okay, let me hear from Spectrum. 4 MR. PEJIC: Okay, this is Mr. Pejic. 13 MR. PEJIC: This is Mr. Pejic, correct, Your 14 Honor. 15 THE COURT: Okay. And so, and what is the 16 stage where the, what’s the status of those two 17 separate disputes? 18 MR. PEJIC: This is Mr. Pejic again, the BBI 19 action was resolved in Spectrum’s favor and the Court 20 found that the party is seeking a worldwide freeze 21 order to keep Spectrum from selling the business or 22 otherwise conducting commercial activities was denied 23 for a lack of evidence. And one of the interesting 24 things that makes it very clear that ownership was not at

25 issue is in the final order the judge, the high court 2 judge there in the BBI said that the official transcript 3 indicates that “The learned judge had some difficulty 4 navigating the facts of the applicable law. Learned 5 counsel for the applicants affirmed the judge’s initial 6 understanding that the worldwide freeze order was being 7 sought in support of a claim by applicants over ownership 8 of intellectual property rights. That understanding was 9 erroneous. The worldwide freeze order was being sought in 10 support of a claim for damages for breach of contract. 11 Consequently, it would appear learned counsel for the 12 applicants and the learned judge were speaking at cross 13 purposes for a large part of the hearing. Later in the ex 14 parte hearing the learned judge realized the correct basis 15 for the application, he then accepted apparently 16 uncritically the applicant’s assertion quantum of their 17 damages would be at least $100 million, whilst contained 18 in an affidavit no cogent basis for this or any other 19 figure was set out in this evidentiary vehicle.” And then 20 that said, “The lack of solid evidence of a risk of real 21 dissipation is pivotal in my respectful judgment and 22 requires a discharge of the worldwide freeze order. That 23 will be the order of the Court.” And that was in favor of 24 Spectrum. So the judge --

25 THE COURT: So and that’s the opinion that you 2 produced to GE? 3 MR. PEJIC: Yes, Your Honor. 4 THE COURT: Okay, and then what’s the status 5 of the other issue? 6 MR. PEJIC: 1 PROCEEDINGS 21

11 THE COURT: Yeah, I don’t see, I don’t see the 12 relevance of this other dispute beyond the opinions 13 that are issued, in my view that this is 14 disproportionate to the needs of this case. If, you 15 know, if it, you know, you can certainly subpoena 16 somebody from these other entities to the extent that 17 they think the trade secrets at issue in this case are 18 their trade secrets, but I would think if that were 19 the case they may be, you’d be making yourself, GE 20 would be making itself a target. I take it these, 21 because these trade secrets are something that 22 Spectrums is saying that GE isn’t properly using. 23 MR. METZCAR: Well, Your Honor, this is Jeff 24 Metzcar again, you know, we’ve been attempting to get

25 these documents since December of 2020, and the reason 2 why we’ve attempted to get them from plaintiff is 3 because the other entity involved, Molecular Dynamics, 4 is, I believe, a Bermuda entity. So obtaining 5 discovery from them is not something that would be 6 simple. 7 We’ve been trying to get these documents, as I 8 said, since December of 2020, and we repeatedly asked 9 whether Spectrum was withholding any of these 10 documents on the basis of relevance, or any of its 11 objections. As you know, we brought this up with the 12 Court in the last conference and we were told over and 13 over again that it was not withholding any responsive 14 documents. Only now have we learned that they are 15 being withheld on the basis of relevance and this 16 issue could have been addressed long, long ago. And 17 now we, you know, we find it prejudicial to GE to have 18 to attempt to obtain the same information from a third 19 party in Bermuda. 20 THE COURT: Well I don’t, as I said, I don’t, 21 I don’t believe that GE’s made the case that these 22 documents are relevant and proportional to the needs 23 of the case. So I’m not going to require production of 24 documents in this dispute, apart from the opinion, so

25 that you understand the outcome of those disputes. And 2 certainly you can explore in deposition, if you want, 3 a little bit more information to learn about that. 4 And if you learn some information that would render 5 some of those documents important, you can re-raise it 6 with me. But right now I don’t see how producing all 7 the underlying documents in those actions is relevant 8 and (indiscernible). 9 Okay -- 10 MS. BUTLER: Your Honor, this is Marla Butler, 11 can we just request then that Spectrum produce that 12 opinion immediately upon its release? As the parties 13 are preparing to proceed with depositions, any delay 14 in getting that opinion once it issues would make it 15 more difficult for us to use it in this litigation. 16 THE COURT: Sure, yes, Spectrum should produce 17 the opinion within a week after it receives it. 18 MS. BROWNING: Thank you, Your Honor, and we 19 will do so. The only proviso I have with respect to 20 that is if there is any confidential information of a 21 third party, that we don’t have the, you know, the 22 ability to provide to third parties about violating 23 the confidentiality concerns of the Swiss arbitration, 24 we would redact that out. But we will produce it, you

25 know, as soon as we can. 2 THE COURT: Sure. 3 MS. BROWNING: Within a week. 4 THE COURT: In seven days. If it needs to be 5 redacted pursuant to a Swiss court order then, you 6 know, that’s, for confidentiality reasons, that’s 7 okay. 8 MS. BUTLER: Your Honor, if I could make one 9 other point in that regard, I think, you know, the 10 amount of redactions might really take out a lot of 11 the substance. And if the party -- 12 THE COURT: It’s all hypothetical now, we 13 don’t even know what, we have no idea what it is, so 14 let’s table this issue and see what happens. We don’t 15 even know when, I mean we have no idea when the Swiss 16 authorities are going to issue this. In my experience, 17 the Swiss legal processes move like molasses, so it 18 may not be, it may not be in one or two months, it 19 could be longer. So let’s see when they issue it and 20 then you can see if anything needs to be redacted, and 21 then you can raise the issue, but let’s not argue 22 about hypotheticals right now. 23 Okay, so then this was the key issue, I think 24 the other issues were resolved related to documents

25 that GE was seeking, is that right? 2 MR. METZCAR: This is Jeff Metzcar again, I 3 think we have made progress and nothing else needs to 4 be addressed on this call. 5 THE COURT: Okay. Now I want to hear more 6 about depositions, have you scheduled depositions, 7 what’s coming up? 8 MR. PEJIC: Your Honor, plaintiffs have one 9 more issue that got skipped as we were going between 10 letters and it deals with the alternate channels of 11 communication. And my colleague, if the Court will 12 indulge us, my colleague, Ms. Pfifferling, I’m sorry, 13 will be addressing it. 14 THE COURT: Okay. 15 MS. DANIELLE PFIFFERLING: Your Honor, this is 16 Ms. Pfifferling. This issue is on the agenda letter on 17 page 2, the second full paragraph. 18 THE COURT: Okay. 19 MS. PFIFFERLING: And this relates to the 20 alternate communication channels and this really does 21 relate to the interrogatory that Spectrum served and that 22 is Exhibit E. And if you have that exhibit handy -- 23 THE COURT: Yes, hang on, let me just go to it, 24 I have the judgment, okay, go ahead.

25 MS. PFIFFERLING: So Exhibit E is Spectrum’s 2 interrogatory number 4, on page 2 it really defines 3 alternate communication channels. And there we are 4 defining it as being a server, database, FTP site, 5 file sharing services, local drives, removable storage 6 drives, network drives and also cloud based files. And 7 then on page 3, we do give non-limiting examples of 8 any alternate communication channels. And these are where 9 you see the Romanettes, whether you’re on, (iii) (iv) 11 General Electric, which seems to be a password, (v) which 12 is (vi) and (vii) which is 13 But these are examples, we are citing GE’s Bates ranges as 14 examples of what we are calling alternative communication 15 channels. 16 THE COURT: Okay. 17 MS. PFIFFERLING: But then if you turn to our 18 interrogatory number 4, which his on page 5, what 19 we’re asking GE is just to identify any of these 20 alternate communication channels that were used by the 21 GE diligence personnel to send, receive, store 22 information related to the Spotlight Project, which 23 was the due diligence project, and the Star Guide 24 Project, which is GE’s imitation device.

25 And if you look at Exhibit D, which is GE’s 2 response to our rog 4, let me know when you have that 3 open? 4 THE COURT: Yes. 5 MS. PFIFFERLING: So on page 5 of Exhibit D, 6 that is GE’s objections. Page 6 is their substantive 7 response. Paragraph 1, that last sentence, they just 8 simply identify very broad and general network drives 9 which is email, FTP sites, (indiscernible) local 10 drives, computer drives and GE networks. That is not 11 what our interrogatory was asking for, they were using 12 very broad and general terms, we’re asking for the 13 specific locations and drives where this information 14 was stored. We did have a meet and confer, we asked 15 defendants about it, they seemed to be confused on the 16 meaning of alternate communication channels when we were 17 very specific regarding that definition, and then they 18 responded in their rog with just a very broad and general 19 language. And we would like for them to supplement their 20 Exhibit B, which is their rog response to number 4, to 21 supplement, to be very specific, similar to how Spectrum was 22 with defining this term, be very specific on these network 23 drives where this information was stored. 24 And also, if you look at the next paragraph and

25 GE’s response, they do say that this information can be 2 obtained through the metadata accompanying these documents 3 that they have produced. And they said that they have, 4 including the folder paths, however, we just discovered last 5 night when we were looking at folder paths for some of the 6 documents, there is text in that folder path. However, 7 that text for the folder path and text in the file 8 name is exactly the same. And so it appears that 9 actually the text in the folder path that was 10 provided, that is not the text of the folder path, 11 that seems to be the text of the file name. And we 12 had our vendor go back and check the original load 13 files from GE’s production and confirm that they have 14 not produced the folder paths of their documents. So 15 we’re asking now for GE to supplement their rog 16 response number 4 and also provide an overlay of what 17 documents that they have produced, provide an overlay 18 of the folder path. 19 THE COURT: Okay. So well it sounds like this 20 is new information about the folder paths, that there 21 seemed to have been some hiccup in that, but let me 22 hear from GE on this. 23 MR. GODSHALK: Yeah, Your Honor, this is Jesse 24 Godshalk. Right, with regard to the folder path

25 issue, I mean certainly I can have our vendor look at 2 that, this is the first I’ve heard of it, I didn’t 3 know we had an issue with regard to that. but with 4 regard to the other things that were raised, Your 5 Honor, this term, alternate communication channels, 6 quite frankly, it is probably the most confusingly 7 defined term that I have ever come across in my 8 practice. It is two sentences long -- it’s two 9 sentences, each with multiple subparts and footnotes 10 stretching for more than a page of text. And read 11 literally, the term encompasses all channels of 12 communication, so that would be telephone, phone, 13 mail, wire, computers, any type of, you know, like 14 subgroups within computers, whether it’s networks, 15 that GE used during the due diligence period from 2009 16 to 2012, and in developing its spec device over the 17 past decade. So we’re looking for all channels of 18 communication that GE used for more than a ten year 19 period. That is so broad and difficult to pin down 20 that it is unworkable. 21 The definition that they’ve provided also is 22 internally inconsistent because it includes as 23 examples of means of communication, things that are, 24 such as external storage devices that are not means of

25 communication. So I mean they’ve defined it as means 2 of communication and then included examples that are 3 not means of communication. So I don’t know, we don’t 4 know, what is actually within the scope of this term. 5 And, you know, we told them that in writing and in our 6 meet and confers and we tried our best to provide a, 7 you know, reasonable response to interrogatory number 8 4. 9 You know, if they actually want us to list, 10 for instance, every single phone number, every single 11 laptop, every single network device that GE has used 12 in its development of its spec device and during due 13 diligence over more than a ten year period, quite 14 frankly, I think that’s disproportionate to the needs 15 of the case. I don’t even know how, Your Honor, I 16 would go about doing that. I mean the number of hours 17 involved, I couldn’t even begin to estimate how long 18 it would take for me to figure out, and many of these 19 things probably do not even exist anymore. I mean the 20 computers that were being used in 2009, they probably 21 do not exist. In fact, I am sure that there are of 22 them that simply do not exist, they’ve been retired, 23 destroyed. I don’t know how I would go back and figure 24 out what computer equipment was being used more than a

25 decade ago. 2 THE COURT: So let me, I don’t even understand 3 why this is needed, why does Spectrum need this 4 information? 5 MS. PFIFFERLING: Your Honor, if you could 6 look at the Exhibit C, let me know when you have that 7 ready? 8 THE COURT: C as in cookie? 9 MS. PFIFFERLING: Yes. 10 THE COURT: Yes. 11 MS. PFIFFERLING: So in Exhibit C,

And that (indiscernible) below 14 that,

So we were trying 21 figure out what was this 22 keep in mind Yaron was one of the key players, he’s an 23 inventor on some of those GE patents and he was also 24 an outside consultant for GE. So we’re trying to

25 understand how GE was, you know, communicating with 2 these external consultants because it seems that this 3 was not a form of communication that’s not on GE’s 4 server. 5 THE COURT: I have a very specific question, 6 why don’t, I mean you can just ask a deponent, you 7 know, what was this. A lot of times this just means 8 like there was a, you know, a tunnel email, a 9 protected email chain, but let me -- 10 MR. GREENBLUM: Your Honor, this is Neil 11 Greenblum, can I just add one thing? 12 THE COURT: Sure. 13 MR. GREENBLUM: Let’s remember that this case 14 is about misappropriation of trade secrets and it’s 15 premature now to give you all of the examples where 16 this has happened. But remember that a number of 17 individuals, when they want to talk about what they 18 are doing, say let’s go off to our private channel for 19 this. So this is not a case of just harassing, I want 20 Your Honor to realize we’re just not harassing GE to 21 waste their time, these were the key individuals, 22 they’re communicating information that they shouldn’t 23 have been communicating at this time period. That’s 24 the point, this time period, should not have been

25 communicating. And they know they’re doing something 2 wrong and they’re going off channel, that’s what this 3 is about. 4 THE COURT: I understand that point, but I 5 want to ask GE, looking at Exhibit C, have you 6 inquired with anybody from GE Healthcare, Gil Kovalski 7 or Jean-Paul Bouhnik is, do they know? 9 MR. GODSHALK: Your Honor, this is Jesse 10 Godshalk again, I mean I, we did not specifically show 11 this document, for instance, to Gil Kovalski or Jean-Paul 12 Bouhnik and say 13 but I can tell you that we performed collection interviews 14 that I participated in of both of these individuals and 15 asked them about every possible location for, you know, 16 documents that are responsive and that will be relevant in 17 this case. And asked them, for instance, you know, about 18 network drives, shared drives, you know, any sort of 19 location for, you know, electronic data, where is it and 20 how do we get it. So, yeah, that’s what we did, Your 21 Honor. 22 THE COURT: Okay. So what I’d like you to do 23 is I’d like you just to ask these individuals was 24 there some other, do they know what this refers to and

25 were there, I’m going to refer to it as offline 2 communications about the issues here in the case, 3 right, about this patent or other trade secrets. Just 4 ask and see. 5 MR. GODSHALK: Okay. 6 THE COURT: Okay? 7 MR. GODSHALK: Yes. 8 THE COURT: I think first do that because the 9 interrogatory as phrased is overbroad and not 10 proportional to the needs of the case. I do understand 11 why plaintiffs are asking the question, let’s start 12 with you interviewing these folks and seeing if there 13 were private offline communications that GE doesn’t 14 know about, that you didn’t know about before. 15 Sometimes, you know, even the best witness interviews, 16 you learn something new during the course of a 17 litigation, right? 18 MR. GODSHALK: Yes, Your Honor. 19 THE COURT: Okay, so why don’t you check on 20 that and then we’ll take it from there. 21 MR. GODSHALK: Will do. 22 THE COURT: So let’s next hear about the, I 23 want to hear next about the deposition schedule. 24 MR. PEJIC: Well, Your Honor, this is Mr.

25 Pejic and Spectrum, well, Spectrum and GE have been 2 talking for a while on the various issues. Weeks ago 3 we exchanged lists of witnesses. GE objected to 4 Spectrum’s number of witnesses and has not provided 5 the availability of the witnesses while the parties 6 are negotiating what deposition limits are in place. 7 So to date, I’m not aware of GE actually sending 8 anything to Your Honor, but Spectrum last night filed 9 its proposal for deposition limits. And the reason, 10 and it expresses the reason why Spectrum’s position is 11 proper in view of the complexity of the case and the 12 number of witnesses and explains how defendant’s offer 13 that’s currently on the table, it’s our understanding, 14 although they haven’t submitted anything to the Court, 15 of 12 total fact depositions, is just unworkable 16 because, at the end of the day, defendants have listed 17 12 people on their initial disclosures and if Spectrum 18 is limited to 12 depositions, GE is unilaterally 19 handcuffing Spectrum on who they have to depose. And 20 to top this off, GE also refuses to agree that a trial 21 witness can’t appear unless they are previously 22 deposed. Spectrum had made that proposal to help limit 23 the number of witnesses because that would give us 24 some comfort if we didn’t take a deposition of someone

25 that they wouldn’t appear at trial to contradict any 2 testimony. 3 But I think that Spectrum has set our position 4 out in our letter and I’m happy to speak to any 5 questions Your Honor might have about that, but I 6 don’t know how to respond to GE because there is not 7 currently anything on the table that I’m aware of. 8 THE COURT: Okay, well, I mean what I want to 9 know is I want to hear from GE, why haven’t you gotten 10 back to dates. There’s clearly some witnesses that 11 both sides know need to be deposed and those 12 depositions should be scheduled. 13 MS. BUTLER: Yes, Your Honor, so neither side 14 has provided availability of their witnesses. We’ve 15 given names to Spectrum of the individuals we’d like 16 to depose, we haven’t gotten availability of those 17 witnesses either. The reason GE hasn’t provided 18 availability is because we believe we needed to iron 19 out what the limits of depositions were going to be. 20 Spectrum has identified 16 people that it wants to 21 depose and it indicated that they’re leaving the door 22 open to depose more. So until we know how many 23 depositions are going to be permitted in this case, we 24 don’t know whose availability we should be looking to

25 discover. 2 On June 3, Your Honor, we suggested to 3 Spectrum that the parties submit to Your Honor a joint 4 letter with the parties’ differing views on what the 5 deposition limits should be so that Your Honor could 6 decide it and we could move to scheduling. We asked 7 Spectrum to join us in that pleading at least three 8 times over the course of the month and what we got 9 yesterday was a last minute letter from Spectrum with 10 obviously no time for GE to provide a response with 11 its position as it relates to deposition limits. But 12 here is GE’s position as it relates to limits. 13 So, you know, the 120 hours that Spectrum has 14 proposed, if we’re looking at 7 hour depositions that 15 would be 17 depositions. Or if Spectrum wanted to 16 depose witnesses for only 4 hours, that would be a 17 total of 30 depositions. And the reason that’s 18 problematic is not only because the number of 19 witnesses and depositions that far exceed what the 20 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow, but combine 21 that with Spectrum’s insistence that GE bring all of 22 its witnesses to the United States for deposition in 23 person. So Spectrum could decide to depose 30 GE 24 individuals and depose those individuals for 2 hours, 3

25 hours and require them to travel to the United States for 2 deposition. We think that is overly burdensome on GE and 3 we think that depositions of individuals who are in Israel 4 should take place remotely. One thing that we have 5 learned in this pandemic is that remote depositions do 6 work. The technology has gotten more efficient, more 7 proficient and we think that witnesses who are in 8 Israel should not have to undergo the incredible 9 disruption personally and professionally to come here 10 to the United States to be deposed. 11 On this issue of the parties or Spectrum 12 insisting that only witnesses that have been deposed can 13 testify at trial, Your Honor, what that does is it puts 14 in the hands of one party who the other party can call 15 to trial. So if Spectrum wants to prevent GE from 16 calling an important witness, Spectrum could just 17 choose not to depose that witness. 18 Trial witnesses are determined by who the 19 parties disclose. GE has served disclosures with the 20 individuals that we believe at this time may be 21 testifying at trial. And so what GE is proposing is 22 12 individual depositions per side, and if we wanted 23 to turn that into hours, Your Honor, GE would be happy 24 to do that. So, you know, 7 hour deposition limit

25 times 12, 84 hours of depositions. But on top of 2 that, GE is agreeing that each side would get 25 hours 3 of 30(B)(6) depositions. We think that those two 4 components combined are perfectly sufficient, 12 5 individual depos or 84 hours, plus 25 hours of 6 30(B)(6) deposition are sufficient to cover the issues 7 in this case. 8 THE COURT: Um-hmm. 9 MR. PEJIC: Your Honor, this is Mr. Pejic, may 10 I respond? 11 THE COURT: Yes. 12 MR. PEJIC: Okay, as an initial matter, GE 13 seems to be picking and choosing from Spectrum’s 14 proposal. Spectrum’s proposal sets out that if the 15 depositions are taken remotely they can be up to 10 16 hours, and so that is 12 depositions. And as far as 17 the witnesses in Israel, Spectrum has said that we’re 18 willing to travel to Israel to take the depositions, 19 we would not require the GE witnesses to come to the 20 US. 21 And, moreover, Ms. Butler made it very clear 22 with the 12 deposition limit and their initial 23 disclosures, Spectrum fully intends to depose everyone 24 on GE’s initial disclosure list. I mean it would be

25 malpractice otherwise because those folks don’t always 2 show up at trial as witnesses. What we’re concerned 3 about is the fact that we can’t depose anyone under 4 GE’s offer other than those listed on their initial 5 disclosures such that in reality it’s GE that’s 6 dictating who can be deposed, because Spectrum would 7 be remiss if we didn’t depose everyone on GE’s initial 8 disclosures. So it’s really illusory in the sense 9 that GE’s 12 deposition limit handcuffs Spectrum and 10 requires them to take depositions only of the people 11 identified by GE without the ability to take 12 additional depositions, where it is GE has the ability 13 to take significantly more depositions of Spectrum 14 because Spectrum has four individuals listed on their 15 initial disclosures. 16 So this truly is a situation where there’s a 17 huge disproportionality. Spectrum tried to strike a 18 middle line here to give both parties some flexibility 19 and add proportionality and fairness to the offers, 20 and that’s why we have proposed 120 hours if done 21 remotely. If the parties agreed to take the 22 depositions in person, we’re willing to talk about 23 that being a 7 hour limit and reevaluating the hour 24 limit. And here, in this case, remote depositions

25 aren’t going to be as simple as other situations 2 because it involves highly technical information, 3 people with English as a second language and perhaps, 4 you know, very strong accents, and also could involve 5 translation issues. There’s no way we could take a 7 6 hour deposition with translation issues. And the 7 documents are likely going to be a lot of schematics 8 and engineering drawings because of the technical 9 nature of everything, which does not lend itself to 10 being put on screens. It’s very hard to read and how 11 could you magnify and everything else. 12 So at the end of the day, Spectrum is willing 13 to work with GE and certainly insure that the limits 14 are appropriate and I think that that, we submit that 15 that’s what we’ve done in our letter. 16 THE COURT: Okay, so what I want you to do is 17 I want you to schedule some depositions in August and 18 September. I certainly encourage you to cooperate to 19 have virtual where they make sense, but I also 20 understand why both sides may want to have some of 21 these in person. In terms of the limit, I don’t -- I 22 understand what GE is saying, that you want to have a 23 limit before you schedule, but at the same time, 24 that’s a little bit arbitrary because what’s important

25 is to get to the merits of the case, who are the key 2 witnesses that Spectrum wants and that GE wants, and 3 why are they important, why are the depositions not 4 redundant, why are they proportional to the needs of 5 the case. So I don’t know, I don’t have that 6 information. What I, I mean I have the letter, but I 7 don’t, maybe I’m missing it -- 8 MS. BUTLER: Can I offer a suggestion, Your 9 Honor? 10 THE COURT: What I think I need to know is I 11 need to have, I need to understand who are the 12 witnesses that Spectrum presently wants to depose and 13 what is the, what are the topics on which they want to 14 be deposed. And then who are the witnesses that GE 15 presently wants to depose, that’s what I want to 16 understand. 17 In terms of the limit, 25 hours of 30(B)(6) 18 seems reasonable to me because that’s, you know, 19 that’s more than three days really of deposition on 20 30(B)(6) topics. So that seems to me to be reasonable, 21 25 hours of 30(B)(6) for each side. In terms of the 22 individual fact witnesses though, I really don’t, you 23 know, I understand 12, I understand 12, why you’re 24 proposing a limit of 12, but it may be that some

25 additional ones are needed. And 7 versus 10 hours, 2 there may be some witnesses that are shorter and some 3 that are longer. And I appreciate that there can be a 4 slowdown because of translation issues. 5 So what I’d like is for, personally, I think 6 that you should meet and confer a little bit more on 7 this. I think what plaintiff should do is provide the 8 list of people you currently think that you want to 9 depose and GE should also provide the list of people 10 it wants to depose. And then if you have a, if you 11 want to exchange 30(B)(6) notices you should do that, 12 and then you can have a more informed discussion about 13 whether some of the people should be taken off and 14 limits from that perspective. I think that’s a better 15 way to go about it because you’re going to be focusing 16 on the information that you need rather than arbitrary 17 limits. 18 MR. PEJIC: Understood, Your Honor. 19 MS. BUTLER: And, Your Honor, we do have the 20 list of individuals that Spectrum wants to depose and 21 Spectrum has our list of individuals that we want to 22 depose. We can certainly provide 30(B)(6) topics, as 23 well. And just because I know that the parties since 24 June 2 have been trying to resolve this issue, can we

25 at least get some direction from the Court as to how 2 many witnesses we can start scheduling depositions 3 for? Because if Spectrum sticks to the 16 and we’re 4 still at, you know, 12 depositions, then we don’t know 5 which witnesses we should prioritize, if there’s a cap 6 for now at least. 7 THE COURT: How many witnesses are on GE’s 8 list? 9 MS. BUTLER: Five, Your Honor, plus Rule 10 30(B)(6). 11 THE COURT: Okay, and Spectrum has 16 plus 12 30(B)(6)? 13 MS. BUTLER: Exactly. 14 THE COURT: Yes, so right now schedule 10, you 15 can schedule 10 each, that’s consistent with the 16 rules, and then let’s talk about what’s next. 17 MS. BUTLER: That sounds good, Your Honor. 18 MR. PEJIC: Your Honor, this is Mr. Pejic, I 19 just want to point out that 16 depositions is only 4 20 individuals not listed on GE’s initial disclosures. So 21 we -- 22 THE COURT: I understand that, Mr. Pejic, 23 you’re going to get discovery that is relevant and 24 proportional and that you need to prosecute the claim.

25 You’re going to get that, that’s going to be 2 proportional, but I need to understand a little bit 3 more who these additional ones, you know, are and 4 whether they’re necessary. But go ahead and schedule 5 up to 10 and I want you to exchange 30(B)(6) topics 6 within the next, let’s see, the 4th of July holiday is 7 upon us so I want you to exchange those 30(B)(6) 8 topics by July 14. 9 MS. BUTLER: Will do, Your Honor. 10 THE COURT: Okay? 11 MR. PEJIC: Yes, Your Honor. 12 THE COURT: So do a simultaneous exchange so 13 that you understand, because I think that’s important, 14 too, it may be that some of the fact witnesses will 15 actually answer some of the 30(B)(6) topics, as well, 16 and you all should know that. And I hear why it may 17 make sense to conduct some depositions in Israel. 18 Israel fully, you know, they have a very high 19 vaccination rate, so I’m not sure what the situation 20 is with travel to Israel now, so you may, if there’s 21 going to be depositions in Israel, you obviously 22 should schedule them to happen at, you know, a time 23 where you don’t have to make multiple trips. 24 MR. PEJIC: Yes, Your Honor.

25 THE COURT: So I want you to take a look at 2 that, take a look at the 30(B)(6), and then I will 3 make a decision about the additional depositions. But, 4 from my perspective, 7 to maybe 10 hours is not 5 necessarily problematic, particularly when you’re 6 dealing with a translator and some of these technical 7 things. Obviously, you should try to be strategic 8 about the questions in your depositions, try to limit 9 them to 7 hours but, as we all know as litigators, 10 sometimes you need just a little bit of extra time. So 11 I expect the sides to cooperate on that. 12 MS. BUTLER: Will do, Your Honor. One 13 question, Spectrum filed a letter last night to the 14 Court proposing deposition limits and so we’ve got 15 three days I guess to respond to that. Are you 16 expecting a response to that letter or would you like 17 us to wait until, you know, the parties have kind of 18 hopefully made some progress on this, just how would 19 you like us to handle that letter? 20 THE COURT: I don’t want you to respond to 21 that letter because right now what I’m asking you to 22 do is exchange those deposition topics and talk about 23 scheduling of up to ten of the witnesses. And, 24 Spectrum, you can prioritize which ones. And this does

25 not at all mean that you can’t depose other people, 2 I’m not making that decision yet, but prioritize, 3 okay? 4 MR. PEJIC: Yes, Your Honor, thank you very 5 much. 6 THE COURT: And then we can address it at the 7 next, I mean by this time we’ll be able to address it 8 at the next status conference. 9 MS. BUTLER: Understood, Your Honor. 10 THE COURT: Okay? 11 MR. PEJIC: Thank you, Your Honor, very good. 12 THE COURT: Okay, anything else that Spectrum 13 would like to raise? 14 MS. BROWNING: Your Honor, actually this is one 15 other issue that we would like to raise and we have 16 not raised this with the other side, so I apologize 17 for that. But you had originally offered before to 18 take on some of the motions or pending items that were 19 in this case. And we actually would like to propose, 20 and obviously we’ll give, you know, this is somewhat 21 up to GE as well, but we would like to propose that 22 you take on the pending motion to dismiss, Mr. Hefetz 23 as a defendant. It’s currently pending with the 24 District Court Judge, but we, if it’s possible we

25 would be amenable to having you take that over and 2 decide it? 3 THE COURT: Okay, so why don’t you all discuss 4 that, if you want me to handle that motion you can 5 submit a consent for a particular motion and you can 6 submit that at any time, okay? But you don’t have to 7 make any decisions right now, if you want that to 8 happen then submit that I would say, what’s the date 9 of that motion, that was -- 10 MR. PEJIC: This is Mr. Pejic, it was this 11 spring, Your Honor, I apologize, this just became 12 apparent during the discussion today, but I don’t have 13 the docket number. We’re happy to provide it to Your 14 Honor. 15 THE COURT: Hold on, I have the partial motion 16 to dismiss the counterclaim. 17 MR. PEJIC: Yes, that would be the pleading, 18 Your Honor. 19 MS. BROWNING: Right, with discovery advancing 20 we just would like the ruling on Hefetz, you know, 21 being in the case, and also to insure that there are 22 no, you know, documents being withheld because he is 23 still pending with this motion. 24 THE COURT: Yeah, hold on a second. Okay,

25 well, regardless, if you want me to do it and you want 2 a consent for that particular motion, you should 3 submit the consent form within a week. 4 MS. BUTLER: And, Your Honor, this is Marla 5 Butler for the defendants, and we’ll obviously talk to our 6 clients about what they’d like to do in that regard. 7 THE COURT: Absolutely, no repercussions if you 8 don’t consent, there’s no problem if you don’t want to. If 9 you want to, you can and Judge Broderick will sign, you 10 know, sign off on it. 11 MS. BUTLER: And, Your Honor, just to the point 12 that Ms. Browning made, so Mr. Hefetz, we have made 13 clear to Spectrum that he will be made available for 14 deposition. We are representing him, we have searched 15 his files, there’s no Hefetz documents that are being 16 withheld on the basis of, you know, him not being a 17 party to this case. So there’s no substantive 18 consequence to that ruling not having been decided 19 yet, just so that that’s clear. 20 THE COURT: There’s no rush from 21 (indiscernible). 22 MS. BUTLER: Exactly, Your Honor, because we 23 are, we’re representing him, he’s going to appear for 24 deposition, we searched his documents.

25 THE COURT: Okay, that’s fine. So like I said, 2 there’s no, there’s no repercussions for not 3 consenting, if you want to, you can. So you can think 4 about that, all right? 5 MS. BROWNING: Thank you, Your Honor. 6 THE COURT: Okay, anything else from GE? 7 MS. BUTLER: Nothing from us. Mr. Godshalk, 8 have I left anything off? 9 MR. GODSHALK: No, I don’t believe so. 10 MS. BUTLER: Have a great July 4, Your Honor. 11 THE COURT: Okay, great, have a good July 4, 12 everyone, we’re adjourned. 13 (Whereupon, the matter is adjourned.) 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

25 1 52 3 CERTIFICATE 5 I, Carole Ludwig, certify that the foregoing 6 j/transcript of proceedings in the case of Spectrum Dynamics 7 |Medical Limited v. General Electric Company et al, Docket # 8 |18-cv-11386-VSB-KHP, was prepared using digital 9 |transcription software and is a true and accurate record of 10 |the proceedings. 11 12 13 14 signature Cola Luchveg 15 Carole Ludwig 16 |Date: July 1, 2021 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25