throbber
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`The Honorable Thomas B. Pender
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`
`In the Matter of:
`
`CERTAIN MEMORY MODULES AND
`COMPONENTS THEREOF
`
`
`
`
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1089
`
`
`RESPONDENTS SK HYNIX INC., SK HYNIX AMERICA INC. AND SK HYNIX
`MEMORY SOLUTIONS INC.’S CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
`
`
`
`Respondents SK hynix Inc., SK hynix America Inc., and SK hynix memory solutions Inc.
`
`(collectively, “SK hynix”) submit this Case Management Statement pursuant to Ground Rule
`
`6.3.
`
`I.
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`With this Investigation, Netlist essentially seeks an impermissible do-over of the
`
`allegations that Netlist asserted, and the Commission rejected, in Netlist’s previously-filed ITC
`
`investigation against Respondents, Inv. No. 337-TA-1023 (“1023 Investigation”). In the 1023
`
`Investigation, Netlist asserted six patents (it withdrew one prior to hearing) that Netlist claimed
`
`were standard essential to certain JEDEC standards governing memory modules. The accused
`
`products in the 1023 Investigation were the same SK hynix standard-complaint DDR4 RDIMM
`
`and LRDIMM memory modules accused here. On January 16, 2018, the Commission affirmed
`
`Chief Administrative Law Judge Bullock’s Initial Determination that SK hynix does not infringe
`
`any asserted patent in the 1023 Investigation. The patents Netlist asserts in this Investigation are
`
`related to those Netlist asserted in the 1023 Investigation – they are children of the parent patents
`
`asserted in the 1023 Investigation. They have the same specifications as, and claims strikingly
`
`similar to, the previously asserted patents, and they issued during discovery in the 1023
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Investigation, but Netlist did not seek to add them to the 1023 Investigation. Instead, Netlist
`
`impermissibly burdens the Commission, the Administrative Law Judge, the Office of Unfair
`
`Imports and Investigations, and Respondents with duplicitous, burdensome litigation.
`
`By way of background, the products at issue in this investigation are memory modules
`
`that comply with JEDEC’s industry standards. The accused memory modules, DDR4 RDIMM
`
`and LRDIMM,1 plug into servers, and they serve as main memory. JEDEC, a microelectronics
`
`industry standard-setting organization, sets standards that allow interoperability between servers
`
`and memory devices, such as these modules.
`
`Netlist does not design or manufacture JEDEC compliant DDR4 RDIMM or LRDIMM,
`
`and it never has. It does not compete with Respondents. And, Netlist freely admits that it made
`
`no technical contribution to any JEDEC standard. Others contributed the technologies JEDEC
`
`adopted into its standards, which JEDEC compliant products implement. Indeed, in years past
`
`when Netlist designed and sold memory modules, its business model was to sell non-JEDEC
`
`compliant memory modules; these are the products, according to Netlist, from which the patents
`
`arose. Tellingly, despite having litigated the patents and defended IPRs, Netlist did not even
`
`disclose four of the five patents asserted at the 1023 hearing to JEDEC as potentially essential to
`
`the standard until years after the patents issued, and just months before filing its 1023 complaint.
`
`All of this reflects a shift in Netlist’s overall strategy. After operating at a loss for all but one
`
`year of its existence, Netlist now touts that “[t]he Company is focused on monetizing its patent
`
`portfolio” and that it “plans to pursue an intellectual property-based licensing business in which
`
`
`1 RDIMM is an acronym for registered dual in-line memory module. LRDIMM is an acronym
`for load reduced dual in-line memory module.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`it would generate revenue by selling or licensing its technology, and it intends to vigorously
`
`enforce its patent rights against infringers of such rights.” Netlist 10-Q, Aug. 2016 at 6, 19.
`
`Consistent with this strategy, Netlist has secured third-party funding for its litigation
`
`campaign against SK hynix, which is by no means limited to the two investigations in the ITC.
`
`Netlist recently announced that it “obtained outside investment to finance the legal fees and costs of
`
`its legal action against SK hynix” from TR Global Funding V, LLC. See http://www.netlist.com/
`
`investors/financial-news/press-release-details/2017/Netlist-And-TRGP-Announce-Financing-To-
`
`Cover-All-Costs-Of-Legal-Actions-Against-SK-hynix/default.aspx. With this funding, and in
`
`addition to the present investigation, Netlist has filed six additional patent infringement suits against
`
`SK hynix and/or SK hynix customers in the U.S., Germany and China:
`
`1. On August 31, 2016, Netlist initiated a six patent infringement action against
`SK hynix and two of its affiliates in the U.S. District Court for the Central
`District of California, Civil Action No. 8:16-cv-01605-JLS-JCG (hereinafter
`“1605 Central District Action”). In addition to damages, Netlist sought a
`permanent injunction against SK hynix’s sale of the accused standard-
`compliant products.
`
`2. The following day, Netlist initiated the 1023 investigation against SK hynix
`at the ITC. In its ITC action, Netlist sought an exclusion order barring the
`importation of SK hynix’s accused standard-compliant products, as well as a
`cease and desist order directed to inventory in the U.S. As discussed above,
`the Commission terminated the investigation January 16, 2018 with a
`finding of no violation.
`
`3. On June 14, 2017, Netlist initiated another patent infringement action against
`SK hynix and two of its affiliates in U.S. District Court for the Central
`District of California, Civil Action No. 8:17-cv-01030-JLS-JCG. This
`action asserts the same two patents asserted in this Investigation. Netlist
`again sought a permanent injunction against SK hynix’s sale of the accused
`standard-compliant products in addition to damages.
`
`4. On July 11, 2017, Netlist filed a fourth patent infringement suit in the
`Beijing Intellectual Property Court. In that suit, Netlist again seeks an
`injunction against SK hynix. Netlist also seeks to enjoin SK hynix
`customers that purchase LRDIMMs designed by SK hynix Inc.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`5. On July 11, 2017, Netlist filed a fifth patent infringement action in the
`District Court of Munich. In Germany, Netlist Luxembourg S.à r.l accuses
`SK hynix Inc. and Hewlett-Packard GmbH, who allegedly purchases
`LRDIMM designed by SK hynix Inc., of patent infringement.
`
`6. On August 11, 2017, Netlist filed a sixth patent infringement action in the
`Beijing Intellectual Property Court, this time against SK hynix alleged
`customers. In this suit, Netlist also seeks an injunction. Netlist seeks to
`enjoin alleged customers that purchase LRDIMMs designed by SK hynix Inc.
`
`In each of the seven suits, Netlists seeks to enjoin SK hynix’s sales of standard-complaint
`
`products not because those sales diminish Netlist product sales (Netlist does not sell competing
`
`product), but because Netlist seeks to exploit the threat of an injunction to make absurd royalty
`
`demands contrary to its commitments.
`
`Indeed, for years, SK hynix has attempted to secure peace with Netlist through licensing.
`
`Netlist concedes that it is obligated to license the asserted patents on reasonable terms and
`
`conditions that are demonstrably free of any unfair discrimination (i.e., “RAND” terms). Yet
`
`despite its RAND commitment, Netlist refuses to license SK hynix on reasonable terms, insisting
`
`on royalties that far exceed those charged by holders of much larger and more established patent
`
`portfolios in this industry or, indeed, any appropriate benchmark.
`
`Critically, Netlist demands licensing royalties that are magnitudes greater than it charged
`
`SK hynix’s primary competitor Samsung. This is not only commercially unreasonable, but it
`
`also violates Netlist’s RAND contractual obligation. Netlist entered a broad, portfolio license
`
`with Samsung. Yet, Netlist has refused even to discuss the far more favorable terms given to
`
`Samsung, the largest supplier of products in the United States competing with those that are the
`
`subject of this Investigation. Netlist unreasonably maintains the position that its obligation to
`
`offer a license to SK hynix on terms free of unfair discrimination imposes no limitation on the
`
`terms it can demand.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`It bears noting that in litigation currently pending in the District Court for the Central
`
`District of California, SK hynix has sought the Court’s determination of the RAND terms for
`
`Complainant’s alleged standard essential patents. Once those RAND terms have been judicially
`
`determined, Netlist will be obligated to extend a license to SK hynix on those terms. And, for its
`
`part, SK hynix has agreed to accept a license on the basis of such a final judicial determination.
`
`Thus, the present Investigation is not necessary for Netlist to secure reasonable compensation for
`
`the asserted patents, and Netlist ought not to be permitted consistent with its RAND obligations
`
`to withhold a license and exclude or enjoin SK hynix’s products under these circumstances.
`
`Hence, Netlist’s only goal in initiating and prosecuting the present Investigation (and injunction
`
`actions abroad) is to use the threat of an exclusion order in order to pressure SK hynix into taking
`
`a license on terms that are not RAND and that would be discriminatory vis-à-vis the Samsung
`
`license.
`
`As detailed in its Answer to the Complaint, SK hynix asserts several defenses relating to
`
`Complainant’s RAND commitment and contends that any relief in favor of Netlist would be
`
`contrary to the public interest.
`
`
`
`II.
`
`
`
`Below, SK hynix addresses each of the topics set forth in Ground Rule 6.3:
`
`Status of Any Settlement Discussions
`
`The private parties engaged in three settlement conferences, including a mediation, in the
`
`1023 Investigation, with the last one occurring on April 19, 2017. Since then, the private parties
`
`have engaged in additional settlement discussions, with the most recent such discussions
`
`occurring on November 6, 2017. Little progress has been made to date because Netlist continues
`
`to demand, in violation of the commitments it made to JEDEC to offer to license the patents on
`
`RAND terms, royalties that are orders of magnitude higher than the royalty rates at which Netlist
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`licensed SK hynix’s chief competitor, Samsung pursuant to a license agreement the parties refer
`
`to as the Samsung JDLA.
`
`III.
`
`Status of Any Litigation That May Affect Any Issue in This Investigation
`
`As noted and listed above, in addition to this Investigation, Netlist has filed six additional
`
`patent infringement suits against SK hynix and/or SK hynix customers in the U.S., Germany and
`
`China. Either the same patents asserted in this Investigation, or patents related thereto, are
`
`asserted in each of the six additional suits listed above.
`
`IV.
`
`Status of Any Proceedings (Including Reexamination Proceedings) Before the
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`
`
`Netlist asserts in this Investigation U.S. Patent No. 9,606,907 (the ’907 patent) and U.S.
`
`Patent No. 9,535,623 (the ’623 patent). SK hynix has filed the following Inter Parte Review
`
`(“IPR”) proceedings against the ‘907 and ‘623 patents in December of 2017, all of which are
`
`awaiting Netlist’s preliminary response and the PTAB’s institution decision:
`
`IPR2018-00303 (‘623 patent), filed December 14, 2017
`
`IPR2018-00362 (‘907 patent), filed December 22, 2017
`
`IPR2018-00363 (‘907 patent), filed December 22, 2017
`
`IPR2018-00364 (‘907 patent), filed December 27, 2017
`
`IPR2018-00365 (‘907 patent), filed December 27, 2017
`
`
`
`Furthermore, the ‘907 patent is a child patent issuing from a continuation application to
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,516,185 (“the ‘185 patent”) that Netlist asserted against SK hynix in the 1023
`
`Investigation. SK hynix filed an IPR against the ‘185 patent on January 5, 2017 that the PTAB
`
`instituted against all asserted claims. IPR2017-00577. Oral arguments in that proceeding are
`
`scheduled for April 6, 2018 and the Final Written Decision is due by July 7, 2018.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Likewise, the ‘623 patent is a child patent issuing from a continuation application to U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,489,837 (“the ‘837 patent”) that Netlist asserted against SK hynix in the 1023
`
`Investigation. SK hynix filed an IPR against the ‘837 patent on December 30, 2016 that the
`
`PTAB instituted against all asserted claims. IPR2017-00548. Oral arguments in that proceeding
`
`are scheduled for February 14, 2018 and the Final Written Decision is due by May 15, 2018.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`Proposal for Any Modification of the Protective Order (Order No. 1) Now In Effect
`for This Investigation
`
`None. The parties have already moved for, and the ALJ has ordered, an amendment to
`
`the Protective Order regarding source code. No further modifications are contemplated, to SK
`
`hynix’s knowledge.
`
`
`
`SK hynix does note that various third parties produced confidential information and
`
`documents in the 1023 Investigation and/or in the companion district court cases that are on-
`
`going. SK hynix has already secured permission from the third party it subpoenaed who
`
`produced confidential information in the prior proceedings to use that information in this
`
`Investigation as well. SK hynix understands that Netlist has done the same regarding the third
`
`parties it subpoenaed.
`
`VI.
`
`Proposal for Any Modification of the Obligations or Deadlines Set Forth In These
`Ground Rules or the Procedural Schedule
`
`
`
`Attached as Appendix A is a proposed schedule for this Investigation adopting all the
`
`dates set forth in Appendix A to Order No. 6 and adding proposed dates for the other deadlines
`
`set forth in Appendix A to Order No. 6, as well as a date for Staff’s prehearing brief after the
`
`private parties’ prehearing brief deadline. All the dates are agreed between the private parties
`
`and the Staff, provided that no additional patents are added to this Investigation.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`VII. A Discussion of Any Issues That Exist, or Any Issues The Parties Foresee, That
`Would Hinder or Prevent Respondents From Meeting the Date Set Forth in the
`Procedural Schedule for the Mandatory Disclosure Of Products Within the Scope of
`the NOI Pursuant to Ground Rule 7.2
`
`
`
`SK hynix recently updated its sales date for the accused DDR4 LRDIMM and RDIMM
`
`products in both the companion district court cases, which are on-going and have been since
`
`discovery closed in the 1023 Investigation, and in this Investigation. Furthermore, SK hynix has
`
`already responded to Netlist’s interrogatories in this Investigation listing the part numbers for all
`
`the accused DDR4 LRDIMM and RDIMM products imported into and/or sold in the United
`
`States from January 1, 2016 through the date of the most recent sales date (approximately
`
`October 25, 2017), and provided detailed information about the components included in each
`
`accused part number.
`
`VIII. A Discussion of the Need For Third Party Discovery and Any Problems the Parties
`Foresee In Obtaining Said Third Party Discovery
`
`
`
`SK hynix does anticipate subpoenaing at least the prosecuting attorneys for the asserted
`
`patents and the litigation funding entity, TR Global Funding V, LLC (“TR Global”), which is
`
`currently financing Netlist’s serial litigation against SK hynix and has at least some control over
`
`the litigation. SK hynix has already subpoenaed TR Global in the companion district court
`
`litigation, but so far it has not responded to that subpoena. SK hynix thus anticipates there may
`
`be issues with enforcing a subpoena against TR Global in this Investigation, particularly given
`
`that Netlist has refused to produce an unredacted version of its funding agreement with TR
`
`Global or any communications between it and TR Global regarding this and the other cases
`
`against SK hynix.
`
`Date: January 23, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Brian R. Nester
`
`8
`
`

`

`David T. Pritikin
`Richard A. Cederoth
`David C. Giardina
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`One South Dearborn
`Chicago, IL 60603
`Telephone: (312) 853-7000
`Facsimile: (312) 853-7036
`
`Theodore W. Chandler
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000
`Los Angeles, CA 90013
`Telephone: (213) 896-6000
`Facsimile: (213) 896-6600
`
`Michael D. Hatcher
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`2021 McKinney Avenue, Suite 2000
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Telephone: (214) 981-3300
`Facsimile: (214) 981-3400
`
`
`
`Brian R. Nester
`Michael R. Franzinger
`Wonjoo Suh
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`1501 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`Telephone: (202) 736-8000
`Facsimile: (202) 736-8711
`
`Steven S. Baik
`Jinyung Lee
`Ryuk Park
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`1001 Page Mill Road, Building 1
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Telephone: (650) 565-7000
`Facsimile: (650) 565-7100
`
`
`Counsel for Respondents SK hynix Inc.,
`SK hynix America Inc. and SK hynix
`memory solutions Inc.
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Respondents SK hynix Inc., SK hynix
`
`America Inc. and SK hynix memory solutions Inc.’s Case Management Statement were
`
`served on the following parties this 23rd day of January, 2018 in the manner indicated below:
`
`Via EDIS
`
`Via Overnight Mail (2 Copies)
`Via Electronic Mail
`michael.turner@usitc.gov
`
`Via Electronic Mail
`monisha.deka@usitc.gov
`
`
`Via Electronic Mail
`Netlist-itc-1089@mintz.com
`
`The Honorable Lisa R. Barton
`Secretary to the Commission
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, SW, Room 112
`Washington, DC 20436
`
`The Honorable Thomas B. Pender
`Administrative Law Judge
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, SW
`Washington, DC 20436
`
`Monisha Deka
`Office of Unfair Import Investigations
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, S.W., Suite 401
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`
`James M. Wodarski
`Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and
`Popep, P.C.
`One Financial Center
`Boston, MA 02111
`
`Counsel for Complainant Netlist, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Francis Quaynor
`Francis Quaynor
`Paralegal
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`Before the Honorable Thomas B. Pender
`
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`
`CERTAIN MEMORY MODULES AND
`COMPONENTS THEREOF
`
`
`
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-1089
`
`
`
`
`INDEX
`
`Exhibit
`
`Appendix A
`
`Description
`Respondents SK hynix Inc., SK hynix America Inc. and SK hynix
`memory solutions Inc.: Appendix A to SK hynix’s Case
`Management Statement
`
`
`
`Date
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`APPENDIX A
`
`APPENDIX A
`
`

`

`APPENDIX A to SK hynix Case Management Statement
`
`[done]
`
`PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE, CASE NO. 337-TA-1089
`Event
`Date
`Initial Case Management Conference
`Thursday, January 25, 2018
`Deadline for Propounding Ground Rule 6.2
`Interrogatories
`File identification of expert witnesses, including their
`expertise and curriculum vitae
`Deadline for Ground Rule 7.1 Disclosure of Priority
`Dates and Dates of Conception/Reduction to Practice
`Exchange list of claim terms for construction
`Exchange proposed claim constructions
`File joint claim construction chart
`Deadline for Ground Rule 7.2 Disclosure of Products
`First settlement conference
`Submit first settlement conference joint report
`Deadline for Ground Rule 7.3 Disclosure of Domestic
`Industry Contentions
`File initial claim construction briefs
`File reply claim construction briefs
`Deadline for Ground Rule 7.4 Disclosure of
`Infringement Contentions
`Deadline for Ground Rule 7.5 Disclosure of Invalidity
`Contentions
`Technical Tutorial
`Markman Hearing Start
`Markman Hearing End
`Issue Order Construing Terms (*tentative date*)
`Fact discovery cutoff and completion
`Second settlement conference
`Submit second settlement conference joint report
`Serve initial expert reports
`Serve rebuttal expert reports
`Deadline for filing summary determination motions
`Expert discovery cutoff and completion
`Third settlement conference
`Submit third settlement conference joint report
`File requests for receipt of evidence without a witness
`Serve proposed direct exhibit lists
`Serve proposed direct exhibits (including witness
`statements), with available proposed physical and
`demonstrative exhibits
`File objections to proposed direct exhibits (including
`witness statements)
`
`Friday, April 13, 2018
`Monday, April 23, 2018
`Monday, April 23, 2018
`Tuesday, April 24, 2018
`Tuesday, May 22, 2018
`Friday, July 13, 2018
`Monday, July 16, 2018
`Tuesday, July 17, 2018
`Friday, July 27, 2018
`Friday, August 17, 2018
`Monday, September 10, 2018
`Monday September 3, 2018
`Wednesday, August 29, 2018
`Thursday, August 30, 2018
`Friday, September 28, 2018
`Friday, September 7, 2018
`
`Monday, March 12, 2018
`
`Monday, February 12, 2018
` Friday, February 23, 2018
` Monday, March 5, 2018
`Monday, March 12, 2018
`Monday, February 26, 2018
`Tuesday, March 13, 2018
`Wednesday, March 14, 2018
`
`Friday, March 16, 2018
`Monday, March 26, 2018
`Monday, April 09, 2018
`
`Friday, April 13, 2018
`
`Friday, September 14, 2018
`
`Friday, September 21, 2018
`
`

`

`File responses to objections to proposed direct exhibits
`(including witness statements)
`Serve proposed rebuttal exhibit lists
`Serve proposed rebuttal exhibits (including witness
`statements), with available proposed rebuttal physical
`and demonstrative exhibits
`Private parties file pre-hearing statements and briefs
`Staff files pre-hearing statement and brief
`Submit on electronic media proposed direct and
`proposed rebuttal exhibits (including witness statements)
`with available proposed direct and proposed rebuttal
`physical and demonstrative exhibits
`Deadline for filing motions in limine
`File objections to proposed rebuttal exhibits (including
`witness statements)
`File responses to objections to proposed rebuttal exhibits
`(including witness statements)
`File responses to motions in limine
`Pre-hearing conference
`Hearing Start
`Hearing End
`File initial post-hearing briefs addressing issues on which
`the party bears the burden of proof
`File final exhibit lists
`Submit final direct and rebuttal exhibits (including
`witness statements) with direct and rebuttal physical and
`demonstrative exhibits
`File responsive post-hearing briefs
`File reply post-hearing briefs
`Initial Determination Due
`Target date for completion of investigation
`
`Wednesday, September 26, 2018
`Monday, September 24, 2018
`
`Friday, September 28, 2018
`Friday, October 05, 2018
`Friday, October 19, 2018
`
`Friday, October 05, 2018
`Friday, October 12, 2018
`
`Tuesday, October 09, 2018
`
`Monday, October 15, 2018
`Friday, October 26, 2018
`Friday, November 09, 2018
`Friday, November 09, 2018
`Monday, November 19, 2018
`
`Friday, November 30, 2018
`Friday, November 30, 2018
`
`Friday, November 30, 2018
`Friday, December 14, 2018
`Friday, December 21, 2018
`Friday, March 01, 2019
`Wednesday, July 03, 2019
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket