`
`
`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`Washington, D.C.
`
`Before the Honorable Doris Johnson Hines
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`
`
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN VAPORIZER DEVICES,
`CARTRIDGES USED THEREWITH,
`AND COMPONENTS THEREOF
`
`
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1372
`
`COMPLAINANT’S RESPONSE
`TO RESPONDENT’S CONTINGENT MOTION TO CERTIFY
`A REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT OF A SUBPOENA
`
`(Motion Number 1372-022)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1
`
`Legal Standards ................................................................................................................... 1
`
`III.
`
`Argument ............................................................................................................................ 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`JLI’s Arguments Opposing NJOY’s Motion to Enforce Are Procedurally
`Improper and Should Be Disregarded ..................................................................... 2
`
`JLI’s Motion Should Be Denied-in-Part Because JLI’s Requests Are
`Unreasonable........................................................................................................... 2
`
`C.
`
`JLI’s Motion Should Be Treated Independently from NJOY’s Motion ................. 4
`
`IV.
`
`Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 5
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Other Authorities
`
`19 C.F.R. § 210.15(c).......................................................................................................................2
`
`Commission Rule 210.32(g) ............................................................................................................1
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Complainant NJOY, LLC (“NJOY”) respectfully submits that Respondent JUUL Labs.
`
`Inc.’s (“JLI”) Motion No. 1372-022 should be denied-in-part.
`
`JLI asks “first” that a separate motion filed by Complainant NJOY, LLC (“NJOY”) be
`
`denied. Br. 1. This request should be denied and any related argumentation should be disregarded
`
`as procedurally improper.
`
`JLI asks “second” for the ALJ to certify a request for judicial enforcement of JLI’s
`
`subpoena to R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company (“RJRV”) “to the extent the Administrative Law Judge
`
`and the Commission grant NJOY’s request to certify judicial enforcement of its subpoena.” Br. 1.
`
`NJOY does not oppose JLI’s motion insofar as it seeks native CAD files from RJRV or testimony
`
`on Deposition Topic No. 26, which appear to be narrow and specific requests. Br. 12. However,
`
`NJOY opposes the remainder of JLI’s requests on two grounds. First, JLI’s requests are overbroad,
`
`vague, and unreasonable. Granting JLI’s requests as written would serve only to delay and
`
`complicate discovery. Second, JLI’s attempt to tie its motion and relief to NJOY’s independent
`
`motion is improper. JLI alone bears the burden to show the purpose, relevance, and reasonableness
`
`of its requests. Moreover, tying the two motions together would enable JLI to continue to delay
`
`and disrupt enforcement of NJOY’s subpoenas.
`
`NJOY respectfully requests that the Administrative Law Judge i) disregard JLI’s arguments
`
`opposing NJOY’s motion to enforce, ii) deny JLI’s motion in part, and iii) treat JLI’s motion
`
`independently from NJOY’s motion.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`Commission Rule 210.32(g) governs the enforcement of subpoenas and provides that:
`
`In order to obtain judicial enforcement of a subpoena issued under
`paragraphs (a)(3) or (c)(2) of this section, the administrative law
`judge shall certify to the Commission, on motion or sua sponte, a
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`request for such enforcement. The request shall be accompanied by
`copies of relevant papers and a written report from
`the
`administrative law judge concerning the purpose, relevance, and
`reasonableness of the subpoena.
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`JLI’s Arguments Opposing NJOY’s Motion to Enforce Are Procedurally
`Improper and Should Be Disregarded
`
`JLI argues, inter alia, that there is not enough time to enforce NJOY’s subpoena and that
`
`NJOY has not been diligent in seeking discovery. E.g., Br. at 6-10. These arguments are in
`
`opposition to NJOY’s independent motion to enforce and have no bearing on JLI’s motion or
`
`requested relief.
`
`JLI’s opposition arguments are procedurally improper and should be disregarded by the
`
`ALJ. Per 19 C.F.R. § 210.15(c), a nonmoving party may respond to a motion within ten days after
`
`service. Per G.R. 5.5, a moving party may reply within three business days of the deadline for
`
`filing a response. Permitting JLI to include opposition arguments in a separate motion would i)
`
`create two parallel sets of papers making the same arguments and ii) give JLI the last word in reply
`
`to NJOY’s motion.
`
`To the extent JLI raises these arguments in opposition to NJOY’s motion, NJOY will
`
`address them in a reply brief.
`
`B.
`
`JLI’s Motion Should Be Denied-in-Part Because JLI’s Requests Are
`Unreasonable
`
`As noted above, NJOY does not oppose JLI’s request for RJRV’s native CAD files or
`
`Deposition Topic No. 26. The remainder of JLI’s requests, however, are vague, overbroad, and
`
`unreasonable. Such requests, if granted, would serve only to delay discovery.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`JLI’s “narrowed” RFP No. 14 seeks “All Documents and Things relating to and/or
`
`sufficient to show the design, manufacturing, structure, function, operation, airflow, features,
`
`configuration, sale, offer for sale, and/or public use of . . . VUSE Alto [and] VUSE Solo.” Br. 11.
`
`The request on its face seeks non-specific documents relating to, inter alia, i) design, ii)
`
`manufacturing, iii) sale and offer for sale, and iv) public use of Alto and Solo. To the extent JLI’s
`
`RFP No. 14 and related Deposition Topic No. 14 are limited to native CAD files of the VUSE Alto
`
`and Solo as described in JLI’s brief (Br. at 12), NJOY does not oppose. Otherwise, JLI’s requests
`
`are unreasonably broad and vague.
`
`JLI’s “rewritten” RFP Nos. 15-26 seek “Documents sufficient to show Your sales,
`
`production volumes, and United States and global investments in plant relating equipment, labor,
`
`and research and development, relating to Vuse Alto and Vuse Solo on a quarterly basis from
`
`January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2023.” Br. 11-12. JLI describes this request as “limited to the
`
`reasonable scope of . . . RJRV’s overall financial data from 2018-2023, and discovery and
`
`information to substantiate any allocation methodologies.” Br. 12. But there is nothing
`
`“reasonable” about this exceedingly broad request (or the related Deposition Topic Nos. 15-24).
`
`Moreover, RJRV has already produced certain financial records, and it is unclear what JLI
`
`contends is missing.1
`
`JLI’s “narrowed” subpoena requests remain overbroad and vague. As written, they would
`
`be difficult to enforce even if certified. The ALJ has already once asked JLI to be more specific:
`
`What I haven’t seen, though, from JLI is any specific identification
`of information that it’s seeking from RJR that RJR hasn’t already
`provided. So I don’t – there’s nothing for me to do at this point with
`
`1 For comparison, NJOY’s motion describes RJRV’s production to date (Doc. ID 816376 at 5, 7-
`8) and identifies a specific, narrow set of information that is missing, e.g., “details regarding the
`expenses underlying the Mras declaration submitted in the 1381 Investigation, including through
`August 2023” (id. at 6).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`respect to JLI’s subpoena to RJR, except for to note that it is
`extraordinarily broad, which I already did note, but with respect to
`where there could possibly be deficiencies, because you haven’t
`identified them.
`
`CMC Tr. at 28:4-12 (Feb. 16, 2024). JLI has failed to provide a specific identification of
`
`information that it is seeking, and its requests should accordingly be denied.
`
`C.
`
`JLI’s Motion Should Be Treated Independently from NJOY’s Motion
`
`JLI claims that, if NJOY’s motion is granted, “basic fairness requires that JLI also be
`
`granted with a request to certify judicial enforcement.” Br. 10. But there is no basis to tie JLI’s
`
`motion or relief to NJOY’s motion or relief. JLI has its own two subpoenas to RJRV, its own set
`
`of requests and negotiation history, and—most importantly—its own burden to show that relief is
`
`warranted. If JLI cannot satisfy that standard, its motion should be denied.
`
`JLI claims that NJOY is “seek[ing] partial and deficient information from RJRV” and
`
`refers to these as “calculated omissions” and a “deliberate failure.” Br. 2, 11. If JLI believes
`
`NJOY’s domestic industry evidence is insufficient, JLI is free to make that argument at the hearing.
`
`Nothing about NJOY’s requests, however, has limited JLI’s ability to seek discovery from RJRV
`
`via JLI’s own subpoena. See CMC Tr. at 28:2-4 (Feb. 16, 2024) (“I don’t know how NJOY’s
`
`seeking specific information could in any way limit a separate subpoena from JLI.”).
`
`Allowing JLI to piggyback on NJOY’s motion would create a perverse incentive for JLI to
`
`dig its heels in taking unreasonable positions (as it has been) and slow down the enforcement
`
`proceeding in an effort to run out the clock in this Investigation. Indeed, JLI has already shown a
`
`willingness to oppose attempts to enforce NJOY’s subpoena based on the unreasonable requests
`
`in JLI’s subpoena. See CMC Tr. at 26:17-27:4 (Feb. 16, 2024) (describing JLI’s opposition to
`
`NJOY’s requested relief as “a sort of blanket objection saying, you know, no matter what, we
`
`oppose”). RJRV has previously insisted that NJOY negotiate with JLI regarding both subpoenas.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1 at 1 (NJOY-RJRV correspondence) (“But before we can even realistically evaluate or
`
`consider agreeing to this new proposal, we would need assurances that Respondent JUUL is
`
`likewise agreeable to limiting the scope of any RJRV deposition in this same way.”). JLI has
`
`previously refused to negotiate. Ex. 2 at 1 (NJOY-JLI correspondence) (“JLI does not agree to
`
`limit the scope of its deposition testimony with RJR to documents identified in advance and will
`
`seek testimony under the full scope of JLI’s topics of subpoena to RJR.”).
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, NJOY respectfully requests that the Administrative Law Judge
`
`i) disregard JLI’s arguments opposing NJOY’s motion to enforce, ii) deny JLI’s motion in part,
`
`and iii) treat JLI’s motion independently from NJOY’s motion.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Dated: April 5, 2024
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/s/ Anish R. Desai
`Anish R. Desai
`Elizabeth S. Weiswasser
`Adam B. Banks
`John J. Nolan
`Kathryn E. Leicht
`Ian Moore
`Barry Zhang
`Tom Yu
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`767 Fifth Avenue
`New York, NY 10153
`Telephone: (212) 310-8000
`
`W. Sutton Ansley
`Christopher M. Pepe
`Amanda K. Branch
`Matthew D. Sieger
`Eric C. Westerhold
`Taylor J. Lawrence
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`2001 M Street NW, Suite 600
`Washington, DC 20036
`Telephone: (202) 682-7000
`
`Adrian C. Percer
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`201 Redwood Shores Parkway
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`Telephone: (650) 802-3000
`
`Beth Wilkinson
`Brian L. Stekloff
`James Rosenthal
`Alysha Bohanon
`Wilkinson Stekloff LLP
`2001 M Street N.W., 10th Floor
`Washington, DC 20036
`Telephone: (202) 847-4000
`
`Counsel for Complainant NJOY, LLC
`
`6
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify the foregoing COMPLAINANT’S RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT’S
`CONTINGENT MOTION TO CERTIFY A REQUEST FOR
`JUDICIAL
`ENFORCEMENT OF A SUBPOENA, was served on this 5th day of April, 2024, upon the
`following, by the indicated means:
`
`Via EDIS
`
`Via Electronic Mail
`
`JohnsonHines1372@usitc.gov
`
`Via Electronic Mail
`
`Vu.Bui@usitc.gov
`
`Via Electronic Mail
`
`Mintz-JUUL-ITC-2@mintz.com
`
`The Honorable Lisa R. Barton
`Secretary to the Commission
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, S.W., Room 112
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`The Honorable Doris Johnson Hines
`Administrative Law Judge
`U. S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, S.W., Room 317
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`Vu Bui, Esq.
`Office of Unfair Import Investigations
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, S.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`Counsel for Respondent JUUL Labs, Inc.
`
`Michael T. Renaud
`Adam S. Rizk
`Marguerite McConihe
`Matthew A. Karambelas
`Catherine Xu
`James Thomson
`Tianyi Tan
`Hannah Edge
`Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
`One Financial Center
`Boston, MA 02111
`
`David Hollander
`Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
`555 12th Street NW, Suite 1100
`Washington, D.C. 20004
`
`Reza Dokhanchy
`Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
`3580 Carmel Mountain Road, Suite 300
`San Diego, CA 92130
`
`7
`
`

`

`S. Alex Lasher
`K. Kevin Chu
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
`1300 I Street, N.W., Suite 900
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`
`Victoria F. Maroulis
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
`555 Twin Dolphin Dr., 5th Floor
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`
`Andrew M. Holmes
`Iman Lordgooei
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
`50 California Street, 22nd Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`
`Counsel for Third Party R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co.
`Marlett, John A.
`Maiorana, David M.
`Dineen, Maeve P.
`Jones Day
`901 Lakeside A venue
`Cleveland, Ohio 44114.1190
`
`
`
`
`
`qe-jli-njoy-itc-1372@quinnemanuel.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`jamarlott@jonesday.com
`dmaiorana@JonesDay.com
`mdineen@jonesday.com
`
`/s/ Ryan Sotnick
`Ryan Sotnick
`IP Paralegal
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`2001 M Street, N.W., Suite 600
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`ryan.sotnick@weil.com
`202.682.7000
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT 1
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`

`

`Moore, Ian
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`
`Subject:
`
`Marlott, John A. <jamarlott@JonesDay.com>
`Monday, January 29, 2024 4:42 PM
`Moore, Ian
`Ansley, Sutton; Sieger, Matthew; Maiorana, David M.; Dineen, Maeve P.; Pepe,
`Christopher
`RE: ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1372 - NJOY Subpoena to RJRV (CBI)
`
`Ian,
`
`We acknowledge Complainant NJOY’s new proposal to limit the scope of deposition
`topics 1-4 to “a reasonable number of documents identified to RJRV in advance of the
`deposition.” We have initial concerns regarding the potential meaning of “a reasonable
`number of documents.” But before we can even realistically evaluate or consider
`agreeing to this new proposal, we would need assurances that Respondent JUUL is
`likewise agreeable to limiting the scope of any RJRV deposition in this same way. We
`will wait to hear from you regarding JUUL’s position.
`
`John A. Marlott (bio)
`Partner 
`JONES DAY® - One Firm Worldwide® 
`110 North Wacker Drive
`Suite 4800
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Office +1.312.269.4236 
`Mobile +1.630.660.4178
`jamarlott@jonesday.com 
`
`From: Moore, Ian <Ian.Moore@weil.com>  
`Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2024 4:31 PM 
`To: Marlott, John A. <jamarlott@JonesDay.com> 
`Cc: Ansley, Sutton <sutton.ansley@weil.com>; Sieger, Matthew <Matthew.Sieger@weil.com>; Maiorana, David M. 
`<dmaiorana@JonesDay.com>; Dineen, Maeve P. <mdineen@jonesday.com>; Pepe, Christopher 
`<Christopher.Pepe@weil.com> 
`Subject: RE: ITC Inv. No. 337‐TA‐1372 ‐ NJOY Subpoena to RJRV (CBI) 
` 
` John, 
` 
` 
`Further to our call yesterday, we understand that RJRV has completed its production of the Mras declaration and 
`supporting documentation. We further understand that RJRV still intends to produce portions of the economic DI 
`briefing and Mody expert report from the 1199 Investigation.  
` 
` 
`Separately, we understand that RJRV is not willing to produce CAD files for the VUSE Alto and VUSE Solo, and that RJRV 
`has not decided whether it is willing to offer a witness on NJOY’s subpoena topics.  
`  
`In the interest of avoiding a dispute regarding a deposition, NJOY proposes the following: 
`1. Regarding deposition topics 1‐4, NJOY offers to limit the scope to a reasonable number of documents identified 
`to RJRV in advance of the deposition in order to reduce the burden of preparation. 
`
`John, Further to our call yesterday, we understand that RJRV has completed its production of the Mras declaration and supporting documentation. We further understand that RJRV still intends to produce portions of the economic DI briefing and  
`
`1
`
`

`

`2. NJOY offers to forego topic 5. 
`3. Regarding topic 6, NJOY will propose a stipulation re authenticity to JLI once RJRV’s document production is 
`complete, so we can table this topic for now. 
`
` 
` 
`Please let us know whether RJRV is amenable to the above. 
` 
` 
`Best regards, 
`Ian 
` 
`
`
` 
`
` 
`Ian Moore 
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`767 Fifth Avenue
`New York, NY 10153
`Ian.Moore@weil.com
`+1 212 310 8412 Direct
`
` 
`From: Moore, Ian  
`Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2024 1:51 PM 
`To: 'Marlott, John A.' <jamarlott@JonesDay.com> 
`Cc: Ansley, Sutton <sutton.ansley@weil.com>; Sieger, Matthew <Matthew.Sieger@weil.com>; Maiorana, David M. 
`<dmaiorana@JonesDay.com>; Dineen, Maeve P. <mdineen@jonesday.com>; Pepe, Christopher 
`<Christopher.Pepe@weil.com> 
`Subject: RE: ITC Inv. No. 337‐TA‐1372 ‐ NJOY Subpoena to RJRV (CBI) 
` 
`Thanks – I sent an invite for tomorrow at 3:30pm ET. 
` 
`
`
` 
`
` 
`Ian Moore 
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`767 Fifth Avenue
`New York, NY 10153
`Ian.Moore@weil.com
`+1 212 310 8412 Direct
`
` 
`From: Marlott, John A. <jamarlott@JonesDay.com>  
`Sent: Monday, January 22, 2024 7:38 PM 
`To: Moore, Ian <Ian.Moore@weil.com> 
`Cc: Ansley, Sutton <sutton.ansley@weil.com>; Sieger, Matthew <Matthew.Sieger@weil.com>; Maiorana, David M. 
`<dmaiorana@JonesDay.com>; Dineen, Maeve P. <mdineen@jonesday.com> 
`Subject: RE: ITC Inv. No. 337‐TA‐1372 ‐ NJOY Subpoena to RJRV (CBI) 
` 
`Wednesday after 3:00 pm ET.
`
`Include Maeve Dineen (cc’d here) on the invite.
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`John, We intend to submit a letter to the ALJ this week seeking leave to file a motion to compel, for both documents and a deposition. Our prior discussions have focused on documents, but we’d like to avoid burdening the ALJ with two motions  
`
`John A. Marlott (bio)
`Partner 
`JONES DAY® - One Firm Worldwide® 
`110 North Wacker Drive
`Suite 4800
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Office +1.312.269.4236 
`Mobile +1.630.660.4178
`jamarlott@jonesday.com 
`
`From: Moore, Ian <Ian.Moore@weil.com>  
`Sent: Monday, January 22, 2024 3:39 PM 
`To: Marlott, John A. <jamarlott@JonesDay.com> 
`Cc: Ansley, Sutton <sutton.ansley@weil.com>; Sieger, Matthew <Matthew.Sieger@weil.com>; Maiorana, David M. 
`<dmaiorana@JonesDay.com> 
`Subject: RE: ITC Inv. No. 337‐TA‐1372 ‐ NJOY Subpoena to RJRV (CBI) 
` 
` John, 
` 
`We intend to submit a letter to the ALJ this week seeking leave to file a motion to compel, for both documents and a 
`deposition.  
` 
`Our prior discussions have focused on documents, but we’d like to avoid burdening the ALJ with two motions to compel 
`if the parties cannot reach agreement on a deposition after RJRV’s production is complete. As such, we would like to 
`discuss RJRV’s position with respect to putting up a deponent and deposition topics before going to the ALJ.  
` 
`Please let us know your availability to meet and confer through Wednesday of this week. Please note that this is the 
`third time we’re requesting a meet and confer, and we cannot keep waiting. 
` 
`Best regards, 
`Ian 
` 
` 
`
`
` 
`
` 
`Ian Moore 
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`767 Fifth Avenue
`New York, NY 10153
`Ian.Moore@weil.com
`+1 212 310 8412 Direct
`
` 
`From: Marlott, John A. <jamarlott@JonesDay.com>  
`Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2024 5:07 PM 
`To: Moore, Ian <Ian.Moore@weil.com> 
`Cc: Ansley, Sutton <sutton.ansley@weil.com>; Sieger, Matthew <Matthew.Sieger@weil.com>; Maiorana, David M. 
`<dmaiorana@JonesDay.com> 
`Subject: RE: ITC Inv. No. 337‐TA‐1372 ‐ NJOY Subpoena to RJRV (CBI) 
` 
`Ian,
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`In response to your inquiry regarding “updated domestic expenditures from the filing
`of the 1199 Investigation,” we expect to produce some additional documents this week.
`
`You also asked about documents that RJRV “submitted in the 1199 investigation to
`establish economic prong.” Without conceding that such documents are responsive to
`or covered by Complainant’s RFP No. 3, as a compromise and to avoid further disputes,
`we will agree to produce pertinent unredacted portions of briefing in the 1199
`investigation concerning the economic prong. We also expect to produce pertinent
`portions of the expert report of Ms. Mody in the 1199 investigation, and the declaration
`of Valerie Mras and supporting documentation submitted in the 1381
`investigation. We currently expect to produce these documents by the end of the week
`of January 15.
`
`We disagree with your assertions regarding RJRV’s proprietary CAD files, and RJRV
`maintains its objections. From the PMTA excerpts previously produced by RJRV, and
`from physical samples of the RJRV products, Complainant already has “[d]ocuments
`sufficient to show the design and operation” of the RJRV products (Complainant’s RFP
`No. 2).
`
`Regards,
`John
`
`John A. Marlott (bio)
`Partner 
`JONES DAY® - One Firm Worldwide® 
`110 North Wacker Drive
`Suite 4800
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Office +1.312.269.4236 
`Mobile +1.630.660.4178
`jamarlott@jonesday.com 
`
`From: Moore, Ian <Ian.Moore@weil.com>  
`Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2024 3:25 PM 
`To: Marlott, John A. <jamarlott@JonesDay.com> 
`Cc: Ansley, Sutton <sutton.ansley@weil.com>; Sieger, Matthew <Matthew.Sieger@weil.com>; Maiorana, David M. 
`<dmaiorana@JonesDay.com> 
`Subject: RE: ITC Inv. No. 337‐TA‐1372 ‐ NJOY Subpoena to RJRV (CBI) 
` 
` John, 
` 
`Please either confirm that RJRV will produce the documents described below by January 16th or let us know your 
`availability to meet and confer on Monday or Tuesday of next week.  
` 
`Best regards, 
`Ian 
` 
`
`John, Please either confirm that RJRV will produce the documents described below by January 16th or let us know your availability to meet and confer on Monday or Tuesday of next week. Best regards, Ian Ian Moore Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP  
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
` 
`
` 
`Ian Moore 
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`767 Fifth Avenue
`New York, NY 10153
`Ian.Moore@weil.com
`+1 212 310 8412 Direct
`
` 
`From: Marlott, John A. <jamarlott@JonesDay.com>  
`Sent: Thursday, January 4, 2024 4:57 PM 
`To: Moore, Ian <Ian.Moore@weil.com> 
`Cc: Ansley, Sutton <sutton.ansley@weil.com>; Sieger, Matthew <Matthew.Sieger@weil.com>; Maiorana, David M. 
`<dmaiorana@JonesDay.com> 
`Subject: RE: ITC Inv. No. 337‐TA‐1372 ‐ NJOY Subpoena to RJRV (CBI) 
` 
`Ian, 
` 
`We are continuing to review your most recent email communication, and expect to provide a response shortly.  We currently 
`anticipate producing some additional documents next week. 
` 
`John A. Marlott (bio)
`Partner 
`JONES DAY® - One Firm Worldwide® 
`110 North Wacker Drive
`Suite 4800 
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Office +1.312.269.4236 
`Mobile +1.630.660.4178
`jamarlott@jonesday.com 
` 
`
`John, Our concern is not whether RJRV has produced some documents but whether RJRV has produced documents sufficient to show updates of expenditures that were relied upon in the 1199 investigation. On our last call, you said that additional  
`
`From: Moore, Ian <Ian.Moore@weil.com> 
`Date: Thursday, Dec 28, 2023 at 10:14 AM 
`To: Marlott, John A. <jamarlott@JonesDay.com> 
`Cc: Ansley, Sutton <sutton.ansley@weil.com>, Sieger, Matthew <Matthew.Sieger@weil.com>, Maiorana, David M. 
`<dmaiorana@JonesDay.com> 
`Subject: RE: ITC Inv. No. 337‐TA‐1372 ‐ NJOY Subpoena to RJRV (CBI) 
` 
`John,
`
`
`Our concern is not whether RJRV has produced some documents but whether RJRV has produced documents
`sufficient to show updates of expenditures that were relied upon in the 1199 investigation. On our last call, you
`said that additional documents were in the pipeline, but all the documents you've identified below were in
`RJRV's first production.
`
`It is difficult for us to assess whether RJRV's updated financials are complete given that RJRV has yet to
`produce everything it submitted in the 1199 investigation to establish economic prong (RFP No. 3). We are
`missing at least unredacted copies of RJRV's economic prong briefing (e.g., pre-trial, post-trial, and motion for
`summary determination) and the expert report(s) of Nisha Mody, which would presumably identify the
`documents we're interested in. We are further missing the declaration of Valerie Mras, submitted with the now-
`
`5
`
`

`

`instituted 1381 investigation, which according to the 1381 complaint details RJRV’s DI expenditures,
`presumably up to 2023.
`
`
`Separately, the requested CAD files are clearly relevant and of minimal burden to produce. Reverse engineering
`physical samples is not a substitute.
`
`
`NJOY’s subpoena was served more than two months ago. If RJRV cannot commit to completing its production
`by January 16th, including the above documents, NJOY will need to seek the ALJ’s assistance given this
`Investigation’s schedule.
`
`
`Please let us know your availability to meet and confer regarding the above issues.
`
`
`Best regards,
`Ian
`  
`  
`
`
` 
`
`  
`Ian Moore 
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`767 Fifth Avenue
`New York, NY 10153
`Ian.Moore@weil.com 
`+1 212 310 8412 Direct 
`
` 
` 
`From: Marlott, John A. <jamarlott@JonesDay.com>  
`Sent: Friday, December 22, 2023 5:06 PM 
`To: Moore, Ian <Ian.Moore@weil.com> 
`Cc: Ansley, Sutton <sutton.ansley@weil.com>; Sieger, Matthew <Matthew.Sieger@weil.com>; Maiorana, David M. 
`<dmaiorana@JonesDay.com> 
`Subject: RE: ITC Inv. No. 337‐TA‐1372 ‐ NJOY Subpoena to RJRV (CBI) 
` 
` 
`Hi Ian, 
`
` 
`Your assertion regarding production of “updated domestic expenditures from the filing
`of the 1199 Investigation” is not accurate. We refer you to at least the following
`documents: ITC1372_000000001; ITC1372_000000019; ITC1372_000000021; and
`ITC1372_000000022. We are continuing to assess RJRV’s production in response to
`Complainant’s subpoena and will produce additional documents, if any, as they become
`available.  
`
` 
`As for CAD files, RJRV maintains its objections and our position remains that the
`PMTA excerpts already produced are fully sufficient to show the structure, function,
`and operation of the RJRV products. To the extent Complainant purports to need
`“data regarding the dimensions of the devices,” Complainant has ready access to
`physical samples of the RJRV products that it can inspect and tear-down to obtain any
`such dimensions. See, e.g., Fuma’s Complaint in 1:19-cv-660 (M.D.N.C Jul 2, 2019) at
`Para. 104, 105, 106,114, 119, 120, 124, 164, 165, 166, 173, 178, 179, 183. 
`6
`
`

`

`
` 
`John 
`
` 
`John A. Marlott (bio)
`Partner 
`JONES DAY® - One Firm Worldwide® 
`110 North Wacker Drive
`Suite 4800 
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Office +1.312.269.4236 
`Mobile +1.630.660.4178
`jamarlott@jonesday.com 
`
` 
`From: Moore, Ian <Ian.Moore@weil.com>  
`Sent: Monday, December 18, 2023 12:29 PM 
`To: Marlott, John A. <jamarlott@JonesDay.com> 
`Cc: Ansley, Sutton <sutton.ansley@weil.com>; Sieger, Matthew <Matthew.Sieger@weil.com>; Maiorana, David M. 
`<dmaiorana@JonesDay.com> 
`Subject: RE: ITC Inv. No. 337‐TA‐1372 ‐ NJOY Subpoena to RJRV (CBI) 
`  
`Hi John, We wanted to follow up on the production of documents responsive to RFP Nos. 2 and 4. We’ve yet to receive documents sufficient to show updated domestic expenditures from the filing of the 1199 Investigation. In addition, we’d like  
` 
`Hi John, 
` 
` 
`We wanted to follow up on the production of documents responsive to RFP Nos. 2 and 4. We’ve yet to receive 
`documents sufficient to show updated domestic expenditures from the filing of the 1199 Investigation. In 
`addition, we’d like to repeat our request for CAD files for the VUSE products (Alto, Solo, Ciro, and Vibe). The 
`PMTA files produced to date do not have sufficient data regarding the dimensions of the devices. 
` 
` 
`Would you please advise as to whether RJR will produce the requested documents? And if so, by when? 
` 
` 
`Best regards, 
`Ian 
`  
`  
`
`
` 
`
` 
`
`  
`Ian Moore 
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`767 Fifth Avenue
`New York, NY 10153
`Ian.Moore@weil.com 
`+1 212 310 8412 Direct 
`
` 
` 
`From: Marlott, John A. <jamarlott@JonesDay.com>  
`Sent: Friday, December 1, 2023 10:07 AM 
`To: Moore, Ian <Ian.Moore@weil.com> 
`Cc: Ansley, Sutton <sutton.ansley@weil.com>; Sieger, Matthew <Matthew.Sieger@weil.com>; Maiorana, David M. 
`<dmaiorana@JonesDay.com> 
`Subject: RE: ITC Inv. No. 337‐TA‐1372 ‐ NJOY Subpoena to RJRV (CBI) 
` 
` 
`Ian, 
`
`7
`
`

`

`
` 
`Regarding the remainder of your email, we have not reviewed every page of every
`document cited in the voluminous list your forwarded. But we trust and expect that
`you will abide by the protective orders and designations in the prior cases to safeguard
`Reynolds’s confidential information. 
`
` 
`John 
`
` 
`John A. Marlott (bio)
`Partner 
`JONES DAY® - One Firm Worldwide® 
`110 North Wacker Drive
`Suite 4800 
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Office +1.312.269.4236 
`Mobile +1.630.660.4178
`jamarlott@jonesday.com 
`
` 
`From: Marlott, John A. <jamarlott@JonesDay.com>  
`Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2023 3:54 PM 
`To: Moore, Ian <Ian.Moore@weil.com> 
`Cc: Ansley, Sutton <sutton.ansley@weil.com>; Sieger, Matthew <Matthew.Sieger@weil.com>; Maiorana, David M. 
`<dmaiorana@JonesDay.com> 
`Subject: RE: ITC Inv. No. 337‐TA‐1372 ‐ NJOY Subpoena to RJRV (CBI) 
` 
` 
`Ian: 
`
` 
`It does appear that some (but not all) of the MDNC invalidity charts regarding the two
`Weigensberg patents (242 and 824) included the header “PRIVILEGED AND
`CONFIDENTIAL” at page 2 and thereafter. We agree that header was incorrectly
`applied, and those invalidity charts were NOT privileged or confidential. 
`
` 
`We are reviewing the remainder of your email and attachments. 
`
` 
`John 
`
` 
`John A. Marlott (bio)
`Partner 
`JONES DAY® - One Firm Worldwide® 
`110 North Wacker Drive
`Suite 4800 
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Office +1.312.269.4236 
`Mobile +1.630.660.4178
`jamarlott@jonesday.com 
`
` 
`From: Moore, Ian <Ian.Moore@weil.com>  
`Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2023 9:08 AM 
`To: Marlott, John A. <jamarlott@JonesDay.com> 
`Cc: Ansley, Sutton <sutton.ansley@weil.com>; Sieger, Matthew <Matthew.Sieger@weil.com>; Maiorana, David M. 
`
`8
`
`

`

` 
`
`<dmaiorana@JonesDay.com> 
`Subject: RE: ITC Inv. No. 337‐TA‐1372 ‐ NJOY Subpoena to RJRV (CBI) 
`  
`Thanks, John. Further to last week’s call, attached is a list of confidential documents from the MDNC and EDVA cases that we plan to produce in the 1372 Investigation (marked CBI). To simplify things, below is a high‐level summary: ∙ RJRV MDNC  
` 
`Thanks, John. 
` 
` 
`Further to last week’s call, attached is a list of confidential documents from the MDNC and EDVA cases that we plan to 
`produce in the 1372 Investigation (marked CBI). To simplify things, below is a high‐level summary: 
` RJRV MDNC invalidity contentions and invalidity charts*; 
`Leinsing MDNC invalidity reports; 
`
` Kodama MDNC invalidity reports, his deposition transcript (Oct. 8, 2021), and exhibit 18 to his deposition; 
` Blalock EDVA invalidity reports and his declaration from IPR2021‐00725; 
` McAlexander validity reports from MDNC, EDVA, and IPR2021‐00725, and his IPR2021‐00650, ‐00652 deposition 
`transcript (Feb. 10, 2022); 
` The following three ROG responses from EDVA: 
`1. PX542 ‐ RAI 22nd Supplemental Responses to ACS’s 1st Set of Interrogatories (No. 2) (Apr. 12, 2021); 
`2. ACS Supplemental Responses to RAI 1st Set of Interrogatories (No. 3) (Nov. 3, 2020); 
`3. ACS 2nd Supplemental Responses to RAI 2nd Set of Interrogatories (No. 15) (Feb. 23, 2021). 
`
` 
` 
`*RJRV’s invalidity charts against the 242 patent and 824 patent in MDNC have “PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL” in the 
`header (see attached examples). We believe this header is incorrect, but please confirm that these charts are not 
`privileged. We will not produce these charts without confirmation. 
` 
` 
`Please let us know by 12:00pm ET Friday if RJRV does not consent to the production of any of these documents. 
` 
` 
`Best regards, 
`Ian 
`  
`
`
` 
`
`  
`Ian Moore 
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`767 Fifth Avenue
`New York, NY 10153
`Ian.Moore@weil.com 
`+1 212 310 8412 Direct 
`
` 
` 
`From: Marlott, John A. <jamarlott@JonesDay.com>  
`Sent: Monday, November 27, 2023 9:37 AM 
`To: Moore, Ian <Ian.Moore@weil.com> 
`Cc: Ansley, Sutton <sutton.ansley@weil.com>; Sieger, Matthew <Matthew.Sieger@weil.com>; Maiorana, David M. 
`<dmaiorana@JonesDay.com> 
`Subject: RE: ITC Inv. No. 337‐TA‐1372 ‐ NJOY Subpoena to RJRV 
` 
` 
`Ian, 
`
` 
`Confirming that RJRV’s consent extends to Fuma’s outside counsel in MDNC-1-19-cv-
`00260 and MDNC-1-19-cv-00660. 
`
` 
`John A. Marlott (bio)
`Partner 
`
`9
`
`

`

` 
`
`JONES DAY® - One Firm Worldwide® 
`110 North Wacker Drive
`Suite 4800 
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Office +1.312.269.4236 
`Mobile +1.630.660.4178
`jamarlott@jonesday.com 
`