From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`Subject:
`Attachments:
`
`Sarah,
`
`Camacho, Jesse (SHB) <JCAMACHO@shb.com>
`Friday, May 25, 2018 7:10 AM
`Guske, Sarah
`TeleSignIPR; DL Twilio TeleSign DCT; Carter, Thomas; Soboleva, Larissa
`RE: TeleSign v. Twilio--Case Nos. IPR2017-001976, -001977
`376 Patent - Motion for Entry of Protective Order_Active_38010883_1.DOCX
`
`Argument added to the attached doc as you requested.
`
`The change to “only those copies needed” was made because the original “reasonable number” was too ambiguous and
`is more consistent with the PO’s other “reasonably necessary” constraints.
`
`Regarding filing the requested documents, even under seal, yes, we do object. And to be clear, we object to your using
`information from those documents in your motion and to you filing those documents as we have explained multiple
`times, including under the rationale of Jazz Pharms and similar cases: “The Court finds that, by referring to the fact that
`Jazz had already produced documents responsive to the IPR requests in connection with this litigation (i.e., inherently
`relying on the contents of those confidential documents as the basis for its point), and using that fact as part of its
`argument as to why Jazz should have to provide additional discovery in the IPR proceedings, Par and Amneal again
`violated the DCO.” Jazz Pharms. Inc. v. Amneal Pharms. LLC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61373, *7. See also rational in Ericsson
`v. D-Link 2013 WL 12171970, *1-*2 (E.D. Tex 2013): “Granting Ericsson’s request for relief from the Protective Order
`would allow Ericsson to circumvent this balance between IPR discovery and confidentiality. In essence, Ericsson would
`be able to use the Court’s broader Rule 26 “relevancy” standard for discovery, yet subject Dell and Toshiba to the PTAB’s
`narrower protections of confidentiality.”); Errant Gene Therapeutics, LLC v. Sloan-Kettering Inst. for Cancer Research,
`2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85962, *7-9, 2017 WL 2418742 (S.D.N.Y. June 5, 2017) (“SKI argues that use of protected
`information alone, even without disclosure, is a violation of the Protective Order. (Doc. No. 110. 5-6.) The Court
`agrees.”; Lunareye, Inc. v. Gordon Howard Assocs., 78 F. Supp. 3d 671, 676, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18927, *2-3, 11, 90 Fed.
`R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1578 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 2, 2015) (granting sanctions).
`
`Filing of the PO in the IPR does not obviate the PO violations that have or are about to occur and exposes TS to a greater
`risk that its confidential information might become public. These documents simply don’t relate to secondary
`considerations and are not inconsistent with our positons in the Petition, which also does not front secondary
`considerations. The documents are not over designated, and even if you truly thought they were, there is a procedure
`in place in the PO to be followed, which you have not, and per the PO, the designation stands. These documents
`describe internal happenings and resolutions of customer issues that are certainly not to be publicized. Even the
`mentioning or disclosure of employee names in connection with high-level issues stands to subject Twilio to harm, such
`as, for example, if other litigants or persons attempt to use that info for discovery, subpoenas, poaching, etc. regarding
`those issues or roles.
`
`What you do from here is up to you. We’ve cautioned you, provided notice, explained why the docs are not relevant
`(they don’t show any copying or any other objective indicia), provided case law, discussed the issue with the board, and
`have a court order in place.
`
`We continue to oppose your discovery motion and use of TeleSign’s information outside of the underlying litigations.
`
`Jesse
`816-559-2173 / 12047
`
`1
`
`TWILIO INC., EX 2036, Page 1
`
`