Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 87 Filed 05/20/21 Page 1 of 6
`Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADREIROCTERIWERSIONed 05/20/21 Page 1 of 6
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
`WACODIVISION
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-CV-810-ADA
`
`10TALES,INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`TIKTOKINC., TIKTOK PTE. LTD.,
`BYTEDANCELTD., and BYTEDANCE
`INC.
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO 10TALES’ HEARING PRESENTATION
`
`On May6, 2021 this Court held oral argument on Defendants TikTok, Inc.’s, TikTok Pte.
`
`Ltd.’s, ByteDance Ltd.’s, and ByteDance Inc.’s (“Defendants”) Motion to Transfer Under 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1404 (the “Hearing”). ECF No. 77. At the Hearing, Plaintiff 10Tales, Inc. (“10Tales”)
`
`presented its argument with the assistance of demonstrative presentation slides, which were later
`
`filed with the Court. ECF No. 78. Defendants object to portions of 10Tales’ demonstrative
`
`presentation at least as containing arguments and/or evidence that were presented forthe first
`
`time at the Hearing or not presentedatall and containing evidence that was never verified or
`
`authenticated. Defendants’ specific objections are outlined in the table below andare identified
`
`based on the slide numbering located in the bottom right hand corner of 10Tales’ demonstrative
`
`presentationslides.
`
`10Tales' opposition.
`
`Slide
`Number
`
`Summary of
`Argument/Evidence
`Timeline purporting to
`identify dates when events
`occurred at TikTok or
`ByteDance.
`
`Reason for Objection
`
`Mischaracterization; not authenticated; not verified;
`contrary to the facts; evidence/facts cited for first
`time at hearing despite being available prior to
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 87 Filed 05/20/21 Page 2 of 6
`Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 87 Filed 05/20/21 Page 2 of 6
`
` 5
`
`Statements regarding “7ri//er|Contrary to the parties’ expressed objections in
`venue motion”
`discovery and meet and confer, including
`irrelevance, lack of prejudice in view of 115 total
`discovery requests, creation of overburdensome
`precedence; and no evidence adverse presumption
`attached.
`Contrary to the parties expressed objections in
`discovery due to overly burdensome requirement to
`manually match recorded metadata,1.e.,
`
`5
`
`Statements regarding
`document custodians
`
`irrelevance to transfer. See ECF No. 71-
`Dep.at 120:12-124:5. Failure to raise the
`issue with Defendants, meet and confer, or raise the
`issue with the court; adverse finding notjustified.
`
`5,34|Statements regarding the Contrary to the facts; mischaracterization; not
`University of Texas.
`authenticated; not verified; overly burdensome and
`itelevant discovery request; items timely produced;
`
`and
`
`10Tales refusedto depose assigned to
`
`12
`
`Source codeis subject to a
`US/Chinadispute
`
`30(b)(6) topics related to the Austin office; adverse
`finding notjustified.
`Mischaracterization; contrary to
`testimony regarding source code providedat the
`Transparency Center. ECF No. 75-6,i Dep.at
`
`13
`
`Quote from Bloomberg
`Article
`
`91:24-92:15.
`Not authenticated; not verified; evidence/facts cited
`for first time at hearing despite being available prior
`to 10Tales' opposition.
`
`14-17|Statements that there is no Mischaracterization of the facts and testimony;
`electronic evidence or
`evidence/facts cited for first tume at hearing despite
`“notes” in California
`being available prior to 10Tales' opposition;
`contrary
`to the facts and testimony of
`that technical documents
`
`ECF No. 75-6,
`110:5-112:16; ECF No.24,
`Decl. at § 13;
`ECF No. 71-10, MM Dep.at 62:7-14, 65:4-9.
`Evidence based on pandemicrestrictions urelevant,
`beyond the scope theii declaration
`and topics for which she was designated.
`Evidence/facts cited for first time at hearing despite
`Only “known third-party
`21
`individual” and information|being available prior to 10Tales' opposition; not
`regardin
`verified; not authenticated.
`
`

`

`
`
` website article. www.builtinaustin.com
`
`33
`
`34
`
`Statements regarding
`
`36
`
`LinkedIn Profile
`
`
`
`
`Statements regardin
`urported ‘
`
`37
`
`39
`
` Statements regarding
`
`39>
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 87 Filed 05/20/21 Page 3 of 6
`Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 87 Filed 05/20/21 Page 3 of 6
`
`
`
`
`
`26
`
`26
`
`30
`
`32, 40
`
`22-23 being deposed|Outside the scope of topics for which
`on technical information
`was designated. See ECF No. 75-5 at Schedule B.
`
`Not authenticated; not verified; evidence/facts cited
`Statements that 10Tales’
`
`for first time at hearing despite being available prior
`“documents,” “material,”
`to 10Tales' opposition.
`“accountant,” and
`
`“prosecution counsel” are in
`
`Pennsylvania
`
`
`Not authenticated; not verified; evidence/facts cited
`Statements regarding
`for first time at hearing despite being available prior
`10Tales location in
`
`
`to 10Tales' opposition.
`California
`
`27-29|Statements regarding a patent|Evidence/facts cited for first time at hearing despite
`assignment.
`being available prior to 10Tales' opposition.
`
`
`Not authenticated: not verified: evidence/facts cited
`Statements regarding
`for first time at hearing despite being available prior
`TikTok’s Austin office,
`
`
`including a quote from
`to 10Tales' opposition; 10Tales refused to depose
`
`
`
`assigned to 30(b)(6) topics related to the
`
`
`
`Austin office. See ECF No. 75-5 at Schedule B.
`
`
`
`Notauthenticated; not verified; mischaracterization;
`Statements that
`
`contrary to the evidence; evidence/facts cited for
`Identified
`first time at hearing despite being available prior to
`10Tales' opposition. See ECF No. 71, 7.
`
`
`
`Dep.at 32:3-
`
`
`
`
`
`Statements regarding
`
`
`witness related to
`
`7; see ECF No.75, 7.
`Not authenticated; not verified; evidence/facts cited
`for first time at hearing despite being available prior
`to 10Tales' opposition; 10Tales refused to depose
`assigned to 30(b)(6) topics related to the
`Austin office. See ECF No. 75-5 at Schedule B.
`Not authenticated; not verified; evidence/facts cited
`for first time at hearing despite being available prior
`to 10Tales' opposition; 10Tales refused to depose
`assigned to 30(b)(6) topics related to the
`Austin office. See ECF No. 75-5 at Schedule B.
`Not authenticated; not verified; evidence/facts cited
`for first time at hearing despite being available prior
`to 10Tales' opposition.
`Not authenticated; not verified; evidence/facts cited
`for first time at hearing despite being available prior
`to 10Tales' opposition.
`Not authenticated; not verified; evidence/facts cited
`for first time at hearing despite being available prior
`
`
`
`to 10Tales' opposition; mischaracterization of
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 87 Filed 05/20/21 Page 4 of 6
`Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 87 Filed 05/20/21 Page 4 of 6
`
`
`
`
`
`testified that
`
`40
`
`43
`
`44
`
`Statements regarding
`“TikTok’s Austin office”
`
`Statements regarding
`expensesand costs oftrial.
`
`to the facts to which
`testimony; contrary
`
`and would be the
`
`person most knowledgeable about the
`recommendation engine. See ECF No. 75-6,
`Dep.at 88:8-18, 143:16-154:14; 152:11-14, 159:4-
`160:13.
`Statements regardin
`Not authenticated; not verified; evidence/facts cited
`for first time at hearing despite being available prior
`to 10Tales' opposition.
`”
`
`41-42|Statements regarding “Court|Not authenticated; not verified; evidence/facts cited
`Congestion”
`for first time at hearing despite being available prior
`to 10Tales' opposition; cases cited in these slides
`were not cited in 10Tales’ opposition.
`Not authenticated; not verified; evidence/facts cited
`for first time at hearing despite being available prior
`to 10Tales' opposition.
`Not authenticated; not verified; evidence/facts cited
`for first time at hearing despite being available prior
`to 10Tales' opposition.
`
`47-48|Statements regarding These slides were never presented at the hearing; not
`international witnesses
`authenticated; not verified; evidence/facts cited for
`first time at hearing despite being available prior to
`10Tales' opposition.
`
`49-54,|Citations to deposition of Theseslides were never presented at the hearing;
`
`
`
`
`57-59 | evidence/facts cited forfirst time at hearing despite
`
`55
`
`Statement regarding
`“Correspondence Address”
`
`
`
`being available prior to 10Tales' opposition.
`These slides were never presented at the hearing; not
`authenticated; not verified; evidence/facts cited for
`first time at hearing despite being available prior to
`10Tales' opposition.
`56 Picture of a notary signature.|These slides were neverpresented at the hearing; not
`authenticated: not verified: evidence/facts cited for
`first time at hearing despite being available prior to
`10Tales' opposition.
`
`Dated: May 13, 2021
`
`By: /s/ Ericka J. Schulz
`Stephen S. Korniczky (admittedpro hac vice)
`Martin R. Bader (admittedpro hac vice)
`Ericka J. Schulz (admittedpro hac vice)
`James Young Hurt, admitted (CA Bar No. 312390)
`Eric K. Gill (admittedpro hac vice)
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 87 Filed 05/20/21 Page 5 of 6
`
`
`
`Michael J. Hopkins (admitted pro hac vice)
`Krysti Papadopoulos (admitted pro hac vice)
`SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
`12275 El Camino Real, Suite 100
`San Diego, CA. 92130
`T: 858.720.8900
`skorniczky@sheppardmullin.com
`mbader@sheppardmullin.com
`eschulz@sheppardmullin.com
`jhurt@sheppardmullin.com
`egill@sheppardmullin.com
`mhopkins@sheppardmullin.com
`kpapadopoulos@sheppardmullin.com
`
`Jason Mueller (State Bar No. 24047571)
`SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
`2200 Ross Avenue, 24th Floor
`Dallas, TX 75201
`T: 469.391.7402
`jmueller@sheppardmullin.com
`
`Attorneys for TikTok Inc., TikTok Pte Ltd., ByteDance Ltd.
`and ByteDance Inc.
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 87 Filed 05/20/21 Page 6 of 6
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on May 13, 2021, a true and correct copy of the foregoing
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO 10TALES’ HEARING PRESENTATION was served on
`
`counsel of record in this case by electronic mail.
`
`/s/ Ericka J. Schulz
`Ericka J. Schulz
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`