Contract analysis

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. The 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice On October 1, 2024, OWS served a Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice on Lumicore pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), designating eighteen (18) topics for corporate representative testimony. A true and correct copy of the Deposition Notice is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The topics range from Lumicore's corporate structure and the development histo

II. LEGAL STANDARD A. Rule 30(b)(6) Obligations Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), when a party serves a deposition notice describing with reasonable particularity the matters for examination, the noticed organization "must then designate one or more officers, directors, or managing agents, or designate other persons who consent to testify on its behalf" and must "set out the matters on which each person

III. ARGUMENT A. Lumicore's Designee Was Not Adequately Prepared on Topic 14 The record of the 30(b)(6) deposition demonstrates, beyond any reasonable dispute, that Dr. Dalmqvist was not adequately prepared to testify on behalf of Lumicore on Topic 14. His repeated inability to identify any non-infringing alternative, describe any design-around analysis, or testify to the technical feasibility, customer acceptability

IV. RELIEF REQUESTED For the foregoing reasons, OWS respectfully requests that the Court enter an order providing the following relief:

1. Supplemental Deposition. Directing Lumicore to designate and produce a properly prepared Rule 30(b)(6) witness to testify on Topic 14 (non-infringing alternatives) within fourteen (14) days of the Court's order. The designee must be prepared to testify fully and completely, on behalf of the corporation, regarding all matters encompassed by Topic 14, including but not limited to the identification of non-infringing

2. Costs and Fees for Supplemental Deposition. Requiring that the supplemental deposition be conducted at Lumicore's expense, including all reasonable costs and attorney's fees incurred by OWS in connection with the supplemental deposition, including travel costs, court reporter fees, videographer fees, and attorney time for preparation and attendance.

3. Preclusion Sanction (In the Alternative). In the alternative, if Lumicore fails to produce an adequately prepared designee within the time ordered by the Court, precluding Lumicore from presenting any evidence of non-infringing alternatives at trial, whether through fact witnesses, its technical expert Dr. Rajesh Sundaram (Pacific Western University), or its damages expert Dr. Natasha Volkov (Pinnacle Analytics Pa

4. Attorney's Fees and Costs. Awarding OWS its reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred in connection with this letter, the meet-and-confer efforts, and any resulting motion practice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A).

V. CERTIFICATION OF CONFERENCE Pursuant to Local Rule CV-7(h) and the Court's standing orders regarding discovery disputes, undersigned counsel hereby certifies that counsel for the parties have conferred in good faith in an effort to resolve this dispute without Court intervention but have been unable to do so. Specifically, counsel for OWS (Wendy Schultz, Calderwood & Harkness LLP) and counsel for Lumicore (Samanth

VI. CLOSING OWS respectfully requests that the Court address this dispute at its earliest convenience, whether by scheduling a telephone conference with the parties or by ruling on the papers. OWS is mindful of the Court's time and has endeavored to present this dispute concisely and with the specificity that the Court's standing orders require. OWS is prepared to provide the Court with the complete 30(b)(6) depositi