Contract analysis

I. GENERAL OBJECTIONS OWS asserts the following General Objections to Lumicore's First Set of Requests for Production of Documents. These General Objections are incorporated by reference into each of OWS's specific responses below, and the failure to restate a particular General Objection in any specific response shall not be deemed a waiver of that objection. A. Scope and Relevance Objections

1. OWS objects to each and every Request to the extent it seeks documents that are not relevant to any party's claim or defense or that are not proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in this action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and wheth

2. OWS objects to each and every Request to the extent it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, or not reasonably limited in time, subject matter, or scope. OWS will endeavor to respond to each Request as reasonably construed and will identify the basis for any narrowing construction applied. B. Privilege and Work-Product Objections

3. OWS objects to each and every Request to the extent it calls for documents or information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine (as set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(3) and Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947)), the common-interest privilege, the joint-defense privilege, or any other applicable privilege, protection, or immunity from discovery reco

4. OWS has prepared, and will continue to supplement, a privilege log in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(A), the Local Rules of the Eastern District of Texas, and the Court's Scheduling Order. OWS's initial privilege log was served on October 31, 2024, and identifies 1,247 documents that have been withheld in whole or redacted in part on the basis of privilege or work-product protection. OWS'

5. Without limiting the foregoing, OWS specifically asserts the attorney-client privilege with respect to its prior and ongoing communications with Calderwood & Harkness LLP (litigation counsel), Whitmore & Callahan LLP (local litigation counsel), Cascade IP Advisors, LLC (patent prosecution counsel, with Dr. Martin Chu serving as lead prosecution attorney), and FairPoint Licensing Group, LLC (licensing agent, with M

6. OWS objects to each and every Request to the extent compliance would require the disclosure of trade secrets, proprietary business information, competitively sensitive financial data, or other confidential information without the protections afforded by the Stipulated Protective Order entered in this action (D.E. 34). OWS will designate documents produced in response to Lumicore's Requests at the appropriate tier

7. OWS objects to each and every Request that utilizes the phrases "all documents," "each and every," "any and all," or similar language of universal scope to the extent such language purports to impose an obligation beyond what is reasonable and proportional under the circumstances of this case. OWS will interpret such Requests as requiring a reasonable search for and production of responsive documents, consistent w

8. OWS objects to each and every Request to the extent it purports to require the production of electronically stored information ("ESI") in forms, formats, or from sources not agreed upon in the ESI Protocol Agreement dated August 15, 2024 (the "ESI Protocol"). The ESI Protocol specifies, among other things, that Relativity shall serve as the document review platform; that general documents shall be produced in TIFF

9. OWS has conducted reasonable searches of relevant custodial and non-custodial data sources, consistent with the ESI Protocol and the parties' agreements as reflected in the Joint discovery Plan and Report (Rule 26(f) Report) filed on July 29, 2024 (D.E. 22). OWS's custodial data sources include the email accounts, local and network drives, and cloud-based repositories of the agreed-upon custodians. OWS's non-custo

10. OWS's responses are based upon information and documents reasonably available to OWS and its counsel as of the date of service of these responses, September 30, 2024. OWS's investigation and document review are ongoing. OWS reserves the right to supplement, amend, or correct its responses as additional information becomes available through continuing investigation, document review, fact and expert depositions, th

11. The assertion of any specific objection in response to a particular Request shall not be deemed a waiver of any other objection, whether or not specifically stated, that OWS may assert with respect to that Request or any other Request. The production of documents in response to any Request shall not constitute an admission that any such document is relevant to any claim or defense, authentic, or admissible in evi

II. SPECIFIC RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS Request for Production No. 1 REQUEST: Produce all documents constituting or relating to the prosecution history of U.S. Patent No. 10,234,847 (the "'847 Patent"), including but not limited to the patent application as filed, all office actions issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"), all responses to office actions, all amendments, all declarations, all