Joint Appendix (Part 1)

Case 2:10-cv-02225-JAK-JC Document 197 Filed 05/22/12 Page 10 of 14 Page ID#:3377UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIACIVIL MINUTES – GENERALCase No. LA CV10-02225 JAK (JCx) Date May 22, 2012TitleJake Lee v. Mike’s Novelties, Inc., et al.These settlement offers, combined with intimidating language, are evidence of bad faithlitigation tactics. Thus, this evidence supports an award of attorney’s fees.(2) Meritless Dispositive MotionsPlaintiff asserts that Defendants filed at least five dispositive motions on Plaintiff’s patentinfringement claim, all of which were without merit. See (In Chambers) Order Denying Motion toDismiss, Dkt. 18; Claim Construction Order, pp. 4-5, Dkt. 50; (In Chambers) Order Denying Motion forSummary Judgment of Non-Infringement, pp. 4-5, Dkt. 87; (In Chambers) Order Denying Defendants’Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity, pp. 3-5, Dkt. 88; and (In Chambers) Order DenyingDefendants’ Motion for Sanctions, Dkt. 93. However, that Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, a claimconstruction brief, and two motions for summary judgment is not sufficient to show bad faith litigationtactics. Defendants’ motion for sanctions is discussed separately below.(3) Rule 11 Motion for SanctionsOn May 27, 2011, Defendants filed a motion for sanctions pursuant to Rule 11. Dkt. 86. Insupport of this motion, Defendants argued that sanctions were warranted because Plaintiff’s SecondAmended Complaint asserted a “baseless patent infringement Complaint against Defendants.” Def.Mem., p. 1, Dkt. 86-1. Plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that the Court adopted each of Plaintiff’sproposed claim constructions, denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and denied Defendants’ motionfor summary judgment. Thus, sanctions were unwarranted. The Court agreed with Plaintiff and deniedthe motion. However, Plaintiff also sought to recover the attorney’s fees incurred in connection withopposing the motion, which request was denied by the Court. Thus, because the Court deniedPlaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees, specifically holding that “merit for such fees is not shown,” Dkt. 93,p. 3, the Rule 11 motion does not support a fee award.(4) Bad Faith During DiscoveryPlaintiff contends that Defendants reneged on certain discovery commitments and interferedwith Plaintiff’s counsel’s right to depose Chander while Plaintiff was present. Specifically, Plaintiff citesMagistrate Judge Chooljian’s order granting Plaintiff’s motion to compel the production of documents,Dkt. 75, and the fact that Judge Chooljian had to call counsel in Houston, Texas prior to Chander’sdeposition and order defense counsel to allow the deposition to proceed with Plaintiff present. Theparties dispute the details of the Houston deposition. Plaintiff represents that, on July 18, 2011, whenPlaintiff and his counsel appeared in Houston to take Chander’s deposition, Chander refused to allowthe deposition to proceed with Plaintiff present. This delayed the deposition for two hours, untilMagistrate Judge Chooljian ordered Defendants by telephone that Chander’s deposition proceed withPlaintiff present. Dkt. 95. Defendants dispute this characterization, stating that Plaintiff provokedChander, so defense counsel took Chander to a coffee shop to cool down before allowing theCV-90 (10/08) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 10 of 14-A27-