exhibit 1 - entrata litigation · plaintiff’s rule 16 motion to reopen case no....
TRANSCRIPT
EXHIBIT 1
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 1 of 181 Page ID #:13068
PLAINTIFF’S RULE 16 MOTION TO REOPEN CASE NO. 2:13-CV-07764-FMO-AGR DISCOVERY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Jason P. Gonzalez (SBN 178768) Shawn G. Hansen (SBN 197033) Neal J. Gauger (SBN 293161) Karina G. Puttieva (SBN 317702) NIXON PEABODY, LLP 300 South Grand Ave. Suite 4100 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 629-6019 Facsimile: (213) 629-6000 Email: [email protected]
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiff YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.
Plaintiff,
vs.
PROPERTY SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
Defendant.
PROPERTY SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Counter-Claimant,
vs.
YARDI SYSTEMS, INC. Counter-Defendant
Case No. 2:13-CV-07764-FMO (AGRx)
YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND RULE 16 MOTION TO MODIFY THE COURT’S SCHEDULING ORDER TO REOPEN LIMITED DISCOVERY FOR INQUIRY INTO ENTRATA, INC.’S RELATIONSHIP WITH DB XENTO SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Hon. Fernando M. Olguin
Hearing Date: TBD Hearing Time: 10:00 a.m. Courtroom: 6D
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 2 of 181 Page ID #:13069
PLAINTIFF’S RULE 16 MOTION TO REOPEN i CASE NO. 2:13-CV-07764-FMO-AGR DISCOVERY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff Yardi Systems, Inc. (“Yardi”)
hereby moves under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 to modify the scheduling
order to reopen limited discovery for inquiry into the relationship between
Defendant Entrata, Inc. (“Entrata”), f/k/a Property Solutions International, Inc., and
DB Xento Systems Private Limited (“Xento”). There is good cause for the
proposed modification of the Court’s schedule because, among other reasons,
recent depositions of Entrata and Xento witnesses in other litigation yielded
conflicting testimony regarding the nature of the relationship between Entrata and
Xento, and Entrata also produced in the other litigation documents probative of this
subject that should have been produced in this case but were not. Specifically,
Entrata produced a 2011 email
Because Xento developed the Entrata software that is at
issue in this case, the relationship between them is of the utmost relevance and
importance to the complete vindication of Yardi’s rights. Yardi could be seriously
prejudiced if Entrata has structured its relationship with Xento to avoid liability in
this case.
This Motion is made following the conference of counsel pursuant to L.R. 7-
3, which took place on August 23, 2018.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 3 of 181 Page ID #:13070
PLAINTIFF’S RULE 16 MOTION TO REOPEN ii CASE NO. 2:13-CV-07764-FMO-AGR DISCOVERY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... - 1 -
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ..................................................................... - 2 -
III. ARGUMENT .............................................................................................. - 6 -
A. Good Cause Exists Because Requested Documents Will Yield Relevant Evidence, Specifically As To Whether Entrata Used Xento To Buffer Itself From Liability In This Case ......................... - 7 -
B. Good Cause Exists Because Yardi Was Diligent And Could Not Have Foreseen Entrata’s Repeated Refusal To Disclose The Nature Of Entrata’s Relationship To Xento ..................................... - 7 -
C. Good Cause Exists Because The Trial Date Has Not Been Set And Any Resulting Prejudice To Entrata Is The Direct Result of Entrata’s Own Misconduct ............................................................... - 9 -
IV. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... - 10 -
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 4 of 181 Page ID #:13071
PLAINTIFF’S RULE 16 MOTION TO REOPEN iii CASE NO. 2:13-CV-07764-FMO-AGR DISCOVERY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Federal Cases
Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992) ................................................................................. 6
United States ex rel. Schumer v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 63 F.3d 1512 (9th Cir. 1995) ................................................................................. 7
Smith v. United States, 834 F.2d 166 (10th Cir. 1987) ............................................................................... 7
Rules
Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 ........................................................................................................ 6
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 ........................................................................................................ 6
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 5 of 181 Page ID #:13072
PLAINTIFF’S RULE 16 MOTION TO REOPEN - 1 - CASE NO. 2:13-CV-07764-FMO-AGR DISCOVERY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I. INTRODUCTION
For the second time in this case, Entrata has improperly failed to produce
critical documents.1 This time, Entrata improperly withheld documents concerning
the legal relationship between Entrata and Xento, Entrata’s Indian affiliate that
developed the Entrata software at issue in this case. These documents are crucial to
determining whether Entrata has structured its relationship with Xento to attempt to
avoid liability in this case. They are also clearly responsive to Yardi’s Requests for
Production (“RFPs”) Nos. 42 and 7. Accordingly, good cause exists to modify the
scheduling order to reopen limited discovery for this inquiry.
Since Entrata never produced these responsive documents, Yardi was
surprised to learn after the close of discovery that these documents exist and were in
Entrata’s possession since the beginning of this litigation. Specifically, in late
2017, during discovery for the Utah District Court action,2 Entrata produced for the
first time a January 27, 2011 email that not only was responsive to RFP No. 7,
but—more disturbingly—indicated that Entrata has sought to structure its
relationship with Xento to avoid liability in this case. In this January 2011 email,
1 As the Court will recall, after Entrata filed its April 15, 2015 summary judgment motion (Dkt. 106), Yardi discovered through its own investigation that Entrata failed to produce critical discovery that directly refuted one of Entrata’s primary summary judgment arguments. See Dkt. 126. In response to Yardi’s ex parte application, the Court dismissed Entrata’s summary judgment motion without prejudice and ordered additional limited discovery relating to the issues associated with Entrata’s improperly withheld documents. Dkt. 128. Ultimately, Entrata lost its subsequent motion for summary judgment due in no small part to the evidence that Entrata was ordered to produce.2 Entrata, Inc. v. Yardi Systems, Inc., District of Utah Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-00102-CW-PMW.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 6 of 181 Page ID #:13073
PLAINTIFF’S RULE 16 MOTION TO REOPEN - 2 - CASE NO. 2:13-CV-07764-FMO-AGR DISCOVERY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Since then, Yardi repeatedly asked Entrata to clarify its relationship to Xento
and to produce supporting documents. Entrata initially gave vague responses and
ultimately refused to provide any further information in response to Yardi’s
inquiries. In the absence of documents, Yardi diligently sought information about
the relationship in depositions of Entrata and Xento witnesses but received
contradictory testimony. At this point, only documentary evidence of the Entrata-
Xento relationship can resolve the factual inconsistencies between and among
Entrata’s percipient witnesses and ascertain if Entrata has engaged in improper
efforts to avoid liability for Yardi’s claims.
Entrata’s repeated and deliberate failure to produce Xento-related documents
denies Yardi a full and fair opportunity to conduct discovery and creates a
significant risk that Entrata will seek to shield itself from relief that Yardi may win
at trial. Accordingly, Yardi respectfully requests that this Court reopen discovery
for the limited purpose of obtaining documents concerning Entrata’s relationship
with Xento. Namely, Yardi seeks: (1) documents showing the corporate
relationship between Xento and Entrata; (2) communications in which Entrata CEO
David Bateman and/or Entrata made representations regarding Entrata’s value to
third parties; (3) representations to lenders in connection with Entrata obtaining
financing; (4) tax returns for Entrata and Xento; (5) United States Bureau of
Economic Analysis forms required to be filed by Entrata and Xento; and
(6) Xento’s annual filings with the registrar of companies in India.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In March 2014 and June 2015, Yardi served Entrata with Requests for
Production, including Nos. 42 and 7. Declaration of Jason P. Gonzalez (“Gonzalez
Decl.”) ¶ 2. Yardi’s RFP No. 42 requests that Entrata: “Produce all contracts
between YOU and any affiliate, subsidiary, consultant, or contractor, who had any
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 7 of 181 Page ID #:13074
PLAINTIFF’S RULE 16 MOTION TO REOPEN - 3 - CASE NO. 2:13-CV-07764-FMO-AGR DISCOVERY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
involvement in the design, development, modification, testing or validation of
ENTRATA or any other software purportedly developed by YOU.” Gonzalez
Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A. Entrata objected to RFP No. 42 only to the extent it required
disclosure of third-party or consultant documents. Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 3, Exs. K, L.
Xento was neither: it was included in the definition of “Property Solutions,” as a
party “acting on its behalf.” See Gonzalez Decl. Ex. K3. Entrata did not produce
any contracts with Xento in response to RFP No. 42. Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 3.
Yardi’s RFP No. 7 requests that Entrata: “produce all DOCUMENTS
CONCERNING YOUR access to, possession of, copying of, or use of any YARDI
SOFTWARE at any time.” Gonzalez Decl. Ex. A. The RFP set defines “YARDI
SOFTWARE” references to “any and all software programs, databases, services
and other products designed, developed, written, marketed, or sold by YARDI,
including but not limited to the VOYAGER SOFTWARE and the GENESIS
SOFTWARE.” Id. Fact discovery closed on December 19, 2014. Dkt. 58.
In late 2017, Entrata produced, for the first time, a January 27, 2011 email
responsive to Yardi’s RFP No. 7, during discovery in the Utah District Court
action. Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. C. That email
See
Gonzalez Decl. Ex. C. In the email,
Id.
3 “‘PROPERTY SOLUTIONS’ and ‘YOU’ mean Property Solutions International, Inc., the defendant in the above captioned action, or any of its parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessors in interest, divisions, directors, officers, employees, contractors, attorneys, agents, representatives, and anyone acting on its behalf specifically including DB Xento Systems Private Limited . . . .” Gonzalez Decl. Ex. K (emphasis added).
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 8 of 181 Page ID #:13075
PLAINTIFF’S RULE 16 MOTION TO REOPEN - 4 - CASE NO. 2:13-CV-07764-FMO-AGR DISCOVERY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Id. (emphasis added).
Id.
In the absence of documents that shed light on the relationship between
Entrata and Xento, Yardi diligently sought this information in several depositions,
but received contradictory testimony. Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 5.
First, in May 2018, former Entrata President John Hanna testified that
Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. D at 23:6-24:3 (emphasis added).
Then, in July 2018, Mr. Bateman testified that
Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 11, Ex. E at 208:9–209:3, 212:14-22
(emphasis added). He noted that Xento primarily provides software development
services to Entrata. Gonzalez Decl. Ex. E at 210:4-9.
Also in July 2018, Xento CEO Preetam Yadav testified that
Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 10, Ex. F at 19:14-16, 27:20-25,
15:23–16:13 (emphasis added).
Gonzalez Decl. Ex. F at 23:10-13.
4 MRI is another property management software vendor that makes property management accounting software like Voyager and Entrata Core. There is significant evidence suggesting that Entrata, just as it did with Yardi’s Voyager, improperly obtained a copy of MRI software to use it for Entrata’s own competitive purposes, including building Entrata’s competing “Entrata Core” property management accounting product. Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 13.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 9 of 181 Page ID #:13076
PLAINTIFF’S RULE 16 MOTION TO REOPEN - 5 - CASE NO. 2:13-CV-07764-FMO-AGR DISCOVERY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
In meet-and-confer correspondence in May 2018, Yardi repeatedly asked
Entrata to clarify its relationship with Xento and to produce supporting documents.
Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. G. Entrata responded with a single conclusory,
unsupported paragraph:
Xento is an Indian Company that is an affiliate and sister company of Entrata Inc. (fka Property Solutions International, Inc.), a Delaware Corporation.
This relationship and structure have existed since August 13, 2007, when Xento was formed. This structure and ownership have not changed in any way since the formation of Xento, nor have any intellectual property rights or other intangible assets been transferred from Entrata to Xento since Xento’s formation. Regarding Mr. Bateman’s January 27, 2011 email at 11:28 am, reflected in Exhibit 1385, we are not aware of any actions taken by Entrata or Xento in response to that email.
Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. H. Again, Entrata failed to produce any documents.
Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 8.
In meet-and-confer correspondence, Yardi again asked for documents
responsive to RFP No. 42, and related documents specific to Entrata’s relationship
with Xento. Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 9. Specifically, Yardi requested:
1. Documents showing the corporate relationship between Entrata and Xento, including as to direct and indirect ownership interests, licenses, transfer pricing studies (prepared both by in-house personnel and outside firms), cost sharing agreements for IP development, invoicing for development services, and the like;
2. Communications in which Mr. Bateman and/or Entrata as an entity has made representations regarding Entrata's value to third parties, including but not limited to the 2012 communications Mr. Hanna described in his deposition (in
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 10 of 181 Page ID #:13077
PLAINTIFF’S RULE 16 MOTION TO REOPEN - 6 - CASE NO. 2:13-CV-07764-FMO-AGR DISCOVERY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
which, according to Mr. Hanna, Mr. Bateman stated words to the effect that Mr. Bateman, not Entrata, owned the intellectual property underlying its products);
3. Applications and other representations to lenders in connection with Entrata obtaining loans or other financing;
4. Tax returns with all schedules, exhibits, footnotes and other attachments, as well any reports filed with the IRS or Treasury relating to foreign financial accounts, for Entrata and Xento (in the US and India, as applicable) for the past five years;
5. All United States Bureau of Economic Analysis forms required to be filed by Entrata, Xento and their shareholders; and
6. Xento’s annual filings with the registrar of companies in India for the past 5 years.
Gonzalez Decl. Ex. I.
It is undisputed that documents of this nature exist and that Entrata has
access to them:
Gonzalez Decl. Ex. E at 209:9-21; Gonzalez Decl. Ex. F
at 19:19–20:11. To date, however, Entrata has failed to supplement its document
production as required under Rule 26(e) to provide these documents.
III. ARGUMENT
Rule 16 authorizes the Court to modify the pretrial scheduling order
providing for the last day to complete discovery “upon a showing of good cause.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b); see also Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d
604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). Whether good causes exists to reopen discovery is at the
discretion of the trial court, which weighs factors like: (1) the likelihood that the
discovery will lead to relevant evidence, (2) whether the moving party was diligent
in obtaining discovery within the guidelines established by the court, (3) the
foreseeability of the need for additional discovery in light of the time allowed for
discovery by the district court, (4) whether the non-moving party would be
prejudiced, (5) whether trial is imminent, and (6) whether the request is opposed.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 11 of 181 Page ID #:13078
PLAINTIFF’S RULE 16 MOTION TO REOPEN - 7 - CASE NO. 2:13-CV-07764-FMO-AGR DISCOVERY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
See United States ex rel. Schumer v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 63 F.3d 1512, 1526 (9th
Cir. 1995); see also Smith v. United States, 834 F.2d 166, 169 (10th Cir. 1987).
Good cause to reopen discovery exists here because it will lead to relevant
evidence that will resolve whether Entrata has attempted to avoid liability through
the structure of its relationship with Xento. Yardi was diligent in pursuing this
discovery and could not have foreseen the need for this additional discovery until
the recent conflicting testimony of Entrata witnesses. Moreover, no trial date has
been scheduled, and Entrata will not be prejudiced cognizably, as it is itself
responsible for any prejudice that arises from its repeated withholding of critical
evidence in this case.
A. Good Cause Exists Because Requested Documents Will Yield
Relevant Evidence, Specifically As To Whether Entrata Used
Xento To Buffer Itself From Liability In This Case
Because Xento developed the Entrata software at issue in this case, the
relationship between them is of the utmost relevance to the complete vindication of
Yardi’s rights. The requested documents are crucial to determining whether Entrata
has structured its relationship with Xento to attempt to avoid liability. Yardi could
be seriously prejudiced if Entrata has used Xento to shield itself from relief that
Yardi may win at trial.
B. Good Cause Exists Because Yardi Was Diligent And Could Not
Have Foreseen Entrata’s Repeated Refusal To Disclose The
Nature Of Entrata’s Relationship To Xento
Yardi was diligent in its efforts to obtain discovery—in fact, the documents
Entrata failed to produce and many of the documents Yardi seeks to this day are
clearly responsive to its Requests for Production Nos. 42 and 7.
Yardi’s RFP No. 42 reads: “Produce all contracts between YOU and any
affiliate, subsidiary, consultant, or contractor, who had any involvement in the
design, development, modification, testing or validation of ENTRATA or any other
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 12 of 181 Page ID #:13079
PLAINTIFF’S RULE 16 MOTION TO REOPEN - 8 - CASE NO. 2:13-CV-07764-FMO-AGR DISCOVERY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
software purportedly developed by YOU.” Gonzalez Decl. Ex. A. While the exact
nature of the Entrata-Xento relationship remains at issue, two things are clear.
First, Xento is unquestionably “involved in the design, development, modification,
testing or validation of Entrata software or any other software purportedly
developed by [Entrata]” because
Gonzalez Decl. Ex. E at 210:4-9; Ex. F at 23:10-
13, 15:7–16:1. Second, the recent deposition testimony
Gonzalez Decl. Ex. E at 213:1-11; Ex. F 19:19–20:7.
Yardi’s RFP No. 7 reads: “Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING
YOUR access to, possession of, copying of, or use of any YARDI SOFTWARE at
any time,” where the definition of “YARDI SOFTWARE” includes databases.
Gonzalez Decl. Ex. A. The January 27, 2011 email
Gonzalez Decl. Ex. C. This email is unmistakably responsive and Entrata
withheld it in discovery in this case.5 Entrata’s repeated failure to produce critical
5 The January 27, 2011 email is also responsive to Yardi’s RFP No. 90, which requests that Entrata: “Produce all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any of your practices, any efforts YOU made, or any policies YOU adopted prior to October 21, 2010 to prevent any of YOUR EMPLOYEES who were working to develop ENTRATA from incorporating features of the VOYAGER SOFTWARE into ENTRATA, including but not limited to DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the implementation of a ‘clean room’ or ‘Chinese wall.’” Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. B. The January 27, 2011 email
Entrata was served with RFP No. 90 in
June 2015, after the Court ordered additional discovery in light of the first time Entrata improperly failed to produce critical documents. See Dkt. 128. Thus, Entrata had a second chance to produce this email and failed to do so.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 13 of 181 Page ID #:13080
PLAINTIFF’S RULE 16 MOTION TO REOPEN - 9 - CASE NO. 2:13-CV-07764-FMO-AGR DISCOVERY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
documents supports a reasonable inference that there are other communications that
shed light on this subject matter that have not been produced.
Moreover, Yardi could not have foreseen the need for this discovery before
the discovery cutoff under the Court’s current schedule. Entrata improperly
withheld the January 27, 2011 email from Yardi until late 2017.6 Entrata also
withheld contracts relating to Xento, despite clear requests for production of such
documents. Once Yardi learned of Entrata’s withholding of this critical
information, Yardi acted diligently to explore this issue in discovery in the Utah
District Court action and meet-and-confer thereafter but Entrata refused to provide
it, thus necessitating this Motion.
C. Good Cause Exists Because The Trial Date Has Not Been Set And
Any Resulting Prejudice To Entrata Is The Direct Result of
Entrata’s Own Misconduct
The Court has not yet set a trial date, and prejudice to Entrata from its own
misconduct should not be considered. Entrata’s withholding of admittedly existent
and responsive documents created the need to reopen discovery. That Yardi did not
know about the existence of responsive documents until after the close of the
6 Entrata did admit in discovery that in May 2012, as Yardi’s informal pre-litigation inquiries of Entrata as to whether Entrata had a copy of Voyager were increasing in intensity, Mr. Bateman personally carried Entrata’s improperly-obtained copy of Voyager to Xento. Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 12, Ex. J at 51:4–56:18, 177:24–181:12. Entrata has maintained, however, that this was not done in an effort to hide Entrata’s copy, but rather as some sort of effort to “re-purpose” the server containing the software so it could be used by Xento. Id. Now that the previously-withheld January 27, 2011 email has been produced, Entrata’s “re-purposing” claim, which always has been dubious at best, appears completely unsupportable. The evidence is now clear that in May 2012 Bateman was trying to hide Entrata’s copy of Voyager, plain and simple. There also never was any evidence, prior to Entrata’s belated production of the January 27, 2011 email, that
This has now become an issue, and Yardi is entitled to
pursue it.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 14 of 181 Page ID #:13081
PLAINTIFF’S RULE 16 MOTION TO REOPEN - 10 - CASE NO. 2:13-CV-07764-FMO-AGR DISCOVERY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4821-4962-6476.13
discovery is the direct result of Entrata’s own improper withholding of documents
clearly called for under Yardi’s document requests.
Entrata’s withholding of documents that show the true nature of the Entrata-
Xento relationship has already prejudiced Yardi by depriving it of an opportunity to
fairly explore this subject before the discovery cutoff. Entrata’s blatant disregard
for repeatedly-requested discovery has forced Yardi to take depositions and
otherwise litigate without the benefit of the withheld documents. Thus Yardi has
been deprived of its right to timely subject the relationship between Entrata and
Xento to the full scope of permissible discovery and consider all relevant facts
relating to Entrata’s efforts to avoid liability through the structure of its relationship
with Xento. Therefore, good cause exists to reopen discovery.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Yardi respectfully requests that the Court grant its
Motion in full.
Dated: September 4, 2018
NIXON PEABODY LLP
By: /s/ Jason P. Gonzalez___________Jason P. Gonzalez Shawn G. Hansen Neal J. Gauger Karina G. Puttieva Attorneys for Plaintiff YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 15 of 181 Page ID #:13082
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF Case No. 2:13-CV-7764-FMO-AGRPLAINTIFF’S RULE 16 MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Jason P. Gonzalez (SBN 178768) Shawn G. Hansen (SBN 197033) Neal J. Gauger (SBN 293161) Karina G. Puttieva (SBN 317702) NIXON PEABODY, LLP 300 South Grand Ave. Suite 4100 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 629-6019 Facsimile: (213) 629-6000 Email: [email protected]
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiff YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.
Plaintiff,
vs.
PROPERTY SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
Defendant.
PROPERTY SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Counter-Claimant,
vs.
YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.
Counter-Defendant
Case No. 2:13-CV-07764-FMO (AGRx)
DECLARATION OF JASON P. GONZALEZ IN SUPPORT OF YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.’S RULE 16 MOTION TO MODIFY THE COURT’S SCHEDULING ORDER TO REOPEN LIMITED DISCOVERY FOR INQUIRY INTO ENTRATA, INC.’S RELATIONSHIP WITH DB XENTO SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Hon. Fernando M. Olguin
Hearing Date: TBD Hearing Time: 10:00 am Courtroom: 6D
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 16 of 181 Page ID #:13083
4814-2288-3651.4
- 1 -DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF Case No. 2:13-CV-7764-FMO-AGRPLAINTIFF’S RULE 16 MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF JASON P. GONZALEZ
I, Jason P. Gonzalez, declare as follows:
1. I am a member of the State Bar of California and a partner with the law
firm of Nixon Peabody LLP, counsel of record for Plaintiff Yardi Systems, Inc.
(“Yardi”) in the above-captioned action. I am admitted to practice in the Central
District of California. I make this declaration in support of YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.’S
RULE 16 MOTION TO MODIFY THE COURT’S SCHEDULING ORDER TO
REOPEN LIMITED DISCOVERY FOR INQUIRY INTO ENTRATA, INC.’S
RELATIONSHIP WITH DB XENTO SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED (“Motion”). I
have personal knowledge of the following facts and, if called and sworn as a witness,
could and would competently testify thereto.
2. In October 2013 Yardi filed suit against Defendant Entrata, Inc. (“Entrata”)
in United States District Court, Central District of California. In March 2014 and June
2015, Yardi served Entrata with Requests for Production, including Nos. 42, 7, and 90.
Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of Yardi’s March 3, 2014 First
Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a
true and correct copy of Yardi’s June 15, 2015 Supplemental Requests for Discovery.
3. Attached hereto as Exhibit K is a true and correct copy of Entrata’s May 7,
2014 responses to Yardi’s first set of requests for production, including RFP No. 42.
Attached hereto as Exhibit L is a true and correct copy of an August 1, 2014 letter from
Entrata counsel to Yardi counsel, summarizing a meet and confer call regarding
discovery requests, including RFP No. 42. I am informed and believe that Entrata did
not produce any contracts with Xento in response to RFP No. 42.
4. I am informed and believe that in late 2017, Entrata produced for the first
time a January 27, 2011 email, bates-stamped ENT_00044654, in the course of
discovery in the Utah District Court action Entrata, Inc. v. Yardi Systems, Inc., Utah
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 17 of 181 Page ID #:13084
4814-2288-3651.4
- 2 -DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF Case No. 2:13-CV-7764-FMO-AGRPLAINTIFF’S RULE 16 MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
District Court Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-00102-CW-PMW (“Utah Action”). Attached
hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the January 27, 2011 email.
5. In the course of the Utah Action, approximately in May 2018, Yardi and
Entrata agreed that discovery produced in the instant case may be used in the Utah
Action and vice versa. In the course of the Utah Action, Yardi inquired into the
relationship between Entrata and Xento during the depositions of John Hanna, Dave
Bateman, and Preetam Yadav.
6. On May 16, 2018, I deposed former Entrata President John Hanna.
Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the transcript
of his deposition.
7. On May 17, 2018, I sent an email to Entrata counsel David Cross and Mary
Kaiser asking why the January 27, 2011 email was not produced during discovery in the
instant action. On May 22, 2018 counsel for Yardi and counsel for Entrata participated
in a telephonic meet-and-confer conference regarding, among other things, the January
27, 2011 email and Entrata’s relationship with Xento. On May 24, 2018, I sent a follow
up email regarding the January 27, 2011 email and the issue of Xento. Attached hereto
as Exhibit G are true and correct copies of the May 17, 2018 and May 24, 2018 email
correspondence.
8. On May 24, 2018, Entrata’s counsel David Cross sent me a letter via email
regarding in part the January 27, 2011 email and the issue of Xento. Attached hereto as
Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of that May 24, 2018 letter. Entrata’s counsel did
not produce any other documents in response to my May 17, 2018 and May 24, 2018
emails.
9. On May 30, 2018, I sent an email to Entrata counsel David Cross regarding
the January 27, 2011 email and the issue of Xento. I requested specific categories of
documents regarding Xento and its relationship to Entrata. Attached hereto as Exhibit I
is a true and correct copy that May 30, 2018 email. To date, Yardi’s counsel did not
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 18 of 181 Page ID #:13085
4814-2288-3651.4
- 3 -DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF Case No. 2:13-CV-7764-FMO-AGRPLAINTIFF’S RULE 16 MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
receive any of the requested documents. A June 5, 2018 email from David Cross in
response to my May 30, 2018 email did not offer any further explanation for Entrata’s
position.
10. On July 12, 2018 I deposed Xento CEO Preetem Yadav. Attached hereto
as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the transcript of his deposition.
11. On July 13, 2018 I deposed Entrata CEO Dave Bateman. Attached hereto
as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the transcript of his deposition.
12. I am informed and believe that on December 4, 2014, in the course of the
instant action, Yardi’s previous counsel, John McDermott of Brownstein Hyatt Farber
Schreck LLP, deposed Dave Bateman. Attached hereto as Exhibit J is a true and
correct copy of excerpts from the transcript of his deposition.
13. I am informed and believe that there is significant evidence suggesting that
Entrata, just as it did with Yardi’s Voyager software, improperly obtained a copy of
MRI software to use it for Entrata’s own competitive purposes, including building
Entrata’s competing “Entrata Core” property management accounting product.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America
that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this 4th day of September, 2018, in Los Angeles, California.
____ /s/Jason P. Gonzalez_____ Jason P. Gonzalez Attorney for Plaintiff Yardi Systems, Inc.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 19 of 181 Page ID #:13086
EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT A
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 20 of 181 Page ID #:13087
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP Eric Berg (State Bar No. 134621) [email protected] 21 East Carrillo Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101-2706 Telephone: 805.963.7000 Facsimile: 805.965.4333 E-mail: [email protected]
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP John V. McDermott (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) (Colorado State Bar No. 11854) [email protected] Karl L. Schock (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) (Colorado State Bar No. 38239) [email protected] 410 Seventeenth Street Suite 2200 Denver, CO 80202-4432 Telephone: 303.223.1100 Facsimile: 303.223.1111
Attorneys for Plaintiff Yardi Systems, Inc.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
PROPERTY SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL INC.,
Defendant.
PROPOUNDING PARTY: RESPONDING PARTY:
SET NO:
Case No. 2:13-CV-07764-FMO-CW
YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.'S INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE
Hon. Fernando M. Olguin
PLAINTIFF YARDI SYSTEMS, INC. DEFENDANT PROPERTY SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
ONE
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLPEric Berg (State Bar No. 134621) [email protected] 21 East Carrillo Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101-2706 Telephone: 805.963.7000 Facsimile: 805.965.4333 E-mail: [email protected] Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP John V. McDermott (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) (Colorado State Bar No. 11854) [email protected] Karl L. Schock (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) (Colorado State Bar No. 38239) [email protected] 410 Seventeenth Street Suite 2200 Denver, CO 80202-4432 Telephone: 303.223.1100 Facsimile: 303.223.1111
Attorneys for Plaintiff Yardi Systems, Inc.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
PROPERTY SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 2:13-CV-07764-FMO-CW
YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.’S INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE
Hon. Fernando M. Olguin
PROPOUNDING PARTY: PLAINTIFF YARDI SYSTEMS, INC. RESPONDING PARTY: DEFENDANT PROPERTY SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
SET NO: ONE
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 21 of 181 Page ID #:13088
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26, 33 and 34, Plaintiff Yardi
Systems, Inc. propounds the following interrogatories and document requests to
Defendant Property Solutions International Inc.:
DEFINITIONS
As used herein, the following terms are intended to have the meanings
indicated:
1. "YARDI" means Yardi Systems, Inc., including its officers,
employees, agents, and representatives.
2. "PROPERTY SOLUTIONS" and "YOU" mean Property Solutions
International Inc., the defendant in the above captioned action, or any of its parents,
subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessors in interest, divisions, directors, officers,
employees, contractors, attorneys, agents, representatives, and anyone acting on its
behalf, specifically including DB Xento Systems Private Limited, Property
Solutions Insurance Agency LLC, and Resident Verify LLC. These terms include,
without limitation, any employee, contractor, agent, or representative of YOURS or
any subsidiary, division, or affiliate of YOURS working or located in India.
3. "COMPLAINT" means the Complaint for Damages filed by Yardi in
this action.
4. "ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS" means the Answer and
Counterclaims YOU filed in this action.
5. "CONCERNING" and "RELATING TO" mean consisting of,
pertaining to, referring to, reflecting on, arising out of, or in any way legally,
factually or logically connected to the matter addressed in the request.
6. "DOCUMENT" means anything a party is permitted to request from
another party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a)(1). Drafts and non-
identical copies of another document constitute separate and distinct documents.
7. "ENTRATA" shall refer to any and all versions of PROPERTY
SOLUTIONS' software program known as Entrata or any other property
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26, 33 and 34, Plaintiff Yardi
Systems, Inc. propounds the following interrogatories and document requests to
Defendant Property Solutions International Inc.:
DEFINITIONS
As used herein, the following terms are intended to have the meanings
indicated:
1. “YARDI” means Yardi Systems, Inc., including its officers,
employees, agents, and representatives.
2. “PROPERTY SOLUTIONS” and “YOU” mean Property Solutions
International Inc., the defendant in the above captioned action, or any of its parents,
subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessors in interest, divisions, directors, officers,
employees, contractors, attorneys, agents, representatives, and anyone acting on its
behalf, specifically including DB Xento Systems Private Limited, Property
Solutions Insurance Agency LLC, and Resident Verify LLC. These terms include,
without limitation, any employee, contractor, agent, or representative of YOURS or
any subsidiary, division, or affiliate of YOURS working or located in India.
3. “COMPLAINT” means the Complaint for Damages filed by Yardi in
this action.
4. “ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS” means the Answer and
Counterclaims YOU filed in this action.
5. “CONCERNING” and “RELATING TO” mean consisting of,
pertaining to, referring to, reflecting on, arising out of, or in any way legally,
factually or logically connected to the matter addressed in the request.
6. “DOCUMENT” means anything a party is permitted to request from
another party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a)(1). Drafts and non-
identical copies of another document constitute separate and distinct documents.
7. “ENTRATA” shall refer to any and all versions of PROPERTY
SOLUTIONS’ software program known as Entrata or any other property
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 22 of 181 Page ID #:13089
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
management software purportedly created or owned by PROPERY SOLUTIONS.
8. "GENESIS SOFTWARE" shall refer to any and all versions of
YARDI's software program known as Yardi Genesis®.
9. "IDENTIFY" means:
(a) when referring to a natural person, to state his or her full name,
and present business address and telephone number, except that if the
person's present business address and telephone number is unknown, the
person's last known home and business address and last known home and
business telephone number;
(b) when used in reference to a person other than a natural person,
to state the name of the entity, its address and telephone number, and the
identity of the natural person or persons within the entity with whom you
dealt in the particular transaction(s) referred to; and
(c) when used in reference to a document, to state the date, title,
author and recipients of the document, the type of document (e.g., letter,
memorandum, telegram, chart, note, etc.), its present location or custodian,
and a summary of the contents of the document.
10. "PERSON" and "PEOPLE" include natural persons, firms,
associations, organizations, partnerships, businesses, trusts, corporations, or public
entities.
11. "SOURCE CODE" shall refer to all source code, including: all
makefiles, history files, or similar code-generation control files for such source
code; the compiler used in the development of such source code; and the output of
any compiled source code including binary files and debug files.
12. "STATE WITH SPECIFICITY," "STATE ALL BASES," and
"STATE THE BASIS" mean to state fully and describe all material facts or
opinions, including, without limitation, all material facts or opinions that concern
the application of law to fact, with respect to the subject matter of the interrogatory
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
management software purportedly created or owned by PROPERY SOLUTIONS.
8. “GENESIS SOFTWARE” shall refer to any and all versions of
YARDI’s software program known as Yardi Genesis®.
9. “IDENTIFY” means:
(a) when referring to a natural person, to state his or her full name,
and present business address and telephone number, except that if the
person’s present business address and telephone number is unknown, the
person’s last known home and business address and last known home and
business telephone number;
(b) when used in reference to a person other than a natural person,
to state the name of the entity, its address and telephone number, and the
identity of the natural person or persons within the entity with whom you
dealt in the particular transaction(s) referred to; and
(c) when used in reference to a document, to state the date, title,
author and recipients of the document, the type of document (e.g., letter,
memorandum, telegram, chart, note, etc.), its present location or custodian,
and a summary of the contents of the document.
10. “PERSON” and “PEOPLE” include natural persons, firms,
associations, organizations, partnerships, businesses, trusts, corporations, or public
entities.
11. “SOURCE CODE” shall refer to all source code, including: all
makefiles, history files, or similar code-generation control files for such source
code; the compiler used in the development of such source code; and the output of
any compiled source code including binary files and debug files.
12. “STATE WITH SPECIFICITY,” “STATE ALL BASES,” and
“STATE THE BASIS” mean to state fully and describe all material facts or
opinions, including, without limitation, all material facts or opinions that concern
the application of law to fact, with respect to the subject matter of the interrogatory
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 23 of 181 Page ID #:13090
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
using such phrase.
13. "VOYAGER SOFTWARE" shall refer to any and all versions of
YARDI's software program known as Yardi Voyager®.
14. "YARDI SOFTWARE" shall refer to any and all software programs,
databases, services and other products designed, developed, written, marketed, or
sold by YARDI, including, but not limited to the VOYAGER SOFTWARE and the
GENESIS SOFTWARE.
INSTRUCTIONS
1. The document requests require the production of documents either in
the same form and same order as they are kept in the usual course of business, or
organized and labeled to correspond with the particular demands set forth below.
2. Source code and other documents written in a computer programming
language, as well as any executable files, should be produced in native electronic
format, and shall be listed on an index assigning each file a unique Bates number.
3. If you do not have enough personal knowledge to fully answer an
interrogatory, say so, but make a reasonable and good faith effort to get the
information by asking other persons or organizations, unless the information is
equally available to the asking party.
4. In responding to these Requests for Production, you are required to
produce all documents in your possession, custody, or control.
5. If you claim a privilege, immunity or confidentiality order or
protective order precludes you from providing information with respect to any
document, information or communication, or precludes you from producing any
document or thing, then provide the following information for each such document,
information, communication or thing:
(a) the nature of the information, communication or document (e.g.,
whether an oral communication, letter, memo, etc.);
(b) the nature of the privilege claimed;
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
using such phrase.
13. “VOYAGER SOFTWARE” shall refer to any and all versions of
YARDI’s software program known as Yardi Voyager®.
14. “YARDI SOFTWARE” shall refer to any and all software programs,
databases, services and other products designed, developed, written, marketed, or
sold by YARDI, including, but not limited to the VOYAGER SOFTWARE and the
GENESIS SOFTWARE.
INSTRUCTIONS
1. The document requests require the production of documents either in
the same form and same order as they are kept in the usual course of business, or
organized and labeled to correspond with the particular demands set forth below.
2. Source code and other documents written in a computer programming
language, as well as any executable files, should be produced in native electronic
format, and shall be listed on an index assigning each file a unique Bates number.
3. If you do not have enough personal knowledge to fully answer an
interrogatory, say so, but make a reasonable and good faith effort to get the
information by asking other persons or organizations, unless the information is
equally available to the asking party.
4. In responding to these Requests for Production, you are required to
produce all documents in your possession, custody, or control.
5. If you claim a privilege, immunity or confidentiality order or
protective order precludes you from providing information with respect to any
document, information or communication, or precludes you from producing any
document or thing, then provide the following information for each such document,
information, communication or thing:
(a) the nature of the information, communication or document (e.g.,
whether an oral communication, letter, memo, etc.);
(b) the nature of the privilege claimed;
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 24 of 181 Page ID #:13091
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(c) the date of the communication or document and its subject
matter; and
(d) all authors and recipients of the document or communication.
6. These requests are continuing in nature, and you are under a
continuous obligation to supplement your responses to these requests pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e).
INTERROGATORIES
INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Describe in detail the circumstances under which YOU possessed a copy of
the VOYAGER SOFTWARE as admitted in paragraph 24 of YOUR ANSWER
AND COUNTERCLAIMS, including, but not limited to, the dates YOU had the
software in YOUR possession, the PERSON or PERSONS from whom YOU
obtained the software, the manner in which you obtained the software, the reasons
for your possession of the software, the version(s) of the VOYAGER SOFTWARE
YOU had in YOUR possession, the locations and hardware on which YOU had the
software installed, and when (if at all) YOU ceased to possess the software.
INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
STATE WITH SPECIFICITY all instances in which YOU copied the
VOYAGER SOFTWARE to any computer or other device.
INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
IDENTIFY all of YOUR or YOUR subsidiaries' or affiliates' officers,
employees, contractors, agents, or representatives who ever had access to a copy or
copies of the VOYAGER SOFTWARE.
INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
If you contend that your possession of a copy of the VOYAGER
SOFTWARE was licensed by YARDI or otherwise permitted under the terms of
any YARDI license or agreement, STATE ALL BASES for your contention.
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
(c) the date of the communication or document and its subject
matter; and
(d) all authors and recipients of the document or communication.
6. These requests are continuing in nature, and you are under a
continuous obligation to supplement your responses to these requests pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e).
INTERROGATORIES
INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Describe in detail the circumstances under which YOU possessed a copy of
the VOYAGER SOFTWARE as admitted in paragraph 24 of YOUR ANSWER
AND COUNTERCLAIMS, including, but not limited to, the dates YOU had the
software in YOUR possession, the PERSON or PERSONS from whom YOU
obtained the software, the manner in which you obtained the software, the reasons
for your possession of the software, the version(s) of the VOYAGER SOFTWARE
YOU had in YOUR possession, the locations and hardware on which YOU had the
software installed, and when (if at all) YOU ceased to possess the software.
INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
STATE WITH SPECIFICITY all instances in which YOU copied the
VOYAGER SOFTWARE to any computer or other device.
INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
IDENTIFY all of YOUR or YOUR subsidiaries’ or affiliates’ officers,
employees, contractors, agents, or representatives who ever had access to a copy or
copies of the VOYAGER SOFTWARE.
INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
If you contend that your possession of a copy of the VOYAGER
SOFTWARE was licensed by YARDI or otherwise permitted under the terms of
any YARDI license or agreement, STATE ALL BASES for your contention.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 25 of 181 Page ID #:13092
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
STATE ALL BASES for your contention that YARDI knew YOU had
access to a copy of the VOYAGER SOFTWARE.
INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
STATE WITH SPECIFICITY all instances in which YOU have viewed,
analyzed, installed, used, or otherwise had access to YARDI SOFTWARE.
INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
IDENTIFY all PERSONS YOU asked to permit YOU to access YARDI
SOFTWARE, view screen shots for YARDI SOFTWARE or disclose YARDI
database tables or other information RELATING TO YARDI SOFTWARE,
including but not limited to all PERSONS YOU asked to provide YOU with DBO
(Data Base Owner) credentials to access the VOYAGER SOFTWARE .
INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
For each PERSON YOU IDENTIFY in response to Interrogatory No. 7,
describe in detail all access, screen shots, or other information such PERSON
provided YOU, including but not limited to whether such PERSON provided YOU
with DBO (Data Base Owner) credentials to access the VOYAGER SOFTWARE .
INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
IDENTIFY all companies or PERSONS who have purchased, licensed, or
contracted to use ENTRATA.
INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
Describe how YOU developed YOUR custom interfaces to allow
interoperability between the VOYAGER SOFTWARE and YOUR products,
including how you created, tested, validated, and debugged the interfaces, and
which steps or processes, if any, required access to the VOYAGER SOFTWARE.
INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
IDENTIFY all PERSONS and companies who were or have ever been
involved in the design, development, modification, testing, or validation of
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
STATE ALL BASES for your contention that YARDI knew YOU had
access to a copy of the VOYAGER SOFTWARE.
INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
STATE WITH SPECIFICITY all instances in which YOU have viewed,
analyzed, installed, used, or otherwise had access to YARDI SOFTWARE.
INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
IDENTIFY all PERSONS YOU asked to permit YOU to access YARDI
SOFTWARE, view screen shots for YARDI SOFTWARE or disclose YARDI
database tables or other information RELATING TO YARDI SOFTWARE,
including but not limited to all PERSONS YOU asked to provide YOU with DBO
(Data Base Owner) credentials to access the VOYAGER SOFTWARE .
INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
For each PERSON YOU IDENTIFY in response to Interrogatory No. 7,
describe in detail all access, screen shots, or other information such PERSON
provided YOU, including but not limited to whether such PERSON provided YOU
with DBO (Data Base Owner) credentials to access the VOYAGER SOFTWARE .
INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
IDENTIFY all companies or PERSONS who have purchased, licensed, or
contracted to use ENTRATA.
INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Describe how YOU developed YOUR custom interfaces to allow
interoperability between the VOYAGER SOFTWARE and YOUR products,
including how you created, tested, validated, and debugged the interfaces, and
which steps or processes, if any, required access to the VOYAGER SOFTWARE.
INTERROGATORY NO. 11: IDENTIFY all PERSONS and companies who were or have ever been
involved in the design, development, modification, testing, or validation of
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 26 of 181 Page ID #:13093
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ENTRATA and describe the role of each PERSON.
INTERROGATORY NO. 12:
IDENTIFY the PERSON who posted the comment to the website
hap ://mbrewergroup. com/2012/07/i s-entrata-the-product-of-a-troj an-horse/ under
the pseudonym of "PSI Disgust" which begins: "This is exactly what PSI does and
continues to do. I should know, I work for the company and watch it happening on
a daily basis. Dave Bateman told us client executives to get our clients to open their
Yardi/ASMI software in front of us so we can see what they're doing."
INTERROGATORY NO. 13:
STATE WITH SPECIFICITY all actions YOU took in response to the
comment described in Interrogatory No. 13, including but not limited to all efforts
you took to determine the identity of the PERSON who made the comment.
INTERROGATORY NO. 14:
Describe in detail YOUR process of looking at YOUR competitors during
the development of ENTRATA, as stated in paragraph 94 of YOUR ANSWER
AND COUNTERCLAIMS, including but not limited to identifying all PERSONS
who looked at any YARDI SOFTWARE during the design, development,
modification, testing, or validation of ENTRATA and how YOU gained access to
the YARDI SOFTWARE.
INTERROGATORY NO. 15:
Describe in detail all assistance YOU contend YOU received from YARDI in
creating, developing, modifying, or debugging any software or code.
INTERROGATORY NO. 16:
Describe in detail all technical information, including but not limited to
screen shots, instructions and database table field names, YOU contend YARDI
provided YOU regarding any YARDI SOFTWARE, including but not limited to
when and how YOU contend that each piece of technical information was provided.
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
ENTRATA and describe the role of each PERSON.
INTERROGATORY NO. 12: IDENTIFY the PERSON who posted the comment to the website
http://mbrewergroup.com/2012/07/is-entrata-the-product-of-a-trojan-horse/ under
the pseudonym of “PSI Disgust” which begins: “This is exactly what PSI does and
continues to do. I should know, I work for the company and watch it happening on
a daily basis. Dave Bateman told us client executives to get our clients to open their
Yardi/ASMI software in front of us so we can see what they're doing.”
INTERROGATORY NO. 13: STATE WITH SPECIFICITY all actions YOU took in response to the
comment described in Interrogatory No. 13, including but not limited to all efforts
you took to determine the identity of the PERSON who made the comment.
INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Describe in detail YOUR process of looking at YOUR competitors during
the development of ENTRATA, as stated in paragraph 94 of YOUR ANSWER
AND COUNTERCLAIMS, including but not limited to identifying all PERSONS
who looked at any YARDI SOFTWARE during the design, development,
modification, testing, or validation of ENTRATA and how YOU gained access to
the YARDI SOFTWARE.
INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Describe in detail all assistance YOU contend YOU received from YARDI in
creating, developing, modifying, or debugging any software or code.
INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Describe in detail all technical information, including but not limited to
screen shots, instructions and database table field names, YOU contend YARDI
provided YOU regarding any YARDI SOFTWARE, including but not limited to
when and how YOU contend that each piece of technical information was provided.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 27 of 181 Page ID #:13094
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
INTERROGATORY NO. 17:
STATE ALL BASES for YOUR statement in paragraph 105 of YOUR
ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS that "Property Solutions denies that Yardi
has any valid and protectable copyrights."
INTERROGATORY NO. 18:
STATE ALL BASES for YOUR allegation in paragraph 110 of YOUR
ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS that "Yardi has not taken adequate steps to
protect its alleged trade secrets.
INTERROGATORY NO. 19:
STATE ALL BASES for YOUR affirmative defense of fair use.
INTERROGATORY NO. 20:
STATE ALL BASES for YOUR affirmative defense of copyright misuse.
INTERROGATORY NO. 21:
IDENTIFY all YARDI employees or representatives in India with whom
YOU, including any employee or agent of YOURS in India, have communicated
regarding any YARDI SOFTWARE or any software developed by YOU.
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
INTERROGATORY NO. 17: STATE ALL BASES for YOUR statement in paragraph 105 of YOUR
ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS that “Property Solutions denies that Yardi
has any valid and protectable copyrights.”
INTERROGATORY NO. 18: STATE ALL BASES for YOUR allegation in paragraph 110 of YOUR
ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS that “Yardi has not taken adequate steps to
protect its alleged trade secrets.
INTERROGATORY NO. 19: STATE ALL BASES for YOUR affirmative defense of fair use.
INTERROGATORY NO. 20: STATE ALL BASES for YOUR affirmative defense of copyright misuse.
INTERROGATORY NO. 21: IDENTIFY all YARDI employees or representatives in India with whom
YOU, including any employee or agent of YOURS in India, have communicated
regarding any YARDI SOFTWARE or any software developed by YOU.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 28 of 181 Page ID #:13095
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:
Produce all DOCUMENTS YOU referenced, referred to, or relied upon in
answering any interrogatories propounded by YARDI.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:
Produce all DOCUMENTS disclosed in any party's initial disclosures
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A) and any supplement or
amendment to those disclosures.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:
Produce all DOCUMENTS YOU referenced, referred to, or relied upon in
drafting YOUR ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:
Produce all communication between YOU and YARDI CONCERNING
YOUR access to, possession of, copying of, or use of YARDI SOFTWARE.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5:
Produce all communication between YOU and YARDI CONCERNING
YOUR design, development, modification, testing, or validation of ENTRATA or
any other software.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6:
Produce all documents CONCERNING communication between YOU and
any employee or representative of YARDI in India CONCERNING any YARDI
SOFTWARE or any software developed by PROPERTY SOLUTIONS.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7:
Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING YOUR access to, possession of
copying of, or use of any YARDI SOFTWARE at any time.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8:
Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING YOUR installation or copying
of the VOYAGER SOFTWARE onto any computer.
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:
Produce all DOCUMENTS YOU referenced, referred to, or relied upon in
answering any interrogatories propounded by YARDI.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:
Produce all DOCUMENTS disclosed in any party’s initial disclosures
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A) and any supplement or
amendment to those disclosures.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:
Produce all DOCUMENTS YOU referenced, referred to, or relied upon in
drafting YOUR ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:
Produce all communication between YOU and YARDI CONCERNING
YOUR access to, possession of, copying of, or use of YARDI SOFTWARE.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5:
Produce all communication between YOU and YARDI CONCERNING
YOUR design, development, modification, testing, or validation of ENTRATA or
any other software.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6:
Produce all documents CONCERNING communication between YOU and
any employee or representative of YARDI in India CONCERNING any YARDI
SOFTWARE or any software developed by PROPERTY SOLUTIONS.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7:
Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING YOUR access to, possession of
copying of, or use of any YARDI SOFTWARE at any time.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8:
Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING YOUR installation or copying
of the VOYAGER SOFTWARE onto any computer.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 29 of 181 Page ID #:13096
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9:
Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING YOUR possession of a copy of
the VOYAGER SOFTWARE as admitted in paragraph 24 of YOUR ANSWER
AND COUNTERCLAIMS, including but not limited to, all DOCUMENTS
CONCERNING the manner in which YOU obtained such copy, the reasons that
YOU obtained such copy, the manner in which YOU used such copy, and all other
circumstances surrounding YOUR acquisition of such copy.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10:
Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING YOUR accessing of any
computer or computer network belonging to YARDI.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11:
Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING the design, development,
modification, testing, or validation of ENTRATA that mention or refer to YARDI,
the VOYAGER SOFTWARE, the GENESIS SOFTWARE, or any element or
feature of any YARDI SOFTWARE.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12:
Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING YOUR incorporation,
emulation, or consideration of any element, feature, or characteristic of the
VOYAGER SOFTWARE during the design, development, modification, testing, or
validation of ENTRATA.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13:
Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING YOUR incorporation,
emulation, or consideration of any element, feature, or characteristic of any other
property management software, including any software designed, developed,
marketed or sold by MRI Software or RealPage, during the design, development,
modification, testing, or validation of ENTRATA.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14:
Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING YOUR statement in paragraph
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9:
Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING YOUR possession of a copy of
the VOYAGER SOFTWARE as admitted in paragraph 24 of YOUR ANSWER
AND COUNTERCLAIMS, including but not limited to, all DOCUMENTS
CONCERNING the manner in which YOU obtained such copy, the reasons that
YOU obtained such copy, the manner in which YOU used such copy, and all other
circumstances surrounding YOUR acquisition of such copy.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING YOUR accessing of any
computer or computer network belonging to YARDI.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING the design, development,
modification, testing, or validation of ENTRATA that mention or refer to YARDI,
the VOYAGER SOFTWARE, the GENESIS SOFTWARE, or any element or
feature of any YARDI SOFTWARE.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING YOUR incorporation,
emulation, or consideration of any element, feature, or characteristic of the
VOYAGER SOFTWARE during the design, development, modification, testing, or
validation of ENTRATA.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING YOUR incorporation,
emulation, or consideration of any element, feature, or characteristic of any other
property management software, including any software designed, developed,
marketed or sold by MRI Software or RealPage, during the design, development,
modification, testing, or validation of ENTRATA.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING YOUR statement in paragraph
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 30 of 181 Page ID #:13097
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
94 of YOUR ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS that YOU looked at each of
YOUR competitors to determine how their software could be improved upon,
including but not limited to all documents CONCERNING that process.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15:
Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING the design, development,
modification, testing, or validation of any program, service, utility, or software of
YOURS that mention or refer to YARDI, the VOYAGER SOFTWARE, the
GENESIS SOFTWARE, or any element or feature of any YARDI SOFTWARE.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16:
Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING the value of any YARDI
SOFTWARE, any element or feature of any YARDI SOFTWARE, or any other
information regarding any YARDI SOFTWARE, including but not limited to, any
DOCUMENTS CONCERNING YOUR analysis or evaluation of such value.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17:
Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING any communication between
YOU and any customer of YARDI CONCERNING any license agreement, service
agreement, confidentiality agreement, nondisclosure agreement, terms of service, or
other contract or agreement between that customer and YARDI.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18:
Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING communications YOU had with
any PERSON CONCERNING any request that the PERSON provide YOU access
to any YARDI SOFTWARE.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19:
Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING communications YOU had with
any PERSON CONCERNING any request that the PERSON provide YOU a copy
of any YARDI SOFTWARE.
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11
94 of YOUR ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS that YOU looked at each of
YOUR competitors to determine how their software could be improved upon,
including but not limited to all documents CONCERNING that process.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING the design, development,
modification, testing, or validation of any program, service, utility, or software of
YOURS that mention or refer to YARDI, the VOYAGER SOFTWARE, the
GENESIS SOFTWARE, or any element or feature of any YARDI SOFTWARE.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING the value of any YARDI
SOFTWARE, any element or feature of any YARDI SOFTWARE, or any other
information regarding any YARDI SOFTWARE, including but not limited to, any
DOCUMENTS CONCERNING YOUR analysis or evaluation of such value.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING any communication between
YOU and any customer of YARDI CONCERNING any license agreement, service
agreement, confidentiality agreement, nondisclosure agreement, terms of service, or
other contract or agreement between that customer and YARDI.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING communications YOU had with
any PERSON CONCERNING any request that the PERSON provide YOU access
to any YARDI SOFTWARE.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING communications YOU had with
any PERSON CONCERNING any request that the PERSON provide YOU a copy
of any YARDI SOFTWARE.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 31 of 181 Page ID #:13098
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20:
Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING communications YOU had with
any PERSON CONCERNING any request for YARDI database tables, logic,
components of any YARDI SOFTWARE, or other information CONCERNING
any YARDI SOFTWARE.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21:
Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING YOUR use of or access to any
VOYAGER SOFTWARE test environment.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22:
Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING the comment posted to the
website hap : //mbrewergroup . com/2012/07/is-entrata-the-product-of-a-troj an-horse/
under the pseudonym of "PSI Disgust" which begins: "This is exactly what PSI
does and continues to do. I should know, I work for the company and watch it
happening on a daily basis. Dave Bateman told us client executives to get our
clients to open their Yardi/ASMI software in front of us so we can see what they're
doing", including but not limited to all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING any efforts
by YOU to determine the identity of the PERSON who made the comment.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23:
Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING any actions YOU took in
response to the comment described in Request for Production No. 22, including but
not limited to all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING any investigation into such
comment, any action taken against the individual who made the comment, and any
communication made by YOU or any PERSON in response to such comment.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24:
Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING the comments posted by Jeremy
Bell and Glenn Thomas in response to the comment referred to in Request for
Production No. 22, including but not limited to any communications with or among
Jeremy Bell or Glenn Thomas CONCERNING the comment referred to in Request
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING communications YOU had with
any PERSON CONCERNING any request for YARDI database tables, logic,
components of any YARDI SOFTWARE, or other information CONCERNING
any YARDI SOFTWARE.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING YOUR use of or access to any
VOYAGER SOFTWARE test environment.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING the comment posted to the
website http://mbrewergroup.com/2012/07/is-entrata-the-product-of-a-trojan-horse/
under the pseudonym of “PSI Disgust” which begins: “This is exactly what PSI
does and continues to do. I should know, I work for the company and watch it
happening on a daily basis. Dave Bateman told us client executives to get our
clients to open their Yardi/ASMI software in front of us so we can see what they're
doing”, including but not limited to all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING any efforts
by YOU to determine the identity of the PERSON who made the comment.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23: Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING any actions YOU took in
response to the comment described in Request for Production No. 22, including but
not limited to all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING any investigation into such
comment, any action taken against the individual who made the comment, and any
communication made by YOU or any PERSON in response to such comment.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING the comments posted by Jeremy
Bell and Glenn Thomas in response to the comment referred to in Request for
Production No. 22, including but not limited to any communications with or among
Jeremy Bell or Glenn Thomas CONCERNING the comment referred to in Request
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 32 of 181 Page ID #:13099
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
for Production No. 20 or the responses that they posted to that comment.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25:
Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING any agreement or draft
agreements between YOU and YARDI.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26:
Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING any information that YARDI
provided YOU pursuant to any agreement between YOU and YARDI.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27:
Produce DOCUMENTS sufficient to show all customers of YOURS that also
use any YARDI SOFTWARE.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28:
Produce three executable copies of every version of ENTRATA and all
instructions necessary to set up, install, and exercise the executable copies.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29:
Produce all user documentation and user manuals for ENTRATA.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30:
Produce the SOURCE CODE for every version of ENTRATA.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31:
Produce the database schema for ENTRATA, including all database tables,
columns, and relationships between tables and columns.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32:
Produce all developer documentation for ENTRATA, including, but not
limited to, all versions of developer manuals, development plans, design or
functional specifications, workflow plans, requirements documentation, API
documentation, references to source code, sample code, instructional materials,
internal and external release notes, and any other DOCUMENTS prepared or used
in connection with the design, development, modification, testing, or validation of
ENTRATA.
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13
for Production No. 20 or the responses that they posted to that comment.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING any agreement or draft
agreements between YOU and YARDI.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26: Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING any information that YARDI
provided YOU pursuant to any agreement between YOU and YARDI.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27: Produce DOCUMENTS sufficient to show all customers of YOURS that also
use any YARDI SOFTWARE.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28: Produce three executable copies of every version of ENTRATA and all
instructions necessary to set up, install, and exercise the executable copies.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29: Produce all user documentation and user manuals for ENTRATA.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30: Produce the SOURCE CODE for every version of ENTRATA.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31: Produce the database schema for ENTRATA, including all database tables,
columns, and relationships between tables and columns.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32: Produce all developer documentation for ENTRATA, including, but not
limited to, all versions of developer manuals, development plans, design or
functional specifications, workflow plans, requirements documentation, API
documentation, references to source code, sample code, instructional materials,
internal and external release notes, and any other DOCUMENTS prepared or used
in connection with the design, development, modification, testing, or validation of
ENTRATA.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 33 of 181 Page ID #:13100
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33:
Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING any communication between
YOU and any third party CONCERNING any features, operations, characteristics,
benefits, or qualities of the VOYAGER SOFTWARE.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34:
Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING any comparison of any features,
operations, characteristics, or benefits of ENTRATA to any features, operations,
characteristics, or benefits of the VOYAGER SOFTWARE.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35:
Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING any bugs or technological
problems that have been reported or discovered with respect to ENTRATA.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36:
Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING YOUR allegation that YARDI
has provided YOU screen shots, detailed instructions, and database table field
names from the VOYAGER SOFTWARE, as alleged in paragraph 84 of YOUR
ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37:
Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING any technical information YOU
contend YARDI provided YOU regarding any YARDI SOFTWARE.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38:
Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING YOUR allegation that YOU
were an "approved integration partner" for both self-hosted and Yardi-hosted
clients, as alleged in paragraph 77 of YOUR ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39:
Produce DOCUMENTS sufficient to show all Internet Protocol ("IP")
addresses registered to or used by YOU from 2009 to the present.
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
14
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33: Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING any communication between
YOU and any third party CONCERNING any features, operations, characteristics,
benefits, or qualities of the VOYAGER SOFTWARE.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34: Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING any comparison of any features,
operations, characteristics, or benefits of ENTRATA to any features, operations,
characteristics, or benefits of the VOYAGER SOFTWARE.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35: Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING any bugs or technological
problems that have been reported or discovered with respect to ENTRATA.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36: Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING YOUR allegation that YARDI
has provided YOU screen shots, detailed instructions, and database table field
names from the VOYAGER SOFTWARE, as alleged in paragraph 84 of YOUR
ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37: Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING any technical information YOU
contend YARDI provided YOU regarding any YARDI SOFTWARE.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38: Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING YOUR allegation that YOU
were an “approved integration partner” for both self-hosted and Yardi-hosted
clients, as alleged in paragraph 77 of YOUR ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39: Produce DOCUMENTS sufficient to show all Internet Protocol (“IP”)
addresses registered to or used by YOU from 2009 to the present.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 34 of 181 Page ID #:13101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 40:
Produce DOCUMENTS sufficient to show every computer owned or
operated by YOU which has ever had a copy of the VOYAGER SOFTWARE on it.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41:
Produce DOCUMENTS sufficient to show every one of YOUR or YOUR
subsidiaries' or affiliates' officers, employees, contractors, agents, or
representatives that has ever had access to any YARDI SOFTWARE.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 42:
Produce all contracts between YOU and any affiliate, subsidiary, consultant
or contractor who had any involvement in the design, development, modification,
testing or validation of ENTRATA or any other software purportedly developed by
YOU.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 43:
Produce, separately for each year of operation, DOCUMENTS sufficient to
show the distribution, sales, and licensing of ENTRATA, including DOCUMENTS
sufficient to show all revenue and profit YOU derived from the distribution, sale, or
licensing of ENTRATA; the number of units distributed, sold, or licensed; the
dollar amount generated from such distributions, sales, or licenses; the dates during
which ENTRATA was sold, distributed, or licensed; where, by whom, to whom
ENTRATA was sold, distributed, or licensed; and the number of rental units
managed by the copies of ENTRATA distributed, sold, or licensed.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 44:
Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING the marketing, sale, licensing, or
distribution of ENTRATA that mention or refer to the VOYAGER SOFTWARE or
any YARDI SOFTWARE.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 45:
Produce all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the "gap analysis" YOU allege
YOU performed in paragraph 88 of YOUR ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS.
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
15
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 40: Produce DOCUMENTS sufficient to show every computer owned or
operated by YOU which has ever had a copy of the VOYAGER SOFTWARE on it.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41: Produce DOCUMENTS sufficient to show every one of YOUR or YOUR
subsidiaries’ or affiliates’ officers, employees, contractors, agents, or
representatives that has ever had access to any YARDI SOFTWARE.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 42: Produce all contracts between YOU and any affiliate, subsidiary, consultant
or contractor who had any involvement in the design, development, modification,
testing or validation of ENTRATA or any other software purportedly developed by
YOU.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 43: Produce, separately for each year of operation, DOCUMENTS sufficient to
show the distribution, sales, and licensing of ENTRATA, including DOCUMENTS
sufficient to show all revenue and profit YOU derived from the distribution, sale, or
licensing of ENTRATA; the number of units distributed, sold, or licensed; the
dollar amount generated from such distributions, sales, or licenses; the dates during
which ENTRATA was sold, distributed, or licensed; where, by whom, to whom
ENTRATA was sold, distributed, or licensed; and the number of rental units
managed by the copies of ENTRATA distributed, sold, or licensed.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 44: Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING the marketing, sale, licensing, or
distribution of ENTRATA that mention or refer to the VOYAGER SOFTWARE or
any YARDI SOFTWARE.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 45: Produce all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the “gap analysis” YOU allege
YOU performed in paragraph 88 of YOUR ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 35 of 181 Page ID #:13102
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 46:
Produce all deposit materials submitted to the U.S. Copyright Office in
connection with the applications for all copyrights owned by YOU or for which
YOU have applied.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 47:
Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING any effort to gain intellectual
property rights (including copyrights, trade secrets, and patents) in or to
ENTRATA, including but not limited to all deposit materials submitted in
connection with any application for a copyright in ENTRATA.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 48:
Produce all DOCUMENTS discussing, analyzing, or evaluating any of the
intellectual property rights that YARDI has asserted in this lawsuit.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 49:
Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING the factual basis for either of
YOUR claims for declaratory judgment not produced pursuant to any other request.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 50:
Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING any of the affirmative defenses
set forth in YOUR ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS not produced pursuant to
any other request.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 51:
Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING any of the allegations in YOUR
ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS not produced pursuant to any other request.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 52:
Produce DOCUMENTS sufficient to show YOUR policies and/or procedures
regarding the retention of DOCUMENTS and/or other records.
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 46: Produce all deposit materials submitted to the U.S. Copyright Office in
connection with the applications for all copyrights owned by YOU or for which
YOU have applied.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 47: Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING any effort to gain intellectual
property rights (including copyrights, trade secrets, and patents) in or to
ENTRATA, including but not limited to all deposit materials submitted in
connection with any application for a copyright in ENTRATA.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 48: Produce all DOCUMENTS discussing, analyzing, or evaluating any of the
intellectual property rights that YARDI has asserted in this lawsuit.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 49: Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING the factual basis for either of
YOUR claims for declaratory judgment not produced pursuant to any other request.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 50: Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING any of the affirmative defenses
set forth in YOUR ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS not produced pursuant to
any other request.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 51: Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING any of the allegations in YOUR
ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS not produced pursuant to any other request.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 52: Produce DOCUMENTS sufficient to show YOUR policies and/or procedures
regarding the retention of DOCUMENTS and/or other records.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 36 of 181 Page ID #:13103
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Dated: March 3, 2014. BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP
By: s/ John V. McDermott JOHN V. MCDERMOTT KARL L. SCHOCK ERIC BERG Attorneys for Plaintiff Yardi Systems, Inc.
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
17
Dated: March 3, 2014.
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP
By: s/ John V. McDermott JOHN V. MCDERMOTT KARL L. SCHOCK ERIC BERG Attorneys for Plaintiff Yardi Systems, Inc.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 37 of 181 Page ID #:13104
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
I certify and declare that I am over the age of 18 years, and not a party to the
above-captioned matter. On March 3, 2014, I served a true and correct copy of the
foregoing YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.'S INTERROGATORIES AND
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE via
Electronic Mail properly directed to the following:
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant Property Solutions International, Inc.
I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court
at whose direction the service was made.
Executed on March 3, 2014.
s/ Paulette M. Chesson Paulette M. Chesson
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
PROOF OF SERVICE
I certify and declare that I am over the age of 18 years, and not a party to the
above-captioned matter. On March 3, 2014, I served a true and correct copy of the
foregoing YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.’S INTERROGATORIES AND
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE via
Electronic Mail properly directed to the following:
[email protected] [email protected]
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant Property Solutions International, Inc.
I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court
at whose direction the service was made.
Executed on March 3, 2014.
s/ Paulette M. Chesson Paulette M. Chesson
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 38 of 181 Page ID #:13105
EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT B
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 39 of 181 Page ID #:13106
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP Margo J. Arnold (State Bar No. 278288) [email protected] 2049 Century Park East, Suite 3550 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: 310.564.8679 Facsimile: 310.500.4602
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP John V. McDermott (Pro Hac Vice) (Colorado State Bar No. 11854) [email protected] Lawrence W. Treece (Pro Hac Vice) Van Aaron Hughes (Pro Hac Vice) Michael D. Hoke (Pro Hac Vice) 410 Seventeenth Street, Suite 2200 Denver, CO 80202-4433 Telephone: 303.223.1100 Facsimile: 303.223.1111
Attorneys for Plaintiff Yardi Systems, Inc.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
PROPERTY SOLUTIONS, INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Defendant.
PR • PERTY • LUTI • N INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Counterclaimant,
v.
YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.,
Counterdefendant.
1
Case No. 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-CW
Hon. Fernando M. Olguin
PLAINTIFF YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.'S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL SET OF WRITTEN DISCOVERY REQUESTS
PLAINTIFF YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.'S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL SET OF WRITTEN
TITSCOVFR V .1 1-CV-07764-FTVTO-CW
BR
OW
NS
TE
IN H
YA
TT
FA
RB
ER
SC
HR
EC
K, L
LP
41
0 S
EV
EN
TE
EN
TH
ST
RE
ET
, SU
ITE
220
0 D
EN
VE
R, C
O 8
0202
-443
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 PLAINTIFF YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.’S
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL SET OF WRITTEN DISCOVERY 2:13-CV-07764-FMO-CW
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP Margo J. Arnold (State Bar No. 278288) [email protected] 2049 Century Park East, Suite 3550 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: 310.564.8679 Facsimile: 310.500.4602 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP John V. McDermott (Pro Hac Vice) (Colorado State Bar No. 11854) [email protected] Lawrence W. Treece (Pro Hac Vice) Van Aaron Hughes (Pro Hac Vice) Michael D. Hoke (Pro Hac Vice) 410 Seventeenth Street, Suite 2200 Denver, CO 80202-4433 Telephone: 303.223.1100 Facsimile: 303.223.1111
Attorneys for Plaintiff Yardi Systems, Inc.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
PROPERTY SOLUTIONS, INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-CW
Hon. Fernando M. Olguin
PLAINTIFF YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL SET OF WRITTEN DISCOVERY REQUESTS
PROPERTY SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Counterclaimant,
v.
YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.,
Counterdefendant.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 40 of 181 Page ID #:13107
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PROPOUNDING PARTY: RESPONDING PARTY:
SUPPLEMENTAL SET NO:
PLAINTIFF YARDI SYSTEMS, INC. DEFENDANT PROPERTY SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
ONE
In accordance with the Court's June 5, 2015 Order re: Ex Parte Application
(ECF No. 128), and pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26, 33, 34 and 36,
Plaintiff Yardi Systems, Inc. propounds the following requests for admission,
interrogatories and requests for production of documents to Defendant Property
Solutions International, Inc.:
DEFINITIONS
As used herein, the following terms are intended to have the meanings
indicated:
1. "YARDI" means Yardi Systems, Inc., including its officers,
employees, agents, and representatives.
2. "PROPERTY SOLUTIONS" and "YOU" mean Property Solutions
International Inc., the defendant in the above captioned action, or any of its parents,
subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessors in interest, divisions, directors, officers,
employees, contractors, attorneys, agents, representatives, and anyone acting on its
behalf, specifically including DB Xento Systems Private Limited, Property
Solutions Insurance Agency LLC, and Resident Verify LLC. These terms include,
without limitation, any employee, contractor, agent, or representative of YOURS or
any subsidiary, division, or affiliate of YOURS working or located in India.
3. "EMPLOYEES" means, without limitation, any employee, contractor,
agent, or representative of YOURS or of any subsidiary, division, or affiliate of
YOURS, including those working or located in India, including but not limited to
any such employee, contractor, agent, or representative of DB Xento Systems
Private Limited.
4. "CONCERNING" and "RELATING TO" mean consisting of,
2 PLAINTIFF YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.'S
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL SET OF WRITTEN TITSCOVFR V .1 1-CV-07764-FTVTO-CW
BR
OW
NS
TE
IN H
YA
TT
FA
RB
ER
SC
HR
EC
K, L
LP
41
0 S
EV
EN
TE
EN
TH
ST
RE
ET
, SU
ITE
220
0 D
EN
VE
R, C
O 8
0202
-443
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2 PLAINTIFF YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.’S
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL SET OF WRITTEN DISCOVERY 2:13-CV-07764-FMO-CW
PROPOUNDING PARTY: PLAINTIFF YARDI SYSTEMS, INC. RESPONDING PARTY: DEFENDANT PROPERTY SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
SUPPLEMENTAL SET NO: ONE
In accordance with the Court’s June 5, 2015 Order re: Ex Parte Application
(ECF No. 128), and pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26, 33, 34 and 36,
Plaintiff Yardi Systems, Inc. propounds the following requests for admission,
interrogatories and requests for production of documents to Defendant Property
Solutions International, Inc.:
DEFINITIONS
As used herein, the following terms are intended to have the meanings
indicated:
1. “YARDI” means Yardi Systems, Inc., including its officers,
employees, agents, and representatives.
2. “PROPERTY SOLUTIONS” and “YOU” mean Property Solutions
International Inc., the defendant in the above captioned action, or any of its parents,
subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessors in interest, divisions, directors, officers,
employees, contractors, attorneys, agents, representatives, and anyone acting on its
behalf, specifically including DB Xento Systems Private Limited, Property
Solutions Insurance Agency LLC, and Resident Verify LLC. These terms include,
without limitation, any employee, contractor, agent, or representative of YOURS or
any subsidiary, division, or affiliate of YOURS working or located in India.
3. “EMPLOYEES” means, without limitation, any employee, contractor,
agent, or representative of YOURS or of any subsidiary, division, or affiliate of
YOURS, including those working or located in India, including but not limited to
any such employee, contractor, agent, or representative of DB Xento Systems
Private Limited.
4. “CONCERNING” and “RELATING TO” mean consisting of,
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 41 of 181 Page ID #:13108
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
pertaining to, referring to, reflecting on, arising out of, or in any way legally,
factually or logically connected to the matter addressed in the request.
5. "DOCUMENT" means anything a party is permitted to request from
another party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a)(1). Drafts and non-
identical copies of another document constitute separate and distinct documents.
6. "REAL-TIME MESSAGES" means any type of electronic
communication made via personal email (as opposed to official PROPERTY
SOLUTIONS email), Skype®, Microsoft Lync®, any Short Message Service (SMS)
system, Extended Message Service (EMS) system, Multimedia Messaging Service
(MMS) system, or any other means of electronic communication other than voice-
only communications.
7. "ENTRATA" shall refer to any and all versions of PROPERTY
SOLUTIONS' software program or programs known as Entrata Core that include,
included, or were intended to include general ledger, accounts payable, and
accounts receivable functionality, as distinct from prior versions of ResidentWorks,
RWx, or VantageXP that did not include such functionality. To the extent that
Entrata Core is a successor to or continuation of the ResidentWorks program, as
PROPERTY SOLUTIONS has represented that its "ResidentWorks product
remained a passive project for Property Solutions for several years," (Statement of
Uncontroverted Facts (ECF No. 106-2) at D7), "ENTRATA" is meant to refer to
that product only after it was no longer a "passive project" and was actively in
development by PROPERTY SOLUTIONS.
8. "EXPRESSLY" means by way of actual and direct communications
(such as letter, email (whether directly ("To") or by way of a copy ("Cc") or blind
copy ("Bcc")), telephone call, etc., but excludes any communications made only
INDIRECTLY.
9. "INDIRECTLY" means not expressly or explicitly stated directly, or
communicated only through a third party.
3 PLAINTIFF YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.'S
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL SET OF WRITTEN TITSCOVFR V .1 1—CV-07764—FTVTO—CW
BR
OW
NS
TE
IN H
YA
TT
FA
RB
ER
SC
HR
EC
K, L
LP
41
0 S
EV
EN
TE
EN
TH
ST
RE
ET
, SU
ITE
220
0 D
EN
VE
R, C
O 8
0202
-443
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3 PLAINTIFF YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.’S
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL SET OF WRITTEN DISCOVERY 2:13-CV-07764-FMO-CW
pertaining to, referring to, reflecting on, arising out of, or in any way legally,
factually or logically connected to the matter addressed in the request.
5. “DOCUMENT” means anything a party is permitted to request from
another party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a)(1). Drafts and non-
identical copies of another document constitute separate and distinct documents.
6. “REAL-TIME MESSAGES” means any type of electronic
communication made via personal email (as opposed to official PROPERTY
SOLUTIONS email), Skype®, Microsoft Lync®, any Short Message Service (SMS)
system, Extended Message Service (EMS) system, Multimedia Messaging Service
(MMS) system, or any other means of electronic communication other than voice-
only communications.
7. “ENTRATA” shall refer to any and all versions of PROPERTY
SOLUTIONS’ software program or programs known as Entrata Core that include,
included, or were intended to include general ledger, accounts payable, and
accounts receivable functionality, as distinct from prior versions of ResidentWorks,
RWx, or VantageXP that did not include such functionality. To the extent that
Entrata Core is a successor to or continuation of the ResidentWorks program, as
PROPERTY SOLUTIONS has represented that its “ResidentWorks product
remained a passive project for Property Solutions for several years,” (Statement of
Uncontroverted Facts (ECF No. 106-2) at D7), “ENTRATA” is meant to refer to
that product only after it was no longer a “passive project” and was actively in
development by PROPERTY SOLUTIONS.
8. “EXPRESSLY” means by way of actual and direct communications
(such as letter, email (whether directly (“To”) or by way of a copy (“Cc”) or blind
copy (“Bcc”)), telephone call, etc., but excludes any communications made only
INDIRECTLY.
9. “INDIRECTLY” means not expressly or explicitly stated directly, or
communicated only through a third party.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 42 of 181 Page ID #:13109
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10. "IDENTIFY" means:
(a) when referring to a natural person, to state his or her full name,
and present business address and telephone number, except that if the
person's present business address and telephone number is unknown, the
person's last known home and business address and last known home and
business telephone number;
(b) when used in reference to a person other than a natural person,
to state the name of the entity, its address and telephone number, and the
identity of the natural person or persons within the entity with whom you
dealt in the particular transaction(s) referred to; and
(c) when used in reference to a document, to state the date, title,
author and recipients of the document, the type of document (e.g., letter,
memorandum, telegram, chart, note, etc.), its present location or custodian,
and a summary of the contents of the document.
11. "PERSON" and "PEOPLE" include natural persons, firms,
associations, organizations, partnerships, businesses, trusts, corporations, or public
entities.
12. "SOURCE CODE" shall refer to all source code, including: electronic
files containing PHP or SQL code; all makefiles, history files, or similar code-
generation control files for such source code; the compiler (if any) used in the
development of such source code; and the output of any compiled source code
including binary files and debug files.
13. "CODE REPOSITORY" shall refer to any version control system,
revision control system, source control system, source code repository, or other
code warehousing system including, but not limited to, Subversion (SVN).
14. "STATE WITH SPECIFICITY," "STATE ALL BASES," and
"STATE THE BASIS" mean to state fully and describe all material facts or
opinions, including, without limitation, all material facts or opinions that concern PLAINTIFF YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.'S
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL SET OF WRITTEN TITSCOVFR V .1 1—CV-07764—FTVTO—CW
4
BR
OW
NS
TE
IN H
YA
TT
FA
RB
ER
SC
HR
EC
K, L
LP
41
0 S
EV
EN
TE
EN
TH
ST
RE
ET
, SU
ITE
220
0 D
EN
VE
R, C
O 8
0202
-443
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4 PLAINTIFF YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.’S
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL SET OF WRITTEN DISCOVERY 2:13-CV-07764-FMO-CW
10. “IDENTIFY” means:
(a) when referring to a natural person, to state his or her full name,
and present business address and telephone number, except that if the
person’s present business address and telephone number is unknown, the
person’s last known home and business address and last known home and
business telephone number;
(b) when used in reference to a person other than a natural person,
to state the name of the entity, its address and telephone number, and the
identity of the natural person or persons within the entity with whom you
dealt in the particular transaction(s) referred to; and
(c) when used in reference to a document, to state the date, title,
author and recipients of the document, the type of document (e.g., letter,
memorandum, telegram, chart, note, etc.), its present location or custodian,
and a summary of the contents of the document.
11. “PERSON” and “PEOPLE” include natural persons, firms,
associations, organizations, partnerships, businesses, trusts, corporations, or public
entities.
12. “SOURCE CODE” shall refer to all source code, including: electronic
files containing PHP or SQL code; all makefiles, history files, or similar code-
generation control files for such source code; the compiler (if any) used in the
development of such source code; and the output of any compiled source code
including binary files and debug files.
13. “CODE REPOSITORY” shall refer to any version control system,
revision control system, source control system, source code repository, or other
code warehousing system including, but not limited to, Subversion (SVN).
14. “STATE WITH SPECIFICITY,” “STATE ALL BASES,” and
“STATE THE BASIS” mean to state fully and describe all material facts or
opinions, including, without limitation, all material facts or opinions that concern
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 43 of 181 Page ID #:13110
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the application of law to fact, with respect to the subject matter of the interrogatory
using such phrase.
15. "VOYAGER SOFTWARE" shall refer to any and all versions of
YARDI's software program known as Yardi Voyager®.
16. "VOYAGER DATABASE" shall refer to any database schema, and
any implementation of such schemata, designed by YARDI and used to store data
used by the VOYAGER SOFTWARE.
17. "YOUR CUSTOM INTERFACE" shall refer to any software designed
by YOU to facilitate the exchange of information between the VOYAGER
SOFTWARE or any VOYAGER DATABASE and any other software product
developed or designed by YOU.
INSTRUCTIONS
1. The document requests require the production of documents either in
the same form and same order as they are kept in the usual course of business, or
organized and labeled to correspond with the particular demands set forth below.
2. Documents should be produced in accordance with the terms of the
court's August 4, 2014 Order Governing Discovery of Electronically Stored
Information. Source code and other documents written in a computer programming
language, as well as any version control files or executable files, should be
produced in native electronic format, and shall be listed on an index assigning each
file a unique Bates number.
3. While the court's June 5, 2015 Order Re: Ex Parte Application limits
the scope of these discovery requests to "statements, actions or omissions by PSI
prior to October 21, 2010," responsive documents dated after October 21, 2010
must nevertheless be produced to the extent they relate to "statements, actions or
omissions by PSI prior to October 21, 2010."
4. If you do not have enough personal knowledge to fully answer an
interrogatory, say so, but make a reasonable and good faith effort to get the PLAINTIFF YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.'S
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL SET OF WRITTEN TITSCOVFR V .1 1-CV-07764-FMO-CW
5
BR
OW
NS
TE
IN H
YA
TT
FA
RB
ER
SC
HR
EC
K, L
LP
41
0 S
EV
EN
TE
EN
TH
ST
RE
ET
, SU
ITE
220
0 D
EN
VE
R, C
O 8
0202
-443
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5 PLAINTIFF YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.’S
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL SET OF WRITTEN DISCOVERY 2:13-CV-07764-FMO-CW
the application of law to fact, with respect to the subject matter of the interrogatory
using such phrase.
15. “VOYAGER SOFTWARE” shall refer to any and all versions of
YARDI’s software program known as Yardi Voyager®.
16. “VOYAGER DATABASE” shall refer to any database schema, and
any implementation of such schemata, designed by YARDI and used to store data
used by the VOYAGER SOFTWARE.
17. “YOUR CUSTOM INTERFACE” shall refer to any software designed
by YOU to facilitate the exchange of information between the VOYAGER
SOFTWARE or any VOYAGER DATABASE and any other software product
developed or designed by YOU.
INSTRUCTIONS
1. The document requests require the production of documents either in
the same form and same order as they are kept in the usual course of business, or
organized and labeled to correspond with the particular demands set forth below.
2. Documents should be produced in accordance with the terms of the
court’s August 4, 2014 Order Governing Discovery of Electronically Stored
Information. Source code and other documents written in a computer programming
language, as well as any version control files or executable files, should be
produced in native electronic format, and shall be listed on an index assigning each
file a unique Bates number.
3. While the court’s June 5, 2015 Order Re: Ex Parte Application limits
the scope of these discovery requests to “statements, actions or omissions by PSI
prior to October 21, 2010,” responsive documents dated after October 21, 2010
must nevertheless be produced to the extent they relate to “statements, actions or
omissions by PSI prior to October 21, 2010.”
4. If you do not have enough personal knowledge to fully answer an
interrogatory, say so, but make a reasonable and good faith effort to get the
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 44 of 181 Page ID #:13111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
information by asking other persons or organizations, unless the information is
equally available to the asking party.
5. If you claim a privilege, immunity or confidentiality order or
protective order precludes you from providing information with respect to any
document, information or communication, or precludes you from producing any
document or thing, then provide the following information for each such document,
information, communication or thing:
(a) the nature of the information, communication or document (e.g.,
whether an oral communication, letter, memo, etc.);
(b) the nature of the privilege claimed;
(c) the date of the communication or document and its subject
matter; and
(d) all authors and recipients of the document or communication.
6. These requests are continuing in nature, and you are under a
continuous obligation to supplement your responses to these requests pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e).
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1:
Admit that YOU did not EXPRESSLY inform YARDI prior to October 21,
2010 that YOU had possession, custody or control of the VOYAGER SOFTWARE
(as distinguished from a VOYAGER DATABASE).
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2:
Admit that YOU did not EXPRESSLY publicly disclose prior to October 21,
2010 that YOU had possession, custody or control of the VOYAGER SOFTWARE
(as distinguished from a VOYAGER DATABASE).
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3:
Admit that YOU did not EXPRESSLY inform YARDI prior to October 21,
2010 that YOU were developing ENTRATA.
6 PLAINTIFF YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.'S
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL SET OF WRITTEN TITSCOVFR V .1 1—CV-07764—FTVTO—CW
BR
OW
NS
TE
IN H
YA
TT
FA
RB
ER
SC
HR
EC
K, L
LP
41
0 S
EV
EN
TE
EN
TH
ST
RE
ET
, SU
ITE
220
0 D
EN
VE
R, C
O 8
0202
-443
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6 PLAINTIFF YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.’S
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL SET OF WRITTEN DISCOVERY 2:13-CV-07764-FMO-CW
information by asking other persons or organizations, unless the information is
equally available to the asking party.
5. If you claim a privilege, immunity or confidentiality order or
protective order precludes you from providing information with respect to any
document, information or communication, or precludes you from producing any
document or thing, then provide the following information for each such document,
information, communication or thing:
(a) the nature of the information, communication or document (e.g.,
whether an oral communication, letter, memo, etc.);
(b) the nature of the privilege claimed;
(c) the date of the communication or document and its subject
matter; and
(d) all authors and recipients of the document or communication.
6. These requests are continuing in nature, and you are under a
continuous obligation to supplement your responses to these requests pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e).
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1:
Admit that YOU did not EXPRESSLY inform YARDI prior to October 21,
2010 that YOU had possession, custody or control of the VOYAGER SOFTWARE
(as distinguished from a VOYAGER DATABASE).
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2:
Admit that YOU did not EXPRESSLY publicly disclose prior to October 21,
2010 that YOU had possession, custody or control of the VOYAGER SOFTWARE
(as distinguished from a VOYAGER DATABASE).
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3:
Admit that YOU did not EXPRESSLY inform YARDI prior to October 21,
2010 that YOU were developing ENTRATA.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 45 of 181 Page ID #:13112
8
w wNo
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4:
PROPERTY SOLUTIONS asserted in its Motion for Summary Judgment
filings that "ResidentWorks remained a passive project for Property Solutions for
several years." Statement of Uncontroverted Facts (ECF No. 106-2) at D7. Admit
that, after ResidentWorks became a "passive project," YOU did not publicly
disclose prior to October 21, 2010 that YOU were actively developing ENTRATA.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5:
Admit that, prior to October 21, 2010, YOU did not EXPRESSLY obtain
YARDI's permission or authorization to possess the VOYAGER SOFTWARE (as
distinguished from a VOYAGER DATABASE).
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6:
Admit that, prior to October 21, 2010, YOU did not obtain a copy of the
VOYAGER SOFTWARE (as distinguished from a VOYAGER DATABASE) from
Western National Group.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7:
Admit that, prior to October 21, 2010, YOU did not EXPRESSLY inform
Western National Group that YOU needed a VOYAGER SOFTWARE license file
from them for the purpose of installing and operating the VOYAGER SOFTWARE
(as distinguished from a VOYAGER DATABASE).
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8:
Admit that, prior to October 21, 2010, YOU did not terminate the Non-
Disclosure Agreement executed between YARDI and YOU in February 2006 (as
reflected in Deposition Exhibit 62, YAR-0000002-03).
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9:
Admit that, prior to October 21, 2010, YOU understood that YOU were
bound by the terms of the Non-Disclosure Agreement executed between YARDI
and YOU in February 2006 (as reflected in Deposition Exhibit 62, YAR-0000002-
03).
7 PLAINTIFF YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.'S
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL SET OF WRITTEN TITSCOVFR V .1 1-CV-07764-FTVTO-CW
BR
OW
NS
TE
IN H
YA
TT
FA
RB
ER
SC
HR
EC
K, L
LP
41
0 S
EV
EN
TE
EN
TH
ST
RE
ET
, SU
ITE
220
0 D
EN
VE
R, C
O 8
0202
-443
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7 PLAINTIFF YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.’S
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL SET OF WRITTEN DISCOVERY 2:13-CV-07764-FMO-CW
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4:
PROPERTY SOLUTIONS asserted in its Motion for Summary Judgment
filings that “ResidentWorks remained a passive project for Property Solutions for
several years.” Statement of Uncontroverted Facts (ECF No. 106-2) at D7. Admit
that, after ResidentWorks became a “passive project,” YOU did not publicly
disclose prior to October 21, 2010 that YOU were actively developing ENTRATA.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5:
Admit that, prior to October 21, 2010, YOU did not EXPRESSLY obtain
YARDI’s permission or authorization to possess the VOYAGER SOFTWARE (as
distinguished from a VOYAGER DATABASE).
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6:
Admit that, prior to October 21, 2010, YOU did not obtain a copy of the
VOYAGER SOFTWARE (as distinguished from a VOYAGER DATABASE) from
Western National Group.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7:
Admit that, prior to October 21, 2010, YOU did not EXPRESSLY inform
Western National Group that YOU needed a VOYAGER SOFTWARE license file
from them for the purpose of installing and operating the VOYAGER SOFTWARE
(as distinguished from a VOYAGER DATABASE).
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8:
Admit that, prior to October 21, 2010, YOU did not terminate the Non-
Disclosure Agreement executed between YARDI and YOU in February 2006 (as
reflected in Deposition Exhibit 62, YAR-0000002–03).
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9:
Admit that, prior to October 21, 2010, YOU understood that YOU were
bound by the terms of the Non-Disclosure Agreement executed between YARDI
and YOU in February 2006 (as reflected in Deposition Exhibit 62, YAR-0000002–
03).
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 46 of 181 Page ID #:13113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10:
Admit that, prior to October 21, 2010, YOU understood that the Non-
Disclosure Agreement executed between YARDI and YOU in February 2006 (as
reflected in Deposition Exhibit 62, YAR-0000002-03) applied to information
YARDI provided to YOU for any purpose related to YOUR CUSTOM
INTERFACE.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11:
Admit that in 2007 YOU sent YARDI a copy of the SOURCE CODE for
YOUR CUSTOM INTERFACE with the understanding that YARDI could review
it before hosting YOUR CUSTOM INTERFACE on YARDI's servers.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12:
Admit that, prior to October 21, 2010, the SOURCE CODE for YOUR
CUSTOM INTERFACE did not disclose that YOU possessed the VOYAGER
SOFTWARE.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13:
Admit that, prior to October 21, 2010, YOU did not suffer any damages
caused by or resulting from YARDI's decompilation of YOUR CUSTOM
INTERFACE.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14:
Admit that Legacy Partners did not provide YOU with access to the
VOYAGER SOFTWARE user interface (as distinguished from a VOYAGER
DATABASE) prior to October 21, 2010.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15:
Admit that YOU began developing ENTRATA prior to October 21, 2010.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16:
Admit that, prior to October 21, 2010, YOU deleted DOCUMENTS
regarding YOUR development of ENTRATA.
8 PLAINTIFF YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.'S
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL SET OF WRITTEN TITSCOVFR V .1 1-CV-07764-FTVTO-CW
BR
OW
NS
TE
IN H
YA
TT
FA
RB
ER
SC
HR
EC
K, L
LP
41
0 S
EV
EN
TE
EN
TH
ST
RE
ET
, SU
ITE
220
0 D
EN
VE
R, C
O 8
0202
-443
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8 PLAINTIFF YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.’S
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL SET OF WRITTEN DISCOVERY 2:13-CV-07764-FMO-CW
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10:
Admit that, prior to October 21, 2010, YOU understood that the Non-
Disclosure Agreement executed between YARDI and YOU in February 2006 (as
reflected in Deposition Exhibit 62, YAR-0000002–03) applied to information
YARDI provided to YOU for any purpose related to YOUR CUSTOM
INTERFACE.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11:
Admit that in 2007 YOU sent YARDI a copy of the SOURCE CODE for
YOUR CUSTOM INTERFACE with the understanding that YARDI could review
it before hosting YOUR CUSTOM INTERFACE on YARDI’s servers.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12:
Admit that, prior to October 21, 2010, the SOURCE CODE for YOUR
CUSTOM INTERFACE did not disclose that YOU possessed the VOYAGER
SOFTWARE.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13:
Admit that, prior to October 21, 2010, YOU did not suffer any damages
caused by or resulting from YARDI’s decompilation of YOUR CUSTOM
INTERFACE.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14:
Admit that Legacy Partners did not provide YOU with access to the
VOYAGER SOFTWARE user interface (as distinguished from a VOYAGER
DATABASE) prior to October 21, 2010.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15:
Admit that YOU began developing ENTRATA prior to October 21, 2010.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16:
Admit that, prior to October 21, 2010, YOU deleted DOCUMENTS
regarding YOUR development of ENTRATA.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 47 of 181 Page ID #:13114
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17:
Admit that YOU deleted DOCUMENTS containing communications about
the development of ENTRATA that took place prior to October 21, 2010, between
YOU and any third parties (regardless of whether others, including YARDI, were
also copied on those communications).
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18:
Admit that YOU deleted DOCUMENTS containing communications about
the development of YOUR CUSTOM INTERFACE that took place prior to
October 21, 2010, between YOU and any third parties (regardless of whether
others, including YARDI, were also copied on those communications).
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19:
Admit that, prior to October 21, 2010, had YOU been confronted by YARDI
about whether YOU had possession, custody or control of the VOYAGER
SOFTWARE (as distinguished from a VOYAGER DATABASE), YOU would
have denied having possession, custody or control of the VOYAGER SOFTWARE
(as distinguished from a VOYAGER DATABASE) as YOU did beginning in
February 2012.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 20:
Admit that, during the course of developing, designing, or writing the code
for ENTRATA, YOUR EMPLOYEES exchanged DOCUMENTS prior to October
21, 2010 between or among the PEOPLE responsible for such development, design
or code writing.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 21:
Admit that, during the course of developing, designing, or writing the code
for ENTRATA, YOUR EMPLOYEES exchanged REAL-TIME MESSAGES
before October 21, 2010 between or among the PEOPLE responsible for such
development, design or code writing.
9 PLAINTIFF YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.'S
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL SET OF WRITTEN TITSCOVFR V .1 1-CV-07764-FTVTO-CW
BR
OW
NS
TE
IN H
YA
TT
FA
RB
ER
SC
HR
EC
K, L
LP
41
0 S
EV
EN
TE
EN
TH
ST
RE
ET
, SU
ITE
220
0 D
EN
VE
R, C
O 8
0202
-443
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9 PLAINTIFF YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.’S
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL SET OF WRITTEN DISCOVERY 2:13-CV-07764-FMO-CW
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17:
Admit that YOU deleted DOCUMENTS containing communications about
the development of ENTRATA that took place prior to October 21, 2010, between
YOU and any third parties (regardless of whether others, including YARDI, were
also copied on those communications).
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18:
Admit that YOU deleted DOCUMENTS containing communications about
the development of YOUR CUSTOM INTERFACE that took place prior to
October 21, 2010, between YOU and any third parties (regardless of whether
others, including YARDI, were also copied on those communications).
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19:
Admit that, prior to October 21, 2010, had YOU been confronted by YARDI
about whether YOU had possession, custody or control of the VOYAGER
SOFTWARE (as distinguished from a VOYAGER DATABASE), YOU would
have denied having possession, custody or control of the VOYAGER SOFTWARE
(as distinguished from a VOYAGER DATABASE) as YOU did beginning in
February 2012.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 20:
Admit that, during the course of developing, designing, or writing the code
for ENTRATA, YOUR EMPLOYEES exchanged DOCUMENTS prior to October
21, 2010 between or among the PEOPLE responsible for such development, design
or code writing.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 21:
Admit that, during the course of developing, designing, or writing the code
for ENTRATA, YOUR EMPLOYEES exchanged REAL-TIME MESSAGES
before October 21, 2010 between or among the PEOPLE responsible for such
development, design or code writing.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 48 of 181 Page ID #:13115
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
INTERROGATORIES
INTERROGATORY NO. 26:
If any of YOUR responses to YARDI's Requests for Admission above were
anything other than an unqualified admission, then for each response that was not
an unqualified admission STATE ALL BASES for YOUR response, IDENTIFY all
persons with knowledge of the facts material to YOUR response, and IDENTIFY
all DOCUMENTS that support your response.
INTERROGATORY NO. 27:
IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS YOU contend placed YARDI on notice prior
to October 21, 2010 that YOU possessed the VOYAGER SOFTWARE.
INTERROGATORY NO. 28:
IDENTIFY all third parties that provided YOU with a copy of the
VOYAGER SOFTWARE (as distinguished from a VOYAGER DATABASE), a
VOYAGER SOFTWARE license file, or access to the VOYAGER SOFTWARE
(as distinguished from a VOYAGER DATABASE) prior to October 21, 2010, and
for each STATE WITH SPECIFICITY what that third party provided to YOU,
when YOU received it, and whether YOU informed YARDI prior to October 21,
2010 that you had received it.
INTERROGATORY NO. 29:
STATE WITH SPECIFICITY what investigation YOU believe YARDI
could have conducted prior to October 21, 2010 that would have revealed that YOU
possessed the VOYAGER SOFTWARE (as distinguished from a VOYAGER
DATABASE).
INTERROGATORY NO. 30:
Mr. Bateman testified that "And so I remember there were times over the
years that the repositories would get really bloated and it would take forever to
update or commit. And so there were times when we just wiped it out and started
over which hasn't happened in a couple of years." Bateman Tr. at 135:24-136:4.
10 PLAINTIFF YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.'S
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL SET OF WRITTEN TITSCOVFR V .1 1-CV-07764-FTVTO-CW
BR
OW
NS
TE
IN H
YA
TT
FA
RB
ER
SC
HR
EC
K, L
LP
41
0 S
EV
EN
TE
EN
TH
ST
RE
ET
, SU
ITE
220
0 D
EN
VE
R, C
O 8
0202
-443
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10 PLAINTIFF YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.’S
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL SET OF WRITTEN DISCOVERY 2:13-CV-07764-FMO-CW
INTERROGATORIES
INTERROGATORY NO. 26: If any of YOUR responses to YARDI’s Requests for Admission above were
anything other than an unqualified admission, then for each response that was not
an unqualified admission STATE ALL BASES for YOUR response, IDENTIFY all
persons with knowledge of the facts material to YOUR response, and IDENTIFY
all DOCUMENTS that support your response.
INTERROGATORY NO. 27: IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS YOU contend placed YARDI on notice prior
to October 21, 2010 that YOU possessed the VOYAGER SOFTWARE.
INTERROGATORY NO. 28: IDENTIFY all third parties that provided YOU with a copy of the
VOYAGER SOFTWARE (as distinguished from a VOYAGER DATABASE), a
VOYAGER SOFTWARE license file, or access to the VOYAGER SOFTWARE
(as distinguished from a VOYAGER DATABASE) prior to October 21, 2010, and
for each STATE WITH SPECIFICITY what that third party provided to YOU,
when YOU received it, and whether YOU informed YARDI prior to October 21,
2010 that you had received it.
INTERROGATORY NO. 29: STATE WITH SPECIFICITY what investigation YOU believe YARDI
could have conducted prior to October 21, 2010 that would have revealed that YOU
possessed the VOYAGER SOFTWARE (as distinguished from a VOYAGER
DATABASE).
INTERROGATORY NO. 30: Mr. Bateman testified that “And so I remember there were times over the
years that the repositories would get really bloated and it would take forever to
update or commit. And so there were times when we just wiped it out and started
over which hasn't happened in a couple of years.” Bateman Tr. at 135:24–136:4.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 49 of 181 Page ID #:13116
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STATE WITH SPECIFICITY the circumstances under which YOUR SOURCE
CODE REPOSITORY was "wiped . . . out" or deleted, including who decided to
wipe out or delete YOUR SOURCE CODE REPOSITORY, who at PROPERTY
SOLUTIONS was aware that the SOURCE CODE REPOSITORY had been wiped
out or deleted, and IDENTIFY any communications YOU have produced that relate
to the wiping out or deletion of YOUR SOURCE CODE REPOSITORY.
INTERROGATORY NO. 31:
STATE WITH SPECIFICITY any efforts YOU made prior to October 21,
2010 to ensure that information RELATING TO the VOYAGER SOFTWARE was
not improperly incorporated into ENTRATA or otherwise improperly used to
facilitate the development of ENTRATA.
INTERROGATORY NO. 32:
STATE WITH SPECIFICITY YOUR policies and practices, as they were
prior to October 21, 2010, RELATING TO YOUR use of GoToMeeting,
TeamViewer, similar webconferencing software, or REAL-TIME MESSAGES,
including any policies or practices RELATING TO the recording of any
GoToMeeting instances, TeamViewer instances, other webconferences, or REAL-
TIME MESSAGES, the frequency with which YOUR EMPLOYEES would engage
in GoToMeetings, TeamViewer sessions, other webconferences, or REAL-TIME
MESSAGES, and any restrictions on the use of GoToMeeting, TeamViewer,
similar webconferencing software, or REAL-TIME MESSAGES.
INTERROGATORY NO. 33:
STATE WITH SPECIFICITY YOUR procedures for communicating desired
ENTRATA design features to the PEOPLE who wrote the ENTRATA software
code and designed the ENTRATA database.
INTERROGATORY NO. 34:
STATE WITH SPECIFICITY which, if any, of the proposals or work
product submitted to YOU by David Schneider prior to October 21, 2010 were ever PLAINTIFF YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.'S
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL SET OF WRITTEN TITSCOVFR V .1 1-CV-07764-FMO-CW
11
BR
OW
NS
TE
IN H
YA
TT
FA
RB
ER
SC
HR
EC
K, L
LP
41
0 S
EV
EN
TE
EN
TH
ST
RE
ET
, SU
ITE
220
0 D
EN
VE
R, C
O 8
0202
-443
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11 PLAINTIFF YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.’S
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL SET OF WRITTEN DISCOVERY 2:13-CV-07764-FMO-CW
STATE WITH SPECIFICITY the circumstances under which YOUR SOURCE
CODE REPOSITORY was “wiped . . . out” or deleted, including who decided to
wipe out or delete YOUR SOURCE CODE REPOSITORY, who at PROPERTY
SOLUTIONS was aware that the SOURCE CODE REPOSITORY had been wiped
out or deleted, and IDENTIFY any communications YOU have produced that relate
to the wiping out or deletion of YOUR SOURCE CODE REPOSITORY.
INTERROGATORY NO. 31: STATE WITH SPECIFICITY any efforts YOU made prior to October 21,
2010 to ensure that information RELATING TO the VOYAGER SOFTWARE was
not improperly incorporated into ENTRATA or otherwise improperly used to
facilitate the development of ENTRATA.
INTERROGATORY NO. 32: STATE WITH SPECIFICITY YOUR policies and practices, as they were
prior to October 21, 2010, RELATING TO YOUR use of GoToMeeting,
TeamViewer, similar webconferencing software, or REAL-TIME MESSAGES,
including any policies or practices RELATING TO the recording of any
GoToMeeting instances, TeamViewer instances, other webconferences, or REAL-
TIME MESSAGES, the frequency with which YOUR EMPLOYEES would engage
in GoToMeetings, TeamViewer sessions, other webconferences, or REAL-TIME
MESSAGES, and any restrictions on the use of GoToMeeting, TeamViewer,
similar webconferencing software, or REAL-TIME MESSAGES.
INTERROGATORY NO. 33: STATE WITH SPECIFICITY YOUR procedures for communicating desired
ENTRATA design features to the PEOPLE who wrote the ENTRATA software
code and designed the ENTRATA database.
INTERROGATORY NO. 34: STATE WITH SPECIFICITY which, if any, of the proposals or work
product submitted to YOU by David Schneider prior to October 21, 2010 were ever
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 50 of 181 Page ID #:13117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
incorporated into ENTRATA, including the DOCUMENT, DOCUMENTS, or
REAL-TIME MESSAGES in which the proposal or work product was submitted to
YOU, the date on which the proposal or work product was incorporated into
ENTRATA, and who incorporated the proposal or work product into ENTRATA.
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 65:
Produce all communications prior to October 21, 2010 between or among
YOU and Western National Group or any of its employees or representatives,
including but not limited to Ken Hodges and Matthew Stoehr.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 66:
Produce all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR possession or use prior
to October 21, 2010 of the VOYAGER SOFTWARE license file you received from
Western National Group (as reflected in Deposition Exhibit 177, PSI-0328201-04),
including but not limited to any DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR use of the
license file in testing YOUR CUSTOM INTERFACE.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 67:
Produce all DOCUMENTS dated prior to October 21, 2010 RELATING TO
the development of YOUR CUSTOM INTERFACE for use by Western National
Group.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 68:
Produce all communications prior to October 21, 2010 RELATING TO the
Non-Disclosure Agreement executed between YARDI and YOU in February 2006
(as reflected in Deposition Exhibit 62, YAR-0000002-03), including but not
limited to all communications in which YOU informed YOUR EMPLOYEES
about the Non-Disclosure Agreement, any of the provisions or terms of the Non-
Disclosure Agreement, or any of YOUR obligations under the Non-Disclosure
Agreement.
12 PLAINTIFF YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.'S
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL SET OF WRITTEN TITSCOVFR V .1 1-CV-07764-FTVTO-CW
BR
OW
NS
TE
IN H
YA
TT
FA
RB
ER
SC
HR
EC
K, L
LP
41
0 S
EV
EN
TE
EN
TH
ST
RE
ET
, SU
ITE
220
0 D
EN
VE
R, C
O 8
0202
-443
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12 PLAINTIFF YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.’S
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL SET OF WRITTEN DISCOVERY 2:13-CV-07764-FMO-CW
incorporated into ENTRATA, including the DOCUMENT, DOCUMENTS, or
REAL-TIME MESSAGES in which the proposal or work product was submitted to
YOU, the date on which the proposal or work product was incorporated into
ENTRATA, and who incorporated the proposal or work product into ENTRATA.
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 65: Produce all communications prior to October 21, 2010 between or among
YOU and Western National Group or any of its employees or representatives,
including but not limited to Ken Hodges and Matthew Stoehr.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 66: Produce all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR possession or use prior
to October 21, 2010 of the VOYAGER SOFTWARE license file you received from
Western National Group (as reflected in Deposition Exhibit 177, PSI-0328201–04),
including but not limited to any DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR use of the
license file in testing YOUR CUSTOM INTERFACE.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 67: Produce all DOCUMENTS dated prior to October 21, 2010 RELATING TO
the development of YOUR CUSTOM INTERFACE for use by Western National
Group.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 68: Produce all communications prior to October 21, 2010 RELATING TO the
Non-Disclosure Agreement executed between YARDI and YOU in February 2006
(as reflected in Deposition Exhibit 62, YAR-0000002–03), including but not
limited to all communications in which YOU informed YOUR EMPLOYEES
about the Non-Disclosure Agreement, any of the provisions or terms of the Non-
Disclosure Agreement, or any of YOUR obligations under the Non-Disclosure
Agreement.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 51 of 181 Page ID #:13118
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 69:
Produce all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR understanding prior to
October 21, 2010 of the Non-Disclosure Agreement executed between YARDI and
YOU in February 2006 (as reflected in Deposition Exhibit 62, YAR-0000002-03).
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 70:
Produce all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any efforts by YOU to honor or
abide by the Non-Disclosure Agreement executed between YARDI and YOU in
February 2006 (as reflected in Deposition Exhibit 62, YAR-0000002-03).
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 71:
Produce all DOCUMENTS dated prior to October 21, 2010 containing any of
the following terms or connectors: WNG; Western National; Hodges; Stoehr;
Shoemaker; 2006 /3 (NDA OR non-disclosure OR nondisclosure OR agreement);
Yardi /3 (NDA OR non-disclosure OR nondisclosure OR agreement); Yardi AND
(license OR lic); Voyager AND (license OR lic).
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 72:
Produce all communications YOU had with any third party RELATING TO
any DOCUMENT YOU contend supports YOUR claim that YARDI was aware
prior to October 21, 2010 that YOU had access to the VOYAGER SOFTWARE in
2006.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 73:
Produce all communications YOU had with any third party RELATING TO
any DOCUMENT YOU contend supports YOUR claim that YARDI was aware
prior to October 21, 2010 that YOU would obtain or had obtained a license file for
the VOYAGER SOFTWARE for the purpose of gaining access to or use of the
VOYAGER SOFTWARE.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 74:
Produce all DOCUMENTS responsive to any of YARDI's previous
document requests that are stored on the "backup file" referenced on page 6, line 10 PLAINTIFF YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.'S
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL SET OF WRITTEN TITSCOVFR V .1 1-CV-07764-FMO-CW
13
BR
OW
NS
TE
IN H
YA
TT
FA
RB
ER
SC
HR
EC
K, L
LP
41
0 S
EV
EN
TE
EN
TH
ST
RE
ET
, SU
ITE
220
0 D
EN
VE
R, C
O 8
0202
-443
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13 PLAINTIFF YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.’S
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL SET OF WRITTEN DISCOVERY 2:13-CV-07764-FMO-CW
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 69: Produce all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR understanding prior to
October 21, 2010 of the Non-Disclosure Agreement executed between YARDI and
YOU in February 2006 (as reflected in Deposition Exhibit 62, YAR-0000002–03).
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 70: Produce all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any efforts by YOU to honor or
abide by the Non-Disclosure Agreement executed between YARDI and YOU in
February 2006 (as reflected in Deposition Exhibit 62, YAR-0000002–03).
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 71: Produce all DOCUMENTS dated prior to October 21, 2010 containing any of
the following terms or connectors: WNG; Western National; Hodges; Stoehr;
Shoemaker; 2006 /3 (NDA OR non-disclosure OR nondisclosure OR agreement);
Yardi /3 (NDA OR non-disclosure OR nondisclosure OR agreement); Yardi AND
(license OR lic); Voyager AND (license OR lic).
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 72: Produce all communications YOU had with any third party RELATING TO
any DOCUMENT YOU contend supports YOUR claim that YARDI was aware
prior to October 21, 2010 that YOU had access to the VOYAGER SOFTWARE in
2006.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 73: Produce all communications YOU had with any third party RELATING TO
any DOCUMENT YOU contend supports YOUR claim that YARDI was aware
prior to October 21, 2010 that YOU would obtain or had obtained a license file for
the VOYAGER SOFTWARE for the purpose of gaining access to or use of the
VOYAGER SOFTWARE.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 74: Produce all DOCUMENTS responsive to any of YARDI’s previous
document requests that are stored on the “backup file” referenced on page 6, line 10
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 52 of 181 Page ID #:13119
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
of YOUR Opposition to YARDI's Ex Parte Application that YOU filed on June 4,
2015 (ECF No. 127).
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 75:
Produce for forensic inspection and mirroring the "backup file" referenced on
page 6, line 10 of YOUR Opposition to YARDI's Ex Parte Application that YOU
filed on June 4, 2015 (ECF No. 127).
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 76:
Produce all communications with YARDI RELATING TO YOUR
possession of YARDI's VOYAGER SOFTWARE before October 21, 2010,
including but not limited to any communications you contend should have put
YARDI on notice of YOUR possession of the VOYAGER SOFTWARE.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 77:
Deposition Exhibit 112 (PSI-0102956) contains an email from Dharmesh
Shroff requesting "Venky" Gubbala not to include "Yardi related details" in email
communications. Produce all communications prior to October 21, 2010 in which
YOU instructed or requested any person or group not to email, write, discuss, or
memorialize matters or issues RELATING TO YARDI.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 78:
Produce all communications prior to October 21, 2010 RELATING TO any
instructions or guidelines YOU provided to YOUR EMPLOYEES for
communicating with YARDI, including but not limited to any limits on what they
might have been permitted to disclose to YARDI.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 79:
Produce all communications RELATING TO YOUR use of the VOYAGER
SOFTWARE before October 21, 2010.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 80:
Produce all organizational charts for PROPERTY SOLUTIONS prior to
October 21, 2010.
14 PLAINTIFF YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.'S
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL SET OF WRITTEN TITSCOVFR V .1 1-CV-07764-FMO-CW
BR
OW
NS
TE
IN H
YA
TT
FA
RB
ER
SC
HR
EC
K, L
LP
41
0 S
EV
EN
TE
EN
TH
ST
RE
ET
, SU
ITE
220
0 D
EN
VE
R, C
O 8
0202
-443
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
14 PLAINTIFF YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.’S
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL SET OF WRITTEN DISCOVERY 2:13-CV-07764-FMO-CW
of YOUR Opposition to YARDI’s Ex Parte Application that YOU filed on June 4,
2015 (ECF No. 127).
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 75: Produce for forensic inspection and mirroring the “backup file” referenced on
page 6, line 10 of YOUR Opposition to YARDI’s Ex Parte Application that YOU
filed on June 4, 2015 (ECF No. 127).
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 76: Produce all communications with YARDI RELATING TO YOUR
possession of YARDI’s VOYAGER SOFTWARE before October 21, 2010,
including but not limited to any communications you contend should have put
YARDI on notice of YOUR possession of the VOYAGER SOFTWARE.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 77: Deposition Exhibit 112 (PSI-0102956) contains an email from Dharmesh
Shroff requesting “Venky” Gubbala not to include “Yardi related details” in email
communications. Produce all communications prior to October 21, 2010 in which
YOU instructed or requested any person or group not to email, write, discuss, or
memorialize matters or issues RELATING TO YARDI.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 78: Produce all communications prior to October 21, 2010 RELATING TO any
instructions or guidelines YOU provided to YOUR EMPLOYEES for
communicating with YARDI, including but not limited to any limits on what they
might have been permitted to disclose to YARDI.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 79: Produce all communications RELATING TO YOUR use of the VOYAGER
SOFTWARE before October 21, 2010.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 80: Produce all organizational charts for PROPERTY SOLUTIONS prior to
October 21, 2010.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 53 of 181 Page ID #:13120
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 81:
To the extent the organizational charts do not do so, produce DOCUMENTS
sufficient to show YOUR organizational structure, including the job titles and
reporting structure, for YOUR EMPLOYEES as of October 21, 2010.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 82:
Produce the CODE REPOSITORY containing the SOURCE CODE for
ENTRATA as it existed as of October 21, 2010.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 83:
Produce the CODE REPOSITORY containing the code referenced in
Deposition Exhibit 168 (PSI-0096074), including but not limited to the "svn
database" referenced in paragraph 3 of Deposition Exhibit 168, the Vroot/yardi'
location on the "Mossman" machine and the entire contents of the
\\sputnik\Development\Yardi stuff\" location.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 84:
Produce all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR development prior to
October 21, 2010 of any of the functionalities identified in Trade Secrets 1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 24, 25, or 26 of YARDI's Fourth Amended Disclosure of
Trade Secrets, regardless of whether YOU used YARDI's methods and techniques
to implement those functionalities, for ENTRATA.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 85:
Produce all DOCUMENTS concerning any request by any of YOUR clients
prior to October 21, 2010 to develop of any of the functionalities identified in Trade
Secrets 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 24, 25, or 26 of YARDI's Fourth
Amended Disclosure of Trade Secrets, regardless of whether YOU used YARDI's
methods and techniques to implement those functionalities, for ENTRATA.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 86:
Produce all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any development plan,
deployment plan, product roadmap, functional specifications, or programming PLAINTIFF YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.'S
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL SET OF WRITTEN TITSCOVFR V .1 1-CV-07764-FMO-CW
15
BR
OW
NS
TE
IN H
YA
TT
FA
RB
ER
SC
HR
EC
K, L
LP
41
0 S
EV
EN
TE
EN
TH
ST
RE
ET
, SU
ITE
220
0 D
EN
VE
R, C
O 8
0202
-443
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
15 PLAINTIFF YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.’S
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL SET OF WRITTEN DISCOVERY 2:13-CV-07764-FMO-CW
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 81: To the extent the organizational charts do not do so, produce DOCUMENTS
sufficient to show YOUR organizational structure, including the job titles and
reporting structure, for YOUR EMPLOYEES as of October 21, 2010.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 82: Produce the CODE REPOSITORY containing the SOURCE CODE for
ENTRATA as it existed as of October 21, 2010.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 83: Produce the CODE REPOSITORY containing the code referenced in
Deposition Exhibit 168 (PSI-0096074), including but not limited to the “svn
database” referenced in paragraph 3 of Deposition Exhibit 168, the ‘/root/yardi’
location on the “Mossman” machine and the entire contents of the
‘\\sputnik\Development\Yardi stuff\” location.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 84: Produce all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR development prior to
October 21, 2010 of any of the functionalities identified in Trade Secrets 1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 24, 25, or 26 of YARDI’s Fourth Amended Disclosure of
Trade Secrets, regardless of whether YOU used YARDI’s methods and techniques
to implement those functionalities, for ENTRATA.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 85: Produce all DOCUMENTS concerning any request by any of YOUR clients
prior to October 21, 2010 to develop of any of the functionalities identified in Trade
Secrets 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 24, 25, or 26 of YARDI’s Fourth
Amended Disclosure of Trade Secrets, regardless of whether YOU used YARDI’s
methods and techniques to implement those functionalities, for ENTRATA.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 86: Produce all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any development plan,
deployment plan, product roadmap, functional specifications, or programming
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 54 of 181 Page ID #:13121
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
assignments for ENTRATA created prior to October 21, 2010.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 87:
Produce all "user stories" or "use cases" that YOU developed or were
provided to YOU by any client prior to October 21, 2010 that you implemented in
ENTRATA.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 88:
Produce all communications between YOU and David Schneider prior to
October 21, 2010.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 89:
Produce all DOCUMENTS created, authored, edited, or revised by David
Schneider prior to October 21, 2010.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 90:
Produce all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any of your practices, any
efforts YOU made, or any policies YOU adopted prior to October 21, 2010 to
prevent any of YOUR EMPLOYEES who were working to develop ENTRATA
from incorporating features of the VOYAGER SOFTWARE into ENTRATA,
including but not limited to DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the implementation of
a "clean room" or "Chinese wall."
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 91:
Produce all DOCUMENTS YOU relied on in responding to YARDI's First
Supplemental Set of Interrogatories above.
16 PLAINTIFF YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.'S
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL SET OF WRITTEN TITSCOVFR V 7•11-CV-07764-FMO-CW
BR
OW
NS
TE
IN H
YA
TT
FA
RB
ER
SC
HR
EC
K, L
LP
41
0 S
EV
EN
TE
EN
TH
ST
RE
ET
, SU
ITE
220
0 D
EN
VE
R, C
O 8
0202
-443
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16 PLAINTIFF YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.’S
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL SET OF WRITTEN DISCOVERY 2:13-CV-07764-FMO-CW
assignments for ENTRATA created prior to October 21, 2010.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 87: Produce all “user stories” or “use cases” that YOU developed or were
provided to YOU by any client prior to October 21, 2010 that you implemented in
ENTRATA.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 88: Produce all communications between YOU and David Schneider prior to
October 21, 2010.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 89: Produce all DOCUMENTS created, authored, edited, or revised by David
Schneider prior to October 21, 2010.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 90: Produce all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any of your practices, any
efforts YOU made, or any policies YOU adopted prior to October 21, 2010 to
prevent any of YOUR EMPLOYEES who were working to develop ENTRATA
from incorporating features of the VOYAGER SOFTWARE into ENTRATA,
including but not limited to DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the implementation of
a “clean room” or “Chinese wall.”
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 91: Produce all DOCUMENTS YOU relied on in responding to YARDI’s First
Supplemental Set of Interrogatories above.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 55 of 181 Page ID #:13122
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Dated: June 15, 2015 BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP MARGO J. ARNOLD LAWRENCE W. TREECE (Pro Hac Vice) VAN AARON HUGHES (Pro Hac Vice) MICHAEL D. HOKE (Pro Hac Vice)
By: Is/ John V. McDermott
17
JOHN V. MCDERMOTT (Pro Hac Vice) Attorneys for Plaintiff YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.
PLAINTIFF YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.'S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL SET OF WRITTEN
TITSCOVFR V .1 1-CV-07764-FTVTO-CW
BR
OW
NS
TE
IN H
YA
TT
FA
RB
ER
SC
HR
EC
K, L
LP
41
0 S
EV
EN
TE
EN
TH
ST
RE
ET
, SU
ITE
220
0 D
EN
VE
R, C
O 8
0202
-443
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
17 PLAINTIFF YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.’S
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL SET OF WRITTEN DISCOVERY 2:13-CV-07764-FMO-CW
Dated: June 15, 2015
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP MARGO J. ARNOLD LAWRENCE W. TREECE (Pro Hac Vice) VAN AARON HUGHES (Pro Hac Vice) MICHAEL D. HOKE (Pro Hac Vice)
By: /s/ John V. McDermott JOHN V. MCDERMOTT (Pro Hac Vice) Attorneys for Plaintiff YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 56 of 181 Page ID #:13123
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I declare that I am employed with the law firm of Brownstein Hyatt Farber
Schreck, LLP, whose address is 410 17th St., Suite 2200, Denver CO, 80238. I am
not a party to the within cause, and I am over the age of eighteen years. I further
declare that on June 15, 2015, I served a copy of:
PLAINTIFF YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.'S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL SET OF WRITTEN DISCOVERY REQUESTS
x BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE [Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. rule 5(b)] by electronically mailing a true and correct copy through Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck,'s electronic mail system to the e-mail address(es) set forth below, or as stated on the attached service list per agreement in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure rule 5(b)
Michael A. Jacobs X E-mail Morrison & Foerster LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105-2482 Telephone: 415.268.7000 Facsimile: 415.268.7522 Email: [email protected]
Eric M. Acker X E-mail Christian G. Andreu-von Euw John R. Lanham 12531 High Bluff Drive San Diego, California 92130-2040 Telephone: 858.720.5100 Facsimile: 858.720.5125 Emails: [email protected]
Christian mofo.com JLanham mofo.com
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed at Denver, Colorado, this 15th day of June, 2015.
/s/ Michael D. Hoke Michael D. Hoke
18 PLAINTIFF YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.'S
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL SET OF WRITTEN TITSCOVFR V .1 1—CV-07764—FTVTO—CW
BR
OW
NS
TE
IN H
YA
TT
FA
RB
ER
SC
HR
EC
K, L
LP
41
0 S
EV
EN
TE
EN
TH
ST
RE
ET
, SU
ITE
220
0 D
EN
VE
R, C
O 8
0202
-443
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
18 PLAINTIFF YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.’S
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL SET OF WRITTEN DISCOVERY 2:13-CV-07764-FMO-CW
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I declare that I am employed with the law firm of Brownstein Hyatt Farber
Schreck, LLP, whose address is 410 17th St., Suite 2200, Denver CO, 80238. I am
not a party to the within cause, and I am over the age of eighteen years. I further
declare that on June 15, 2015, I served a copy of:
PLAINTIFF YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL SET OF WRITTEN DISCOVERY REQUESTS
_x_ BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE [Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. rule 5(b)] by electronically mailing a true and correct copy through Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck,’s electronic mail system to the e-mail address(es) set forth below, or as stated on the attached service list per agreement in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure rule 5(b).
Michael A. Jacobs _X_ E-mail Morrison & Foerster LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105-2482 Telephone: 415.268.7000 Facsimile: 415.268.7522 Email: [email protected] Eric M. Acker _X_ E-mail Christian G. Andreu-von Euw John R. Lanham 12531 High Bluff Drive San Diego, California 92130-2040 Telephone: 858.720.5100 Facsimile: 858.720.5125 Emails: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed at Denver, Colorado, this 15th day of June, 2015.
/s/ Michael D. Hoke Michael D. Hoke
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 57 of 181 Page ID #:13124
EXHIBIT C
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 58 of 181 Page ID #:13125
From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:
Peter Robbins [[email protected]] Thursday, January 27, 201111:37 AM Dave Bateman Ben Zimmer; John Hanna; Dharmesh Shroff Re: Important Message From Yardi
Peter Robbins Property Solutions International, Inc. 12!9bbi ns@propertysolution s. com Direct 801.228.1307 Fax 801.705.1835
jf DEPOSfflON
EXHIBIT l.18.)
' -~...._!'7;;;..M::;..,:::;.~- rl-
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 11 :28 AM, Dave Bateman <[email protected]> wrote: Dang. Animals. I didn't realize it was a$ l .3BB settlement between Oracle and SAP.
Dave
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at I 0:3 5 AM, Ben Zimmer <[email protected]> wrote: BTW, Dennis told me this morning that Yardi was smart enough to secure the SAME legal firm that Oracle used to get $1.3B8 in damages from SAP ( on a very similar case). The plot thickens. :)
BZ
On Tue, Jan 25, 201 lat 4:23 PM, Ben Zimmer <[email protected]> wrote: Yeah, pretty interesting allegations on Pages 10 - 14 (e.g., RP logging with stolen user credentials from Yardi executives from Orego11 when the executives were not in Oregon, etc.). Very specific and seemingly pretty damaging.
BZ
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 4:09 PM, Dave Bateman <dbaternan@prop~y~ol.Y.tions.com> wrote: That is an absurd amount of cash.
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Ben Zimmer <[email protected]> wrote:
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY ENT_ 00044654
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 59 of 181 Page ID #:13126
Yeah, so far the suit has not affected the RP stock price. But this seems like it could be pretty serious, if Yardi has as much evidence as they purport. George Landgrebe believes that Yardi could be suing for damages in the range of $200MM+, which could really be bad for RP.
Vamos a ver. ;)
BZ
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 3:28 PM. Dave Bateman <[email protected];n> wrote: Dang, that's intense.
On Tue, Jan 25, 20 I I at IO: 12 AM, Ben Zimmer <[email protected]> wrote:
Begin forwarded message:
From: George Landgrebe <[email protected]> Date: January 25, 2011 7.26:32 AM CST To: Ben Zimmer <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Important Message From Yardi
fyi
From: Yard1 Team [mailto:yard1.tcam(a,yardi.com] Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 3:36 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Important Message From Yardi
January 24, 2011
To: Yardi Chei1ts ru1d Memlx.-'TS of the Yard, lndcp,.>tldent Consultant Network
For 28 years, Y ardi Systems, lnc. hos been l'octt..s<!d on delivering the best possible products and
scrriccs to the multifamily markctploc.:. As some of you know, RcalPagc, Inc. ncqutrnd Evergreen Solutions, Inc., a prior member of the Ynrdi lndep.:ndcnt Consultnnt Network. With this acquisition,
RcaLPagc slnrt1.,'Cl olforing implcmcnt.nlion and support scrvic.:s for Ynrdi Voyager lllis raised some
.conetlrns about confidentiality and int.:llectual property nghts.
l11ese concerns oppcar to have been \\ell-founded. Today, to prokct our volunbh:: intellectunl propcrt},
Yordi hrought a lawsuit against RealPage and IX: Consulting. Inc. (t11c successor company to
EvcrGrcen Solutions) in the Unitt:<l Stales Di.~trict Court, Central District of California, for cop)'right infringement, trade secret misappropriation, computer fraud, and wuiiir competition. The complaint
2
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY ENT _00044655
j
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 60 of 181 Page ID #:13127
alleges, in part, thnt RentPnge and DC Consulting ~ssed Ynrtli's pussword-protccted website without authorization and wrongfully downloaded copyrighted and trade St.'CTet materials.
David Bateman
We felt it ,\-11S important to notify you of U1is action immediately. A copy of the filed complaint, which includes the full uetuils of the allegutiorn, aguinst RealPage and DC Consulting, is available al ~ardi.&QmlJ.wVco111plaint..Jlill'. Any questions about this lawsuit should be directed to Gordon Morrell, Yardi Systems' Chief Operating Officer, al 800.866. J 124 ext. I !05.
Although these octivities should have no effect on your software or service, if you experience ony problems, please call 800.866.1124 ext. 1622.
We look forward to continuing to offer you the highest level of products and services in 20 l l.
Vardi Systems
toll free 800.866.1144 j loeol 805.699.2040 xi 255 j fux 805.699.2041 Yardi Systems Inc. 430 S. Fnirvie1\ Ave. I Santo Bnrbnru. CA 93117 www.vardi.com
Property Solutions International, Inc. [email protected] http://www.propertysolutions.com Direct 801 .375.5522 ext. 504 Toll Free 877.826.9700 ext. 504 Fax 801 .705 . t 835
David Bateman Property Solutions International, Inc. [email protected] h.ttp ://www.propertysolutions.com Direct 801 .375.5522 ext. 504 Toll Free 877.826.9700 ext. 504 Fax 801 .705.1835
3
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL -ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY ENT_00044656
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 61 of 181 Page ID #:13128
David Bateman Property Solutions International, Inc. [email protected]~!lY.~MttiQO.$.&.Qm http://www.propertysolutions.com Direct 801.375.5522 ext. 504 Toll Free 877.826.9700 ext. 504 Fax 801.705.1835
4
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL -ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY ENT _00044657
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 62 of 181 Page ID #:13129
EXHIBIT D
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 63 of 181 Page ID #:13130
·1· · · · · · · · ·IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
·2· · · · · · · FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
·3· · · · ·_____________________________· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · )·4· · · · ·ENTRATA, INC., a· · · · · · ·)· · · · · ·Delaware corporation,· · · · )·5· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · )· · · · · · · · · · Plaintiff,· · · · · )·6· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · )· Civil No.· · · · · ·vs.· · · · · · · · · · · · · )· 2:15-cv-00102-CW-PMW·7· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · )· · · · · ·YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.,· · · · ·)·8· · · · ·a California corporation,· · )· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · )·9· · · · · · · · · Defendant.· · · · · )· · · · · ·_____________________________)10
11· · · · · · · · · VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF JOHN HANNA
12· · · · · · · · · · · ·** HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL **
13· · · · · · · · · · · ** ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY **
14
15
16
17
18· · · · · · · · Location:· ·HOLLAND & HART· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 222 South Main Street, Suite 220019· · · · · · · · · · · · · · Salt Lake City,· Utah
20
21· · · · · · · · · Date:· · ·Wednesday, May 16, 2018,
22· · · · · · · · · Time:· · ·9:07 a.m. to 5:01 p.m.
23· · · · · · · · · Reported by Teena Green, RPR, CRR, CBC24
25· Job No. 467648
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 64 of 181 Page ID #:13131
Page 23·1· · · · · · MR. ACKER:· That calls for speculation.
·2· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Yeah.· I don't know.· That
·3· ·was -- that was one of the things that was stated
·4· ·that was concerning to the investor.
·5· ·BY MR. GONZALEZ:
24· · · ·Q.· ·And what do you base that understanding on?
25· · · ·A.· ·That we paid for the setup and creation of
JOHN HANNA (ATTORNEYS'· EYES ONLY) - 05/16/2018
Litigation Services· |· 800-330-1112www.litigationservices.com
YVer1f
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 65 of 181 Page ID #:13132
Page 24·1· ·Xento as a company.
·2· · · ·Q.· ·Anything else?
·3· · · ·A.· ·Yeah, that they were our employees.
23· · · · · · MR. ACKER:· Misstates testimony, assumes
24· ·that there was a letter.
25· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I -- I can't remember if that
JOHN HANNA (ATTORNEYS'· EYES ONLY) - 05/16/2018
Litigation Services· |· 800-330-1112www.litigationservices.com
YVer1f
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 66 of 181 Page ID #:13133
EXHIBIT E
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 67 of 181 Page ID #:13134
Litigation Services· |· 800-330-1112www.litigationservices.com
In the Matter Of:
Entrata, Inc. vs. Yardi Systems, Inc.
DAVID BATEMAN (ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY)
July 13, 2018
Job Number: 481764
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 68 of 181 Page ID #:13135
· · · · · · ·IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
· · · · · FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
ENTRATA, INC., a Delaware· · · :corporation,· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·:· Civil No.· · · · · · · ·Plaintiff,· · · · ·2:15-cv-00102-CW-PMW· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·:· · · ·-v-· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·:YARDI SYSTEMS, INC., aCalifornia corporation,· · · · :· Videotaped Deposition of:· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · DAVID BATEMAN· · · · · · · ·Defendant.· · · :
· · · · · HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
· · · · · · · · · Place:· · · · HOLLAND & HART· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 222 South Main Street, #2200· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Salt Lake City, Utah 84101
· · · · · · · · · Date:· · · · ·July 13, 2018· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 8:43 a.m.
· · · · · · · · · Reporter:· · ·Vickie Larsen, CSR/RMR
· · · · · · · · · Job No.· · · ·481764
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 69 of 181 Page ID #:13136
Page 208·1· · · · ·A.· · ·Where are you referring to?
·2· · · · ·Q.· · ·I'm sorry.· Back on Exhibit 1452.
·3· · · · ·A.· · ·Okay.
·4· · · · ·Q.· · ·In the email of yours from January 27,
·5· ·2011, you referenced Xento; right?
·6· · · · ·A.· · ·Yes.
·7· · · · ·Q.· · ·Okay.· I just want to ask a couple
·8· ·questions about Xento now.
DAVID BATEMAN (ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY) - 07/13/2018
Litigation Services· |· 800-330-1112www.litigationservices.com
YVer1f
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 70 of 181 Page ID #:13137
Page 209
22· · · · ·Q.· · ·And does -- does Xento ever go by the
23· ·name DB Xento?
24· · · · ·A.· · ·That is its technical name.
25· · · · ·Q.· · ·DB Xento?
DAVID BATEMAN (ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY) - 07/13/2018
Litigation Services· |· 800-330-1112www.litigationservices.com
YVer1f
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 71 of 181 Page ID #:13138
Page 210·1· · · · ·A.· · ·Yeah.
·2· · · · ·Q.· · ·And what does "DB" stand for?
·3· · · · ·A.· · ·David Bateman.
·4· · · · ·Q.· · ·And does Xento do -- what services does
·5· ·Xento provide for Entrata?
·6· · · · ·A.· · ·It provides -- over the years,
·7· ·predominantly software development services, and there
·8· ·is some data processing services that it is now
·9· ·performing.
10· · · · ·Q.· · ·What are those data processing services?
11· · · · ·A.· · ·Helping facilitate migration of data when
12· ·a new customer comes onto our system.
24· · · · ·Q.· · ·Over what time period did it -- did Xento
25· ·provide those services?
DAVID BATEMAN (ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY) - 07/13/2018
Litigation Services· |· 800-330-1112www.litigationservices.com
YVer1f
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 72 of 181 Page ID #:13139
Page 211·1· · · · ·A.· · ·I would say from 2007 -- yeah, 2007
·2· ·until, I don't know, 2009 or '10, maybe.· And then on
·3· ·a very limited basis after that.
DAVID BATEMAN (ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY) - 07/13/2018
Litigation Services· |· 800-330-1112www.litigationservices.com
YVer1f
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 73 of 181 Page ID #:13140
Page 212
·8· · · · · · · · MR. CROSS:· Objection.· Speculation.
·9· ·Calls for a legal conclusion.
19· · · · · · · · MR. CROSS:· Objection.· Speculation.
20· ·Legal conclusion.
23· · · · ·Q.· · ·BY MR. GONZALEZ:· And has that been your
24· ·understanding all along since 2007 until now?
25· · · · ·A.· · ·Yes.
DAVID BATEMAN (ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY) - 07/13/2018
Litigation Services· |· 800-330-1112www.litigationservices.com
YVer1f
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 74 of 181 Page ID #:13141
Page 213
DAVID BATEMAN (ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY) - 07/13/2018
Litigation Services· |· 800-330-1112www.litigationservices.com
YVer1f
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 75 of 181 Page ID #:13142
EXHIBIT F
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 76 of 181 Page ID #:13143
·1·2· · · · · · · · · IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT·3· · · · · · · ·FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION·4·5· · ·ENTRATA, INC., a Delaware· · · :·6· ·corporation,· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · :· Civil No.·7· · · · · · · · · Plaintiff,· · · · ·2:15-cv-00102-CW-PMW· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · :·8· · · · · -v-· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · :·9· ·YARDI SYSTEMS, INC., a· · ·California corporation,· · · · :· Videotaped Deposition of:10· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·PREETAM YADAV· · · · · · · · · · Defendant.· · · :11
12· · · · · · ·HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
13· · · · · · · · · · · ·Place:· · · · HOLLAND & HART14· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·222 South Main Street, #2200· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·Salt Lake City, Utah 8410115· · · · · · · · · · · ·Date:· · · · ·July 12, 201816· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·9:02 a.m.
17· · · · · · · · · · ·Reporter:· · ·Vickie Larsen, CSR/RMR
18· · · · · · · · · · · Job No.:· · · · · · ·481767
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 77 of 181 Page ID #:13144
Page 15·1· ·P-U-N-E.
·2· · · · ·Q.· · ·And that would be to find a person that
·3· ·doesn't currently work for Xento and hire them into
·4· ·Xento so they can help on a project that you're
·5· ·focused on at that time?
·6· · · · ·A.· · ·Yeah.· I mean...
18· · · · ·A.· · ·Can you repeat again?
19· · · · ·Q.· · ·Sure.
PREETAM YADAV - 07/12/2018
Litigation Services· |· 800-330-1112www.litigationservices.com
YVer1f
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 78 of 181 Page ID #:13145
Page 16
·2· · · · ·Q.· · ·Or is it correct that Entrata used to be
·3· ·called Property Solutions?
·4· · · · ·A.· · ·Yes.
·9· · · · ·Q.· · ·And has it always worked that way since
10· ·the time you worked at Xento,
14· · · · ·Q.· · ·Did Xento exist as an entity before you
15· ·joined?
16· · · · ·A.· · ·Actually, it was -- it was Western
17· ·Management.· It was by name of Western Management when
18· ·I joined, and then we renamed, and that entity is
19· ·called Xento.
20· · · · ·Q.· · ·How long was the entity called Western
21· ·Management?
22· · · · · · · · MR. ACKER:· How long was it?
23· · · · ·Q.· · ·BY MR. GONZALEZ:· Yeah.· How long was the
24· ·entity name called Western Management?
25· · · · · · · · MR. ACKER:· Calls for speculation from
PREETAM YADAV - 07/12/2018
Litigation Services· |· 800-330-1112www.litigationservices.com
YVer1f
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 79 of 181 Page ID #:13146
Page 17·1· ·this witness.
·2· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I -- I'm not getting your
·3· ·question, actually.
·4· · · · ·Q.· · ·BY MR. GONZALEZ:· Sure.
·5· · · · · · · · I'm just trying to get a sense of how
·6· ·long what's now known as Xento existed under the name
·7· ·Western Management?
·8· · · · ·A.· · ·Oh, I think around -- not more than six
·9· ·months, even.
10· · · · ·Q.· · ·And who founded Western Management, if
11· ·you know?
12· · · · ·A.· · ·No, I don't know.
13· · · · ·Q.· · ·Did Mr. Bateman have a role in founding
14· ·Western Management?
15· · · · · · · · MR. ACKER:· Calls for speculation.
16· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· He might have, but as I
17· ·said, I don't know exactly who founded Western
18· ·Management.
19· · · · ·Q.· · ·BY MR. GONZALEZ:· How did it come to be
20· ·that you began working at what came to be known as
21· ·Xento?
22· · · · ·A.· · ·I was working for another company in
23· ·Pune, which is EcoTech.· I was employee of EcoTech.
24· ·And then that's where I -- I got hired for Dave's
25· ·team, because EcoTech was -- and Dave was working with
PREETAM YADAV - 07/12/2018
Litigation Services· |· 800-330-1112www.litigationservices.com
YVer1f
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 80 of 181 Page ID #:13147
Page 18·1· ·EcoTech for the initial stages.
·2· · · · · · · · And then after that when Dave founded his
·3· ·separate company, we got transitioned to that company.
·4· · · · ·Q.· · ·And that company that you're talking
·5· ·about is Xento?
·6· · · · ·A.· · ·Yeah.
·7· · · · ·Q.· · ·So is it your understanding that Dave
·8· ·Bateman in some way founded what became Xento?
·9· · · · ·A.· · ·Yeah.
10· · · · ·Q.· · ·And did he personally recruit you into
11· ·Xento?
12· · · · ·A.· · ·Sorry?
13· · · · ·Q.· · ·Did he personally recruit you to leave
14· ·EcoTech and join Xento?
15· · · · ·A.· · ·Yes.
PREETAM YADAV - 07/12/2018
Litigation Services· |· 800-330-1112www.litigationservices.com
YVer1f
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 81 of 181 Page ID #:13148
Page 19
PREETAM YADAV - 07/12/2018
Litigation Services· |· 800-330-1112www.litigationservices.com
YVer1f
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 82 of 181 Page ID #:13149
PREETAM YADAV - 07/12/2018
Litigation Services· |· 800-330-1112www.litigationservices.com
YVer1f
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 83 of 181 Page ID #:13150
Page 21
·3· · · · ·Q.· · ·It hasn't changed?
·4· · · · ·A.· · ·No.
·5· · · · ·Q.· · ·It's correct that it hasn't changed?
·6· · · · ·A.· · ·No.
·7· · · · ·Q.· · ·Am I right when I say that it hasn't
·8· ·changed?
·9· · · · ·A.· · ·Can you repeat?
10· · · · ·Q.· · ·I think there was a double negative in
11· ·your answer.
12· · · · · · · · MR. ACKER:· Maybe you should ask him has
13· ·it changed since then.
14· · · · · · · · MR. GONZALEZ:· I think I did.
15· · · · ·Q.· · ·But has the ownership that you described
16· ·of Xento changed since that 2008, 2009 --
17· · · · ·A.· · ·No, it has not changed.
PREETAM YADAV - 07/12/2018
Litigation Services· |· 800-330-1112www.litigationservices.com
YVer1f
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 84 of 181 Page ID #:13151
13· · · · ·Q.· · ·BY MR. GONZALEZ:· You don't know?
14· · · · ·A.· · ·No, I don't know.
20· · · · ·A.· · ·Can you repeat the question again?
21· · · · ·Q.· · ·Sure.
22· · · · · · · · Other than what you said earlier, which
PREETAM YADAV - 07/12/2018
Litigation Services· |· 800-330-1112www.litigationservices.com
YVer1f
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 85 of 181 Page ID #:13152
Page 23
·3· · · · · · · · MR. ACKER:· Calls for speculation and a
·4· ·legal conclusion.
PREETAM YADAV - 07/12/2018
Litigation Services· |· 800-330-1112www.litigationservices.com
YVer1f
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 86 of 181 Page ID #:13153
PREETAM YADAV - 07/12/2018
Litigation Services· |· 800-330-1112www.litigationservices.com
YVer1f
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 87 of 181 Page ID #:13154
25· · · · · · · · MR. ACKER:· Objection.· Vague.
PREETAM YADAV - 07/12/2018
Litigation Services· |· 800-330-1112www.litigationservices.com
YVer1f
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 88 of 181 Page ID #:13155
Page 26·1· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I mean, I didn't get your
·2· ·question.
PREETAM YADAV - 07/12/2018
Litigation Services· |· 800-330-1112www.litigationservices.com
YVer1f
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 89 of 181 Page ID #:13156
·2· · · · ·Q.· · ·Who prepares the invoice at Xento, if you
·3· ·know?
·4· · · · ·A.· · ·The finance team.
·5· · · · ·Q.· · ·Who's the head of the finance team?
·6· · · · ·A.· · ·Ruhina Shikh.
·7· · · · ·Q.· · ·Could you spell that?
·8· · · · ·A.· · ·R-U-H-I-N-A, S-H-I-K-H, Shikh.
·9· · · · · · · · · (Reporter clarification.)
10· · · · ·A.· · ·Shikh, S-H-I-K-H.
11· · · · ·Q.· · ·Do you review the invoice before it goes
12· ·out?
13· · · · ·A.· · ·Yeah.
17· · · · ·Q.· · ·Who is the head of the finance team at
18· ·Entrata?
19· · · · ·A.· · ·Will Robinson.
PREETAM YADAV - 07/12/2018
Litigation Services· |· 800-330-1112www.litigationservices.com
YVer1f
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 90 of 181 Page ID #:13157
EXHIBIT G EXHIBIT G
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 91 of 181 Page ID #:13158
From: Gonzalez, Jason Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2018 5:51 PM To: [email protected]; Cross, David D. <[email protected]> Cc: Andreu-von Euw, Christian G. <[email protected]>; Kaiser, Mary <[email protected]>; Foote, John <[email protected]>; Richards, Matthew <[email protected]>; Walker, Jessica <[email protected]>; Williamson, Paul <[email protected]> Subject: Entrata v. Yardi
Eric and David —
In Mr. Hanna's deposition yesterday, I questioned him about ENT_00044654 (Ex. 1385). This document is a January 27, 2011 email in which Mr. Bateman and Mr. Zimmer discuss Yardi's recent filing of its lawsuit against RealPage (with Mr. Hanna and Mr. Shroff copied). After Mr. Bateman and Mr. Zimmer discuss Yardi's claims against RealPage, and the potential damages at stake, Mr. Bateman states:
This email strongly supports Yardi's defenses to Entrata's breach of contract and antitrust causes of action in the Utah matter, and also relates more generally to Entrata's allegations in its Utah complaint regarding Yardi's lawsuit against RealPage (FAC ¶44), and claim that the California case is a mere "marketing vehicle" (FAC 953). In our view, it shows
The email also shows Mr. Bateman
However, this January 27 email also is directly responsive to Yardi's discovery requests in the California case, and provides critical evidence of Entrata's wrongful conduct and attempts to hide it. Based on our investigation to date, it appears that Entrata failed to produce it in the California case. Do you have evidence to the contrary? If not, why wasn't it produced? Our concerns here are heightened by the fact that Mr. Hanna testified yesterday that
as well as the fact that the Court in the California case denied Entrata's first summary judgment motion in light of previous failures by Entrata to produce critical discovery.
Also, as I mentioned to David this morning in a separate email chain, Entrata apparently failed to produce the January 15, 2015 webinar recording I discussed with Mr. Hanna at his deposition yesterday. This recording, which appears to have been made by Entrata, contains Mr. Bateman's extended discussions of the January 14, 2015 "diagnostics.asmx" quarantine that is at the very heart of Entrata's case. While we were able to find the recording ourselves on YouTube, we are troubled that Entrata didn't produce this recording in discovery, as it is responsive to Yardi's discovery requests and, in our view, strongly supports Yardi's defenses. Why wasn't it produced? I am happy to discuss this webinar issue on a separate email thread if you would like. Just let me know.
1 1
From: Gonzalez, Jason Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2018 5:51 PM To: [email protected]; Cross, David D. <[email protected]> Cc: Andreu-von Euw, Christian G. <[email protected]>; Kaiser, Mary <[email protected]>; Foote, John <[email protected]>; Richards, Matthew <[email protected]>; Walker, Jessica <[email protected]>; Williamson, Paul <[email protected]> Subject: Entrata v. Yardi
Eric and David –
In Mr. Hanna’s deposition yesterday, I questioned him about ENT_00044654 (Ex. 1385). This document is a January 27, 2011 email in which Mr. Bateman and Mr. Zimmer discuss Yardi’s recent filing of its lawsuit against RealPage (with Mr. Hanna and Mr. Shroff copied). After Mr. Bateman and Mr. Zimmer discuss Yardi’s claims against RealPage, and the potential damages at stake, Mr. Bateman states:
This email strongly supports Yardi’s defenses to Entrata’s breach of contract and antitrust causes of action in the Utah matter, and also relates more generally to Entrata’s allegations in its Utah complaint regarding Yardi’s lawsuit against RealPage (FAC ¶44), and claim that the California case is a mere “marketing vehicle” (FAC ¶53). In our view, it shows
The email also shows Mr. Bateman
However, this January 27 email also is directly responsive to Yardi’s discovery requests in the California case, and provides critical evidence of Entrata’s wrongful conduct and attempts to hide it. Based on our investigation to date, it appears that Entrata failed to produce it in the California case. Do you have evidence to the contrary? If not, why wasn’t it produced? Our concerns here are heightened by the fact that Mr. Hanna testified yesterday that
as well as the fact that the Court in the California case denied Entrata’s first summary judgment motion in light of previous failures by Entrata to produce critical discovery.
Also, as I mentioned to David this morning in a separate email chain, Entrata apparently failed to produce the January 15, 2015 webinar recording I discussed with Mr. Hanna at his deposition yesterday. This recording, which appears to have been made by Entrata, contains Mr. Bateman’s extended discussions of the January 14, 2015 “diagnostics.asmx” quarantine that is at the very heart of Entrata’s case. While we were able to find the recording ourselves on YouTube, we are troubled that Entrata didn’t produce this recording in discovery, as it is responsive to Yardi’s discovery requests and, in our view, strongly supports Yardi’s defenses. Why wasn’t it produced? I am happy to discuss this webinar issue on a separate email thread if you would like. Just let me know.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 92 of 181 Page ID #:13159
Please respond by no later than 5,30 p.m. Pacific tomorrow. If you need more time(' know there are depositions today), let me know and I will consider it, but our view is that we need to resolve these issues as soon as passible.
Thank you —Jason
NP 44.8 1.1
II
Jason P. Gonzalez Partner jgonzalez•i•nixonpeaboiy.com T213-629-6019 I C 213-379-2778 I F866-2337749 Nixon Peabody 1-1-2 1 300 Smith GrandAvenne, Suite 400 I Los Angeles, CA90071-3151nixonpeabody.com
I
@
Nixo nPeabcx1yLLP
Memel eeneiker the leirvirearit Lime pointing tht. leimalL
Pd. wren range and any eftedmerti are cueEdwatitd era =kyle potaxtedby the ettomenrclisnt or aep awingerdee. The infornation i.I to be convpul only to the dais:1,10S Teciplant(e) of the mews v. thyou we not tte ntended nodpeet, *au zotify the 'maw kneedis telt sod delete the menage from7cur =ell "item. Breed tuts tliendoleetat, datrtutbe or rep uted:at ethic men egeby othEr duce the intonate leopecot is *doily piohltd and maybe taltretd. Atte Tu.
2 2
Please respond by no later than 5:00 p.m. Pacific tomorrow. If you need more time (I know there are depositions
today), let me know and I will consider it, but our view is that we need to resolve these issues as soon as possible.
Thank you --Jason
Jason P. GonzalezPartner [email protected] T 213-629-6019 | C 213-379-2778 | F 866-233-7749
Nixon Peabody LLP | 300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4100 | Los Angeles, CA 90071-3151
nixonpeabody.com | @NixonPeabodyLLP
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
This email message and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by the attorney/client or other applicable privileges. The information is intended to
be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s) of the message. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete the message
from your email system. Unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this message by other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited
and may be unlawful. Thank you.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 93 of 181 Page ID #:13160
From: Gonzalez, Jason Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2018 8:39 AM To: 'Kaiser, Mary' <[email protected]>; Cross, David D. <[email protected]> Cc: Manoso, Robert W. <[email protected]>; Foote, John <[email protected]>; Richards, Matthew <[email protected]> Subject: RE: M/C
David and Mary —I wanted to follow up on the portion of our meet-and-confer teleconference earlier this week in which we discussed Xento, Entrata's Indian development affiliate. As I mentioned during the call, Mr. Hanna testified in his May 16 deposition that
Mr. Hanna said that
Also, as we discussed, and as I mentioned in my May 17 email, in the course of preparing for Mr. Hanna's deposition we found Exhibit 1385 (ENT 00044654), which is a January 27, 2011 email in which Mr. Bateman
This recently-discovered evidence makes us deeply concerned that Entrata executives (specifically, Mr. Bateman) may have intentionally manipulated Entrata and/or Xento's assets and/or ownership structure to shield themselves from liability and frustrate Yardi's ability to collect any judgments in the California and Utah cases. I understand from our call that you are looking into this issue. Please let us know the status. Thanks --Jason
From: Kaiser, Mary rmailto:[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2018 2:22 PM To: Gonzalez, Jason <[email protected]>; Foote, John <[email protected]>Cc: Cross, David D. <[email protected]>; Manoso, Robert W. <[email protected]>Subject: RE: M/C
Jason and John,
Here is a summary of what we took away from our meet and confer today on each of the following issues:
1. Amended Hoffman Disclosure & Declaration a. We requested a declaration clarifying that the only confidential information regarding Entrata Mr.
Hoffman has received — not just confidential documents — is a copy of the 2015 Scalar report.
1 1
From: Gonzalez, Jason Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2018 8:39 AM To: 'Kaiser, Mary' <[email protected]>; Cross, David D. <[email protected]> Cc: Manoso, Robert W. <[email protected]>; Foote, John <[email protected]>; Richards, Matthew <[email protected]> Subject: RE: M/C
David and Mary – I wanted to follow up on the portion of our meet-and-confer teleconference earlier this week in which we discussed Xento, Entrata’s Indian development affiliate. As I mentioned during the call, Mr. Hanna testified in his May 16 deposition that
Mr. Hanna said that
Also, as we discussed, and as I mentioned in my May 17 email, in the course of preparing for Mr. Hanna’s deposition we found Exhibit 1385 (ENT_00044654), which is a January 27, 2011 email in which Mr. Bateman
This recently-discovered evidence makes us deeply concerned that Entrata executives (specifically, Mr. Bateman) may have intentionally manipulated Entrata and/or Xento’s assets and/or ownership structure to shield themselves from liability and frustrate Yardi’s ability to collect any judgments in the California and Utah cases. I understand from our call that you are looking into this issue. Please let us know the status. Thanks --Jason
From: Kaiser, Mary [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2018 2:22 PM To: Gonzalez, Jason <[email protected]>; Foote, John <[email protected]> Cc: Cross, David D. <[email protected]>; Manoso, Robert W. <[email protected]> Subject: RE: M/C
Jason and John,
Here is a summary of what we took away from our meet and confer today on each of the following issues:
1. Amended Hoffman Disclosure & Declaration a. We requested a declaration clarifying that the only confidential information regarding Entrata Mr.
Hoffman has received – not just confidential documents – is a copy of the 2015 Scalar report.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 94 of 181 Page ID #:13161
b. If we receive this, we will review it with our client and get back to you quickly about whether it resolves our objection, notwithstanding Yardi's failures to comply with the PO. We appreciate you supplying the declaration.
2. Yardi's yCRM production a. We described two categories of information that we requested be included in this production and that,
so far, we have not been able to identify in the data produced: 1) product usage among Yardi customers (of both Yardi integration products and other companies' products); and 2) unit counts. We also asked that you review the documents you represented to the Court as reports containing yCRM data to confirm that all responsive yCRM data categories have been produced.
b. You said you would look into the first category. c. You said that you did not produce data on unit counts because you do not believe the data is reliable
and, thus, did not find it responsive to our request. d. We told you that unit counts are something we have repeatedly emphasized in our briefing on this issue
and something that the judge clearly ordered you to produce. We emphasized that you didn't dispute the responsiveness of unit counts in your own briefing. We notified you that, if we do not receive all outstanding responsive data within 24 hours, we will seek relief from the Court.
e. You indicated that you did not purposefully withhold any categories of data from the yCRM production other than unit counts.
f. We said our review of the production is ongoing and we will let you know if there are other gaps we identify. Based on further review after our call, it appears, for example, that some (perhaps many) of the clients appearing in the Top Companies reports that Yardi argued satisfied Entrata's yCRM requests are absent in the yCRM data produced last Friday. Assuming this is correct — and again, our review is ongoing — please explain this by COB tomorrow.
g. Regarding the confidentiality designation, we will send you proposed language for an agreement. 3. Entrata's letter regarding Yardi's 30(b)(6) witness
a. You said you are working on a response and your goal is to send it to us this week. 4. Mutual use of Utah discovery in California case
a. We proposed that the parties agree that both sides can use anything produced in the Utah case in the California case. You said that seemed reasonable to you and that you would talk to your client and get back to us.
b. We specifically raised Exhibit 391, which was produced in redacted form in the California case. You said you would look into the reason for redacting it in California. You noted that you didn't represent Yardi at that time.
c. You specifically raised Exhibit 1385, which was produced in mid-September of last year. We explained that no one had seen that document before and it was not intentionally withheld in the California case. We also disputed your characterization of the document.
d. You said that Exhibit 1385, in conjunction with testimony from John Hanna, raised concerns for Yardi about the relationship between Entrata and Xento and who owns various assets, and that you are thinking about pursuing additional discovery on this issue.
e. We told you that we are not aware of any assets being moved between the companies and that we will look into this issue, but pointed out that Exhibit 1385 was produced in September 2017, so we would have timeliness concerns with any efforts to pursue this now.
5. Yardi's inconsistent redaction of documents in California v. Utah cases a. Covered above.
6. Yardi's recent document productions, including confirmation of resolution of approximately 350 documents a. You said that Jessica is best positioned to confirm what is still outstanding and the volume of any
forthcoming productions. b. We asked why you are producing documents now that pre-date the first document production, such as
contracts. c. You said that, with respect to contracts going back to 2015, these were produced now because we asked
you to update the production so you went back and did that. Unfortunately, we don't have an
2 2
b. If we receive this, we will review it with our client and get back to you quickly about whether it resolves our objection, notwithstanding Yardi’s failures to comply with the PO. We appreciate you supplying the declaration.
2. Yardi’s yCRM production a. We described two categories of information that we requested be included in this production and that,
so far, we have not been able to identify in the data produced: 1) product usage among Yardi customers (of both Yardi integration products and other companies’ products); and 2) unit counts. We also asked that you review the documents you represented to the Court as reports containing yCRM data to confirm that all responsive yCRM data categories have been produced.
b. You said you would look into the first category. c. You said that you did not produce data on unit counts because you do not believe the data is reliable
and, thus, did not find it responsive to our request. d. We told you that unit counts are something we have repeatedly emphasized in our briefing on this issue
and something that the judge clearly ordered you to produce. We emphasized that you didn’t dispute the responsiveness of unit counts in your own briefing. We notified you that, if we do not receive all outstanding responsive data within 24 hours, we will seek relief from the Court.
e. You indicated that you did not purposefully withhold any categories of data from the yCRM production other than unit counts.
f. We said our review of the production is ongoing and we will let you know if there are other gaps we identify. Based on further review after our call, it appears, for example, that some (perhaps many) of the clients appearing in the Top Companies reports that Yardi argued satisfied Entrata’s yCRM requests are absent in the yCRM data produced last Friday. Assuming this is correct — and again, our review is ongoing — please explain this by COB tomorrow.
g. Regarding the confidentiality designation, we will send you proposed language for an agreement. 3. Entrata's letter regarding Yardi's 30(b)(6) witness
a. You said you are working on a response and your goal is to send it to us this week. 4. Mutual use of Utah discovery in California case
a. We proposed that the parties agree that both sides can use anything produced in the Utah case in the California case. You said that seemed reasonable to you and that you would talk to your client and get back to us.
b. We specifically raised Exhibit 391, which was produced in redacted form in the California case. You said you would look into the reason for redacting it in California. You noted that you didn’t represent Yardi at that time.
c. You specifically raised Exhibit 1385, which was produced in mid-September of last year. We explained that no one had seen that document before and it was not intentionally withheld in the California case. We also disputed your characterization of the document.
d. You said that Exhibit 1385, in conjunction with testimony from John Hanna, raised concerns for Yardi about the relationship between Entrata and Xento and who owns various assets, and that you are thinking about pursuing additional discovery on this issue.
e. We told you that we are not aware of any assets being moved between the companies and that we will look into this issue, but pointed out that Exhibit 1385 was produced in September 2017, so we would have timeliness concerns with any efforts to pursue this now.
5. Yardi’s inconsistent redaction of documents in California v. Utah cases a. Covered above.
6. Yardi’s recent document productions, including confirmation of resolution of approximately 350 documents a. You said that Jessica is best positioned to confirm what is still outstanding and the volume of any
forthcoming productions. b. We asked why you are producing documents now that pre-date the first document production, such as
contracts. c. You said that, with respect to contracts going back to 2015, these were produced now because we asked
you to update the production so you went back and did that. Unfortunately, we don’t have an
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 95 of 181 Page ID #:13162
explanation of why documents going back years weren't timely produced earlier, and we may need to reopen certain Yardi depositions as a result.
7. Parties' confidentiality designations a. You said that you are working on a list of documents you believe we should de-designate or downgrade
and you will get that to us this week with the goal of having a call on this next week. b. We said we will work on a similar list with the goal of getting it to you this week, in addition to the list
we already provided. 8. Fees and reason for cancelled Babcock deposition
a. You said that your decision to cancel the deposition was based on your assessment of the best allocation of resources and a conclusion that it wasn't worth pursuing.
9. Yardi's supplemental discovery responses a. We explained our concerns with your supplemental responses to Rogs 3, 4, and 30. You said you would
get back to us on whether you will supplement those further. b. We asked whether you are standing on your objections regarding any of the RFA responses and you said
that you may have rephrased an answer because of your objections, but that you otherwise weren't answering RFAs based on objections. For example, you confirmed that your RFA answers aren't based on relevance objections. As we explained during the call, this was important to confirm because we want to be sure we correctly understand your answers and don't face surprise later at summary judgment or trial if you were to suddenly claim that you meant something other than what is literally written in your substantive answers to the RFAs. Please let us know if we've misunderstood.
c. We confirmed that we did not see a basis to supplement any of our RFA responses and that, for RFAs that call for expert testimony, we can send supplemental responses when we receive our experts' opinion on those topics. We note here that we believe any motion on these requests would be frivolous not only on the merits but also because it almost certainly wouldn't get resolved much, if at all, before we otherwise would supplement these responses under the current schedule.
d. You said you are still reviewing our supplemental rog responses and will let us know if you have any concerns.
10. Yardi's production of records/logs of calls re January 14, 2015 announcement a. You said Jessica was best positioned to discuss this. We note here that we've been asking about these
for months. If we don't receive a definitive response by COB tomorrow explaining why these haven't been produced and committing to producing them this week, to the extent they haven't been spoliated, we will have to seek relief from the Court.
11. Yardi's production of the Voyager access logs as David requested in Anant's deposition a. You said Jessica was best positioned to discuss this. We need an answer to this by COB tomorrow. It's
already been over a week. 12. Yardi's motion re the January 1, 2015 draft letter
a. We asked you to confirm whether the document you clawed back in Mr. Morrell's deposition was another version of the same draft communication, or whether you contend that they are distinct documents. We explained that we recall them being very similar in language and substance, and both bore Mr. Yardi's signature; and so they appear to be versions of the same draft letter contemplated and revised at Yardi in the November/December 2014 timeframe. You said you will look into this and respond this week.
b. We also asked whether there is an original draft of the letter that does not have edits and, if so, whether it was withheld on the basis of privilege and listed on Yardi's privilege log. You said you would look into this and respond this week, as well.
Thanks, Mary
Original Message From: Manoso, Robert W. Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2018 10:47 AM
3 3
explanation of why documents going back years weren’t timely produced earlier, and we may need to reopen certain Yardi depositions as a result.
7. Parties’ confidentiality designations a. You said that you are working on a list of documents you believe we should de-designate or downgrade
and you will get that to us this week with the goal of having a call on this next week. b. We said we will work on a similar list with the goal of getting it to you this week, in addition to the list
we already provided. 8. Fees and reason for cancelled Babcock deposition
a. You said that your decision to cancel the deposition was based on your assessment of the best allocation of resources and a conclusion that it wasn’t worth pursuing.
9. Yardi’s supplemental discovery responses a. We explained our concerns with your supplemental responses to Rogs 3, 4, and 30. You said you would
get back to us on whether you will supplement those further. b. We asked whether you are standing on your objections regarding any of the RFA responses and you said
that you may have rephrased an answer because of your objections, but that you otherwise weren’t answering RFAs based on objections. For example, you confirmed that your RFA answers aren’t based on relevance objections. As we explained during the call, this was important to confirm because we want to be sure we correctly understand your answers and don’t face surprise later at summary judgment or trial if you were to suddenly claim that you meant something other than what is literally written in your substantive answers to the RFAs. Please let us know if we’ve misunderstood.
c. We confirmed that we did not see a basis to supplement any of our RFA responses and that, for RFAs that call for expert testimony, we can send supplemental responses when we receive our experts’ opinion on those topics. We note here that we believe any motion on these requests would be frivolous not only on the merits but also because it almost certainly wouldn’t get resolved much, if at all, before we otherwise would supplement these responses under the current schedule.
d. You said you are still reviewing our supplemental rog responses and will let us know if you have any concerns.
10. Yardi’s production of records/logs of calls re January 14, 2015 announcement a. You said Jessica was best positioned to discuss this. We note here that we’ve been asking about these
for months. If we don’t receive a definitive response by COB tomorrow explaining why these haven’t been produced and committing to producing them this week, to the extent they haven’t been spoliated, we will have to seek relief from the Court.
11. Yardi’s production of the Voyager access logs as David requested in Anant’s deposition a. You said Jessica was best positioned to discuss this. We need an answer to this by COB tomorrow. It’s
already been over a week. 12. Yardi’s motion re the January 1, 2015 draft letter
a. We asked you to confirm whether the document you clawed back in Mr. Morrell’s deposition was another version of the same draft communication, or whether you contend that they are distinct documents. We explained that we recall them being very similar in language and substance, and both bore Mr. Yardi’s signature; and so they appear to be versions of the same draft letter contemplated and revised at Yardi in the November/December 2014 timeframe. You said you will look into this and respond this week.
b. We also asked whether there is an original draft of the letter that does not have edits and, if so, whether it was withheld on the basis of privilege and listed on Yardi’s privilege log. You said you would look into this and respond this week, as well.
Thanks, Mary
-----Original Message----- From: Manoso, Robert W. Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2018 10:47 AM
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 96 of 181 Page ID #:13163
To: Cross, David D.; Gonzalez, Jason Cc: Foote, John; Kaiser, Mary Subject: RE: M/C
Jason and John,
Here is the list of items to be discussed from our perspective. Thanks.
1. Amended Hoffman Disclosure & Declaration 2. Yardi's yCRM production 3. Entrata's letter regarding Yardi's 30(b)(6) witness 4. Mutual use of Utah discovery in California case 5. Yardi's inconsistent redaction of documents in California v. Utah cases 6. Yardi's recent document productions, including confirmation of resolution of approximately 350 documents 7. Parties' confidentiality designations 8. Fees and reason for cancelled Babcock deposition 9. Yardi's supplemental discovery responses 10. Yardi's production of records/logs of calls re January 14, 2015 announcement 11. Yardi's production of the Voyager access logs as David requested in Anant's deposition 12. Yardi's motion re the January 1, 2015 draft letter
Original Message From: Cross, David D. Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 2:55 PM To: Gonzalez, Jason Cc: Foote, John; Kaiser, Mary; Manoso, Robert W. Subject: Re: M/C
I can do that.
> On May 21, 2018, at 11:48 AM, Gonzalez, Jason <[email protected]> wrote: > > - External Email -> > I'm fairly open this week. How is tomorrow at 10:00 Pacific? Will that work with everyone? > > Original Message > From: Cross, David D. fmailto:[email protected]]> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 11:47 AM > To: Gonzalez, Jason <[email protected]>; Foote, John <[email protected]>> Cc: Kaiser, Mary <[email protected]>; Manoso, Robert W. <[email protected]>> Subject: M/C > > Because the hearing was postponed, I'm boarding a flight home. What's your availability this week to meet and confer on outstanding issues? > > > > This message may be confidential and privileged. Use or disclosure by anyone other than an intended addressee is prohibited. If you received this message in error, please delete it and advise the sender by reply email.
4 4
To: Cross, David D.; Gonzalez, Jason Cc: Foote, John; Kaiser, Mary Subject: RE: M/C
Jason and John,
Here is the list of items to be discussed from our perspective. Thanks.
1. Amended Hoffman Disclosure & Declaration 2. Yardi’s yCRM production 3. Entrata's letter regarding Yardi's 30(b)(6) witness 4. Mutual use of Utah discovery in California case 5. Yardi’s inconsistent redaction of documents in California v. Utah cases 6. Yardi’s recent document productions, including confirmation of resolution of approximately 350 documents 7. Parties’ confidentiality designations 8. Fees and reason for cancelled Babcock deposition 9. Yardi’s supplemental discovery responses 10. Yardi’s production of records/logs of calls re January 14, 2015 announcement 11. Yardi’s production of the Voyager access logs as David requested in Anant’s deposition 12. Yardi’s motion re the January 1, 2015 draft letter
-----Original Message----- From: Cross, David D. Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 2:55 PM To: Gonzalez, Jason Cc: Foote, John; Kaiser, Mary; Manoso, Robert W. Subject: Re: M/C
I can do that.
> On May 21, 2018, at 11:48 AM, Gonzalez, Jason <[email protected]> wrote: > > - External Email - > > I'm fairly open this week. How is tomorrow at 10:00 Pacific? Will that work with everyone? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Cross, David D. [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 11:47 AM > To: Gonzalez, Jason <[email protected]>; Foote, John <[email protected]> > Cc: Kaiser, Mary <[email protected]>; Manoso, Robert W. <[email protected]> > Subject: M/C > > Because the hearing was postponed, I’m boarding a flight home. What’s your availability this week to meet and confer on outstanding issues? > > ============================================================================ > > This message may be confidential and privileged. Use or disclosure by anyone other than an intended addressee is prohibited. If you received this message in error, please delete it and advise the sender by reply email.
============================================================================
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 97 of 181 Page ID #:13164
This message may be confidential and privileged. Use or disclosure by anyone other than an intended addressee is prohibited. If you received this message in error, please delete it and advise the sender by reply email.
5 5
This message may be confidential and privileged. Use or disclosure by anyone other than an intended addressee is prohibited. If you received this message in error, please delete it and advise the sender by reply email.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 98 of 181 Page ID #:13165
EXHIBIT H EXHIBIT H
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 99 of 181 Page ID #:13166
MORRISON 1 FOERSTER
May 24, 2018
VIA EMAIL
Jason Gonzalez Nixon Peabody LLP [email protected]
2000 PENNSYLVANIA AVE., NW
WASHINGTON, D.C.
20006-1888
TELEPHONE: 202.887.1500
FACSIMILE: 202.887.0763
WWW.M0FO.COM
MORRISON FOBRSTBR LLP
BEIJING, BERLIN, BRUSSELS,
DENVER, HONG KONG, LONDON,
LOS ANGELES, NEW YORK,
NORTHERN VIRGINIA, PALO ALTO,
SAN DIEGO, SAN FRANCISCO, SHANGHAI,
SINGAPORE, TOKYO, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Writer's Direct Contact
+1 (202) 887.8795 [email protected]
Re: Entrata, Inc. v. Yardi Systems, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:15-CV-00102-CW-PMW
Dear Jason:
I write in response to your May 17 and 24 emails regarding Entrata, Inc.'s affiliation with DBXento Systems Private Limited ("Xento"). Per our discussion earlier today, we're willing to provide some information informally regarding this issue to resolve your purported concerns. But, as I explained when we spoke, Yardi has had ample opportunity to pursue discovery regarding this issue, and thus we will oppose any effort to reopen discovery at this point, both because your purported concerns are without merit and because the time for any such discovery has passed.
Yardi has had in its possession since September of last year the document you claim underlies your newly-expressed concerns regarding Xento—namely, Exhibit 1385 (ENT_ 00044654), which is an email exchange between Entrata executives in January 2011. You could have conducted discovery on this issue, including on that document specifically, at any time in the last year via document requests, interrogatories, requests for admission, and depositions. In particular, you could have covered this issue, including Exhibit 1385, during your depositions of Entrata's President (Chase Harrington), General Counsel (Jared Hunsaker), Chief Financial Officer (William Robins), Vice President of Integration & Migration (Dharmesh Shroff), and former President (Ben Zimmer), any of whom could have provided information on this subject. You inexplicably elected not to do that and instead to question only Entrata's other former President, John Hanna, about this in the final days of fact discovery. Thus, there is no basis for suddenly pursuing this issue now, after the close of fact discovery, and claiming further discovery is warranted. It is not. Like so many other aspects of discovery in this case, you unreasonably delayed pursuing discovery and squandered the time afforded to the parties, even after receiving a generous six-month extension from the Court.
Writer’s Direct Contact +1 (202) 887.8795 [email protected]
2000 PENNSYLVANIA AVE., NW WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006-1888
TELEPHONE: 202.887.1500 FACSIMILE: 202.887.0763
WWW.MOFO.COM
M O R R I S O N F O E R S T E R L L P
B E I J I N G , B E R L I N , B R U S S E L S , D E N V E R , H O N G K O N G , L O N D O N , L O S A N G E L E S , N E W Y O R K , N O R T H E R N V I R G I N I A , P A L O A L T O , S A N D I E G O , S A N F R A N C I S C O , S H A N G H A I , S I N G A P O R E , T O K Y O , W A S H I N G T O N , D . C .
May 24, 2018
VIA EMAIL
Jason Gonzalez Nixon Peabody LLP [email protected]
Re: Entrata, Inc. v. Yardi Systems, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:15-CV-00102-CW-PMW
Dear Jason:
I write in response to your May 17 and 24 emails regarding Entrata, Inc.’s affiliation with DBXento Systems Private Limited (“Xento”). Per our discussion earlier today, we’re willing to provide some information informally regarding this issue to resolve your purported concerns. But, as I explained when we spoke, Yardi has had ample opportunity to pursue discovery regarding this issue, and thus we will oppose any effort to reopen discovery at this point, both because your purported concerns are without merit and because the time for any such discovery has passed.
Yardi has had in its possession since September of last year the document you claim underlies your newly-expressed concerns regarding Xento—namely, Exhibit 1385 (ENT_00044654), which is an email exchange between Entrata executives in January 2011. You could have conducted discovery on this issue, including on that document specifically, at any time in the last year via document requests, interrogatories, requests for admission, and depositions. In particular, you could have covered this issue, including Exhibit 1385, during your depositions of Entrata’s President (Chase Harrington), General Counsel (Jared Hunsaker), Chief Financial Officer (William Robins), Vice President of Integration & Migration (Dharmesh Shroff), and former President (Ben Zimmer), any of whom could have provided information on this subject. You inexplicably elected not to do that and instead to question only Entrata’s other former President, John Hanna, about this in the final days of fact discovery. Thus, there is no basis for suddenly pursuing this issue now, after the close of fact discovery, and claiming further discovery is warranted. It is not. Like so many other aspects of discovery in this case, you unreasonably delayed pursuing discovery and squandered the time afforded to the parties, even after receiving a generous six-month extension from the Court.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 100 of 181 Page ID #:13167
MORRISON 1 FOERSTER
Jason Gonzalez May 24, 2018 Page Two
Additionally, you mentioned today that you're considering filing a supplemental brief in support of your request to depose Entrata's CEO, Dave Bateman, in light of this issue regarding Xento. As I explained on our call, any such filing would be improper. First, you've had Exhibit 1385 for over eight months. Thus, you had a full and fair opportunity to direct the Court to it when you responded on May 11 to our motion for a protective order regarding Mr. Bateman's deposition. Second, nothing in that document—or in the unrelated deposition testimony from Entrata's former President, John Hanna, that you referenced in your May 24 email and in our May 22 call—supports Yardi's required showing that Mr. Bateman possesses unique knowledge relevant to this case. In fact, the discovery you've cited shows the exact opposite:
• Exhibit 1385 involves an email exchange that includes four other Entrata employees, three of whom you've already deposed—namely, Ben Zimmer, John Hanna, and Darmesh Shroff.
• You acknowledge that you've already obtained information from Entrata's former President, Mr. Hanna, regarding the subject of his testimony that you referenced.
• Nothing in Exhibit 1385 or Mr. Hanna's testimony suggests that Mr. Bateman possesses information that none of the other employees you've deposed could have provided if you'd bothered to examine them on this subject.
Third, you grossly mischaracterized Exhibit 1385 in your May 17 email. Nothing in that email "shows Mr. Bateman actively scheming to hide evidence of Entrata's wrongdoing" or otherwise "supports Yardi's defenses to Entrata's breach of contract and antitrust causes of action in the Utah matter." Any filing with the Court sponsoring such a false interpretation of the email exchange would be improper. Indeed, Mr. Bateman's email does not suggest "hiding" anything. Fourth, as I also mentioned on our call, the contemplated filing you described would violate the Court's November 17, 2017 Order ("Order"). In that Order, the Court cited DUCivR 37-1 and admonished the parties that a supplemental filing regarding short-form discovery motions, like our motion concerning Mr. Bateman's deposition, "is expressly not contemplated or allowed by the court's short form discovery motion rule." The Court's Order further provides in relevant part:
[A]ny future motion practice in this case must adhere strictly to the applicable rules. Counsel for both parties are admonished to read and follow the rules pertaining to short form discovery motions and briefing. Any future briefing filed in violation of any applicable rules will be stricken and not considered by the court.
Jason Gonzalez May 24, 2018 Page Two
Additionally, you mentioned today that you’re considering filing a supplemental brief in support of your request to depose Entrata’s CEO, Dave Bateman, in light of this issue regarding Xento. As I explained on our call, any such filing would be improper. First, you’ve had Exhibit 1385 for over eight months. Thus, you had a full and fair opportunity to direct the Court to it when you responded on May 11 to our motion for a protective order regarding Mr. Bateman’s deposition. Second, nothing in that document—or in the unrelated deposition testimony from Entrata’s former President, John Hanna, that you referenced in your May 24 email and in our May 22 call—supports Yardi’s required showing that Mr. Bateman possesses unique knowledge relevant to this case. In fact, the discovery you’ve cited shows the exact opposite:
• Exhibit 1385 involves an email exchange that includes four other Entrata employees, three of whom you’ve already deposed—namely, Ben Zimmer, John Hanna, and Darmesh Shroff.
• You acknowledge that you’ve already obtained information from Entrata’s former President, Mr. Hanna, regarding the subject of his testimony that you referenced.
• Nothing in Exhibit 1385 or Mr. Hanna’s testimony suggests that Mr. Bateman possesses information that none of the other employees you’ve deposed could have provided if you’d bothered to examine them on this subject.
Third, you grossly mischaracterized Exhibit 1385 in your May 17 email. Nothing in that email “shows Mr. Bateman actively scheming to hide evidence of Entrata’s wrongdoing” or otherwise “supports Yardi’s defenses to Entrata’s breach of contract and antitrust causes of action in the Utah matter.” Any filing with the Court sponsoring such a false interpretation of the email exchange would be improper. Indeed, Mr. Bateman’s email does not suggest “hiding” anything. Fourth, as I also mentioned on our call, the contemplated filing you described would violate the Court’s November 17, 2017 Order (“Order”). In that Order, the Court cited DUCivR 37-1 and admonished the parties that a supplemental filing regarding short-form discovery motions, like our motion concerning Mr. Bateman’s deposition, “is expressly not contemplated or allowed by the court’s short form discovery motion rule.” The Court’s Order further provides in relevant part:
[A]ny future motion practice in this case must adhere strictly to the applicable rules. Counsel for both parties are admonished to read and follow the rules pertaining to short form discovery motions and briefing. Any future briefing filed in violation of any applicable rules will be stricken and not considered by the court.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 101 of 181 Page ID #:13168
MORRISON 1 FOERSTER
Jason Gonzalez May 24, 2018 Page Three
Should you proceed with a supplemental filing as proposed, we will move to strike it, per the Court's Order and the Local Rules, and seek fees and costs associated with the violation of that Order.
All that said, here is the information I can provide, based on my understanding from the client, on this subject in the spirit of cooperation and in an effort to resolve the issue:
Xento is an Indian Company that is an affiliate and sister company of Entrata Inc. (fka Property Solutions International, Inc.), a Delaware Corporation.
This relationship and structure have existed since August 13, 2007, when Xento was formed. This structure and ownership have not changed in any way since the formation of Xento, nor have any intellectual property rights or other intangible assets been transferred from Entrata to Xento since Xento's formation. Regarding Mr. Bateman's January 27, 2011 email at 11:28 am, reflected in Exhibit 1385, we are not aware of any actions taken by Entrata or Xento in response to that email.
Hopefully this puts this issue to rest and the parties can return their focus to the issues that actually matter in this litigation concerning Yardi's anticompetitive campaign to thwart competition from Entrata—which Yardi deemed the "lion over the hill"—and to maintain and expand its longstanding monopoly.
This brings me to a serious concern that we raised with you at Mr. Hanna's deposition and again in our May 22 telephonic meet-and-confer regarding Yardi's deliberate concealment of highly relevant information that directly undermines its case in California. Specifically, Exhibit 391 contains an April 19, 2013 email from Yardi's Executive Vice President, Gordon Morrell, in which he conveyed to both Anant Yardi and Arnold Brier that he knew that Entrata "had a copy of Voyager" because "Marisa at Sentinel said they told her they did." This bears directly on the critical issue in the California case regarding Yardi's knowledge that Entrata possessed a copy of Voyager and contradicts Yardi's position that it was somehow unaware that Entrata did.
Yardi deliberately concealed the critical information in Mr. Morrell's email by redacting it in the copy of this document that Yardi produced in its California case (YAR-0005014). Yardi has been forced to acknowledge that, like thousands of other wrongly-withheld and redacted documents that undermine its litigation positions, this document should not have been redacted. Yardi's production of the unredacted version on March 12, 2018, also was
Jason Gonzalez May 24, 2018 Page Three
Should you proceed with a supplemental filing as proposed, we will move to strike it, per the Court’s Order and the Local Rules, and seek fees and costs associated with the violation of that Order.
All that said, here is the information I can provide, based on my understanding from the client, on this subject in the spirit of cooperation and in an effort to resolve the issue:
Xento is an Indian Company that is an affiliate and sister company of Entrata Inc. (fka Property Solutions International, Inc.), a Delaware Corporation.
This relationship and structure have existed since August 13, 2007, when Xento was formed. This structure and ownership have not changed in any way since the formation of Xento, nor have any intellectual property rights or other intangible assets been transferred from Entrata to Xento since Xento’s formation. Regarding Mr. Bateman’s January 27, 2011 email at 11:28 am, reflected in Exhibit 1385, we are not aware of any actions taken by Entrata or Xento in response to that email.
Hopefully this puts this issue to rest and the parties can return their focus to the issues that actually matter in this litigation concerning Yardi’s anticompetitive campaign to thwart competition from Entrata—which Yardi deemed the “lion over the hill”—and to maintain and expand its longstanding monopoly.
This brings me to a serious concern that we raised with you at Mr. Hanna’s deposition and again in our May 22 telephonic meet-and-confer regarding Yardi’s deliberate concealment of highly relevant information that directly undermines its case in California. Specifically, Exhibit 391 contains an April 19, 2013 email from Yardi’s Executive Vice President, Gordon Morrell, in which he conveyed to both Anant Yardi and Arnold Brier that he knew that Entrata “had a copy of Voyager” because “Marisa at Sentinel said they told her they did.” This bears directly on the critical issue in the California case regarding Yardi’s knowledge that Entrata possessed a copy of Voyager and contradicts Yardi’s position that it was somehow unaware that Entrata did.
Yardi deliberately concealed the critical information in Mr. Morrell’s email by redacting it in the copy of this document that Yardi produced in its California case (YAR-0005014). Yardi has been forced to acknowledge that, like thousands of other wrongly-withheld and redacted documents that undermine its litigation positions, this document should not have been redacted. Yardi’s production of the unredacted version on March 12, 2018, also was
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 102 of 181 Page ID #:13169
MORRISON 1 FOERSTER
Jason Gonzalez May 24, 2018 Page Four
improper given it dates back to April 2013, and therefore was due to be produced under the Court's prior scheduling order no later than September 2017.
To date, despite multiple requests, we've received no explanation or any information at all from you regarding this improper redaction. That Yardi was represented by different counsel when this document was redacted in the California case is no excuse. First, you and your client are responsible for explaining what was done by Yardi and its prior counsel, and at least your client is ultimately responsible for that action. Second, and perhaps more importantly, you and your colleagues at Nixon Peabody perpetuated this concealment by producing the same document in the Utah case with the same redaction and asserting privilege over the same redacted content in your November 22, 2017 privilege log. See Entry 2578 in November 22, 2017 Log and March 12, 2018 Log. Moreover, your description of Mr. Morrell's email in your November 22, 2017 is grossly inaccurate. Not only did Mr. Morrell not seek any legal advice in his email, but he made no mention of Entrata's custom interface—and he certainly did not seek legal advice regarding that interface. No doubt this is why you deleted this description—and thousands of others—in your amended log produced on March 12, 2018, when you finally acknowledged this document—and thousands of others—was in fact not privileged. We look forward to hearing from you soon on this.
Sincerely,
/s/ David D. Cross
David D. Cross
Jason Gonzalez May 24, 2018 Page Four
improper given it dates back to April 2013, and therefore was due to be produced under the Court’s prior scheduling order no later than September 2017.
To date, despite multiple requests, we’ve received no explanation or any information at all from you regarding this improper redaction. That Yardi was represented by different counsel when this document was redacted in the California case is no excuse. First, you and your client are responsible for explaining what was done by Yardi and its prior counsel, and at least your client is ultimately responsible for that action. Second, and perhaps more importantly, you and your colleagues at Nixon Peabody perpetuated this concealment by producing the same document in the Utah case with the same redaction and asserting privilege over the same redacted content in your November 22, 2017 privilege log. See Entry 2578 in November 22, 2017 Log and March 12, 2018 Log. Moreover, your description of Mr. Morrell’s email in your November 22, 2017 is grossly inaccurate. Not only did Mr. Morrell not seek any legal advice in his email, but he made no mention of Entrata’s custom interface—and he certainly did not seek legal advice regarding that interface. No doubt this is why you deleted this description—and thousands of others—in your amended log produced on March 12, 2018, when you finally acknowledged this document—and thousands of others—was in fact not privileged. We look forward to hearing from you soon on this.
Sincerely, /s/ David D. Cross David D. Cross
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 103 of 181 Page ID #:13170
EXHIBIT I EXHIBIT I
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 104 of 181 Page ID #:13171
From: Gonzalez, Jason Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2018 5:16 PM To: 'Cross, David D.' <[email protected]> Cc: Foote, John <[email protected]>; Kaiser, Mary <[email protected]>; Acker, Eric M. <[email protected]>; Manoso, Robert W. <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Entrata v Yardi / Yardi v Entrata
David This responds to your May 24 letter, which responded to my May 17 and May 24 emails concerning Xento. Your letter unfortunately does not allay our concerns. The representations you make do not appear to be supported by any documentation, and do not explain what we learned during Mr. Hanna's May 17 deposition: that Mr. Bateman apparently has been taking the position that Entrata does not own the intellectual property underlying its products and thus has less value than would otherwise appear. Your carefully-worded short paragraph on Xento skirts this issue entirely, sheds little light on the true relationship between the two entities, and does nothing to address the statements of Mr. Hanna - the former Entrata co-president - that contradict your representations about Entrata's relationship to Xento. Your comments regarding Exhibit 1385 are equally troubling, in that you state that you are not aware of any actions taken by Entrata in response to Mr. Bateman's statement in his January 27, 2011 email
This new information goes directly to central issues in this case, including Entrata's financial condition, its ability to satisfy potential judgments, and the credibility of its key executives. In an effort to resolve our concerns without Court intervention, we ask that you immediately produce: 1. Documents showing the corporate relationship between Entrata and Xento, including as to direct and indirect ownership interests, licenses, transfer pricing studies (prepared both by in-house personnel and outside firms), cost sharing agreements for IP development, invoicing for development services, and the like; 2. Communications in which Mr. Bateman and/or Entrata as an entity has made representations regarding Entrata's value to third parties, including but not limited to the 2012 communications Mr. Hanna described in his deposition (in which, according to Mr. Hanna, Mr. Bateman stated words to the effect that Mr. Bateman, not Entrata, owned the intellectual property underlying its products); 3. Applications and other representations to lenders in connection with Entrata obtaining loans or other financing; 4. Tax returns with all schedules, exhibits, footnotes and other attachments, as well any reports filed with the IRS or Treasury relating to foreign financial accounts, for Entrata and Xento (in the US and India, as applicable) for the past five years; 5. All United States Bureau of Economic Analysis forms required to be filed by Entrata, Xento and their shareholders; and 6. Xento's annual filings with the registrar of companies in India for the past 5 years. Thank you --Jason
1 1
From: Gonzalez, Jason Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2018 5:16 PM To: 'Cross, David D.' <[email protected]> Cc: Foote, John <[email protected]>; Kaiser, Mary <[email protected]>; Acker, Eric M. <[email protected]>; Manoso, Robert W. <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Entrata v Yardi / Yardi v Entrata
David - This responds to your May 24 letter, which responded to my May 17 and May 24 emails concerning Xento. Your letter unfortunately does not allay our concerns. The representations you make do not appear to be supported by any documentation, and do not explain what we learned during Mr. Hanna's May 17 deposition: that Mr. Bateman apparently has been taking the position that Entrata does not own the intellectual property underlying its products and thus has less value than would otherwise appear. Your carefully-worded short paragraph on Xento skirts this issue entirely, sheds little light on the true relationship between the two entities, and does nothing to address the statements of Mr. Hanna - the former Entrata co-president - that contradict your representations about Entrata's relationship to Xento. Your comments regarding Exhibit 1385 are equally troubling, in that you state that you are not aware of any actions taken by Entrata in response to Mr. Bateman's statement in his January 27, 2011 email
This new information goes directly to central issues in this case, including Entrata's financial condition, its ability to satisfy potential judgments, and the credibility of its key executives. In an effort to resolve our concerns without Court intervention, we ask that you immediately produce: 1. Documents showing the corporate relationship between Entrata and Xento, including as to direct and indirect ownership interests, licenses, transfer pricing studies (prepared both by in-house personnel and outside firms), cost sharing agreements for IP development, invoicing for development services, and the like; 2. Communications in which Mr. Bateman and/or Entrata as an entity has made representations regarding Entrata's value to third parties, including but not limited to the 2012 communications Mr. Hanna described in his deposition (in which, according to Mr. Hanna, Mr. Bateman stated words to the effect that Mr. Bateman, not Entrata, owned the intellectual property underlying its products); 3. Applications and other representations to lenders in connection with Entrata obtaining loans or other financing;4. Tax returns with all schedules, exhibits, footnotes and other attachments, as well any reports filed with the IRS or Treasury relating to foreign financial accounts, for Entrata and Xento (in the US and India, as applicable) for the past five years; 5. All United States Bureau of Economic Analysis forms required to be filed by Entrata, Xento and their shareholders; and 6. Xento’s annual filings with the registrar of companies in India for the past 5 years. Thank you --Jason
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 105 of 181 Page ID #:13172
From: Cross, David D. [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2018 4:39 PM To: Gonzalez, Jason <[email protected]>Cc: Foote, John <[email protected]>; Kaiser, Mary <[email protected]>; Acker, Eric M. <[email protected]>;Manoso, Robert W. <[email protected]>Subject: Entrata v Yardi / Yardi v Entrata
Jason —
Per our discussion earlier today, please see the attached correspondence.
Best, DC
This message may be confidential and privileged. Use or disclosure by anyone other than an intended addressee is prohibited. If you received this message in error, please delete it and advise the sender by reply email.
2 2
From: Cross, David D. [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2018 4:39 PM To: Gonzalez, Jason <[email protected]> Cc: Foote, John <[email protected]>; Kaiser, Mary <[email protected]>; Acker, Eric M. <[email protected]>; Manoso, Robert W. <[email protected]> Subject: Entrata v Yardi / Yardi v Entrata
Jason –
Per our discussion earlier today, please see the attached correspondence.
Best, DC
============================================================================
This message may be confidential and privileged. Use or disclosure by anyone other than an intended addressee is prohibited. If you received this message in error, please delete it and advise the sender by reply email.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 106 of 181 Page ID #:13173
EXHIBIT J EXHIBIT J
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 107 of 181 Page ID #:13174
David Bateman Highly Confidential Attorneys' Eyes Only
12/4/2014
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
YARDI SYSTEMS, INC., ) Video Deposition of:
) DAVID BATEMAN
Plaintiff, )
) -v- ) Case No.
) 2:13-CV-07764-FMO-CW
PROPERTY SOLUTIONS ) INTERNATIONAL, INC., )
)
Defendant. )
)
) PROPERTY SOLUTIONS ) HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
INTERNATIONAL, INC., )
)
ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Counterclaimant, )
) -v- )
) YARDI SYSTEMS, INC., )
)
Counterdefendant. )
December 4, 2014 * 9:02 a.m.
[email protected] tobyfeldman.com
Location: TechLaw Ventures
3290 West Mayflower Way
Lehi, Utah
Reporter: Diane W. Flanagan, RPR
Videographer: Ryan Reverman, CLVS
Toby Feldman, Inc. NATIONWIDE SERVICES
Certified WOB (800) 246.4950
David Bateman 12/4/2014Highly Confidential Attorneys' Eyes Only
tobyfeldman.com NATIONWIDE SERVICES (800) [email protected] Toby Feldman, Inc. Certified WOB
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
______________________________________________________
YARDI SYSTEMS, INC., ) Video Deposition of:
) DAVID BATEMAN
Plaintiff, )
)
-v- ) Case No.
) 2:13-CV-07764-FMO-CW
PROPERTY SOLUTIONS )
INTERNATIONAL, INC., )
)
Defendant. )
______________________________)
)
PROPERTY SOLUTIONS ) HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
INTERNATIONAL, INC., ) ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
)
Counterclaimant, )
)
-v- )
)
YARDI SYSTEMS, INC., )
)
Counterdefendant. )
______________________________________________________
December 4, 2014 * 9:02 a.m.
Location: TechLaw Ventures
3290 West Mayflower Way
Lehi, Utah
Reporter: Diane W. Flanagan, RPR
Videographer: Ryan Reverman, CLVS
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 108 of 181 Page ID #:13175
David Bateman Highly Confidential Attorneys' Eyes Only
12/4/2014
51
1 software so nobody could possibly even get to the one
2 server where we found it during the -- during the
3 the process of gathering documents in discovery.
4 Q. In May of 2012 the Tweedledum server
5 containing the copy of the Voyager software was taken
6 to Pune. Is that correct?
7 A. The -- yes, the -- the -- the machine that
8 had it -- that we had it on -- the software installed
9 on in the U.S. was taken to India.
10 Q. And you gave the order that that should
11 happen?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And how was just physically how was that
14 Tweedledum server transported to India?
15 A. Yeah. So as -- we're a small company, a
16 startup, like still scraping by, running breakeven,
17 trying to make payroll and out in India we had --
18 servers in India -- any electronics in India is twice
19 as expensive as electronics in the United States And
20 so whenever -- every single time I went to India I
21 brought servers to India with me. And I would get
22 like a suitcase and I would put one, and if I could
23 fit it, two servers, and I would bring them with me so
24 that -- because I'd rather pay half as much for
25 servers in the U.S. and save that money instead of
[email protected] tobyfeldman.com
Toby Feldman, Inc. NATIONWIDE SERVICES
Certified WOB (800) 246.4950
David Bateman 12/4/2014Highly Confidential Attorneys' Eyes Only
tobyfeldman.com NATIONWIDE SERVICES (800) [email protected] Toby Feldman, Inc. Certified WOB
51
1 software so nobody could possibly even get to the one
2 server where we found it during the -- during the --
3 the process of gathering documents in discovery.
4 Q. In May of 2012 the Tweedledum server
5 containing the copy of the Voyager software was taken
6 to Pune. Is that correct?
7 A. The -- yes, the -- the -- the machine that
8 had it -- that we had it on -- the software installed
9 on in the U.S. was taken to India.
10 Q. And you gave the order that that should
11 happen?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And how was -- just physically how was that
14 Tweedledum server transported to India?
15 A. Yeah. So as -- we're a small company, a
16 startup, like still scraping by, running breakeven,
17 trying to make payroll and out in India we had --
18 servers in India -- any electronics in India is twice
19 as expensive as electronics in the United States. And
20 so whenever -- every single time I went to India I
21 brought servers to India with me. And I would get
22 like a suitcase and I would put one, and if I could
23 fit it, two servers, and I would bring them with me so
24 that -- because I'd rather pay half as much for
25 servers in the U.S. and save that money instead of
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 109 of 181 Page ID #:13176
David Bateman Highly Confidential Attorneys' Eyes Only
12/4/2014
52
1 buying servers, expensive servers in India. So that
2 was the -- the method of transport was -- which was
3 what I did every trip, was put it in a piece of
4 luggage and bring it with me with my stuff.
5 MR. ACKER: John, we've been going about an
6 hour. Take a break when you get a chance?
7 MR. MCDERMOTT: Yeah, just let me finish
8 this line.
9 Q. (By MR. MCDERMOTT) So you took the
10 Tweedledum server containing the Voyager software to
11 Pune in May of 2012?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. You personally?
14 A. I -- I'm pretty sure I did. I don't -- I
15 don't remember the specifics of it, but I'm -- I was
16 the one that would bring servers with me when I went
17 so...
18 Q. Before the server was transported to Pune in
19 May of 2012 that server was owned by Property
20 Solutions?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And Property Solutions continued to own the
23 server after you transported it to D.B. Xento?
24 A. I assume -- you know, I'd never even thought
25 of that question. But I don't know if we sold it to
[email protected] tobyfeldman.com
Toby Feldman, Inc. NATIONWIDE SERVICES
Certified WOB (800) 246.4950
David Bateman 12/4/2014Highly Confidential Attorneys' Eyes Only
tobyfeldman.com NATIONWIDE SERVICES (800) [email protected] Toby Feldman, Inc. Certified WOB
52
1 buying servers, expensive servers in India. So that
2 was the -- the method of transport was -- which was
3 what I did every trip, was put it in a piece of
4 luggage and bring it with me with my stuff.
5 MR. ACKER: John, we've been going about an
6 hour. Take a break when you get a chance?
7 MR. MCDERMOTT: Yeah, just let me finish
8 this line.
9 Q. (By MR. MCDERMOTT) So you took the
10 Tweedledum server containing the Voyager software to
11 Pune in May of 2012?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. You personally?
14 A. I -- I'm pretty sure I did. I don't -- I
15 don't remember the specifics of it, but I'm -- I was
16 the one that would bring servers with me when I went
17 so...
18 Q. Before the server was transported to Pune in
19 May of 2012 that server was owned by Property
20 Solutions?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And Property Solutions continued to own the
23 server after you transported it to D.B. Xento?
24 A. I assume -- you know, I'd never even thought
25 of that question. But I don't know if we sold it to
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 110 of 181 Page ID #:13177
David Bateman Highly Confidential Attorneys' Eyes Only
12/4/2014
53
1 Xento or how that -- I'm not involved in those sorts
2 of accounting processes so I can't comment on that.
3 Q. Who did you give the Tweedledum server to in
4 Pune in May of 2012?
5 A. Rahul Nagpure, which is our IT manager out
6 there.
7 Q. And what did you tell him to do with it?
8 MR. ACKER: Assumes facts.
9 You can answer.
10 A. I told him to use the server to -- you know,
11 we had a little server closet out there that we would
12 use for whatever purpose, whether it was storing our
13 code repositories or staging servers or whatever. So
14 I just told him -- every time I'd bring a server I'd
15 say, hey, you know, put this to good use. And we'd
16 usually have some problem over there that, hey, it
17 would be nice to have an extra server for this or
18 that. And so his directive would have been to use the
19 server to -- for whatever he needed it for.
20 Q. When you gave it to him, did you know that
21 the Tweedledum server contained a copy of the Voyager
22 software?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And what did you tell him -- did you tell
25 him it contained a copy of the Voyager software?
[email protected] tobyfeldman.com
Toby Feldman, Inc. NATIONWIDE SERVICES
Certified WOB (800) 246.4950
David Bateman 12/4/2014Highly Confidential Attorneys' Eyes Only
tobyfeldman.com NATIONWIDE SERVICES (800) [email protected] Toby Feldman, Inc. Certified WOB
53
1 Xento or how that -- I'm not involved in those sorts
2 of accounting processes so I can't comment on that.
3 Q. Who did you give the Tweedledum server to in
4 Pune in May of 2012?
5 A. Rahul Nagpure, which is our IT manager out
6 there.
7 Q. And what did you tell him to do with it?
8 MR. ACKER: Assumes facts.
9 You can answer.
10 A. I told him to use the server to -- you know,
11 we had a little server closet out there that we would
12 use for whatever purpose, whether it was storing our
13 code repositories or staging servers or whatever. So
14 I just told him -- every time I'd bring a server I'd
15 say, hey, you know, put this to good use. And we'd
16 usually have some problem over there that, hey, it
17 would be nice to have an extra server for this or
18 that. And so his directive would have been to use the
19 server to -- for whatever he needed it for.
20 Q. When you gave it to him, did you know that
21 the Tweedledum server contained a copy of the Voyager
22 software?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And what did you tell him -- did you tell
25 him it contained a copy of the Voyager software?
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 111 of 181 Page ID #:13178
David Bateman Highly Confidential Attorneys' Eyes Only
12/4/2014
54
1 A. I don't remember.
2 Q. Did you tell him anything about the Voyager
3 software?
4 A. I don't remember.
5 Q. Before you took the Tweedledum server to
6 Pune, did you take any steps to disable or otherwise
7 eliminate the Voyager software from the Tweedledum
8 server?
9 A. Did -- did I personally?
10 Q. Yes.
11 A. I wouldn't have known how to do that. I --
12 I didn't personally take any steps to -- to remove it.
13 What we did is we decommissioned the server. Once
14 Yardi asked us to verify that there was no -- that
15 there were no copies of Voyager around, we
16 decommissioned the server and -- so people weren't
17 accessing it. So but as far as removing it from the
18 server, I -- I didn't take any steps to actually, you
19 know, wipe it or remove it.
20 Q. Was the server decommissioned in the United
21 States?
22 A. It -- it was unplugged, yeah. Well, it
23 was -- we told everybody everyone not to access it,
24 and I don't know if they shut it off or what they did
25 exactly but --
[email protected] tobyfeldman.com
Toby Feldman, Inc. NATIONWIDE SERVICES
Certified WOB (800) 246.4950
David Bateman 12/4/2014Highly Confidential Attorneys' Eyes Only
tobyfeldman.com NATIONWIDE SERVICES (800) [email protected] Toby Feldman, Inc. Certified WOB
54
1 A. I don't remember.
2 Q. Did you tell him anything about the Voyager
3 software?
4 A. I don't remember.
5 Q. Before you took the Tweedledum server to
6 Pune, did you take any steps to disable or otherwise
7 eliminate the Voyager software from the Tweedledum
8 server?
9 A. Did -- did I personally?
10 Q. Yes.
11 A. I wouldn't have known how to do that. I --
12 I didn't personally take any steps to -- to remove it.
13 What we did is we decommissioned the server. Once
14 Yardi asked us to verify that there was no -- that
15 there were no copies of Voyager around, we
16 decommissioned the server and -- so people weren't
17 accessing it. So but as far as removing it from the
18 server, I -- I didn't take any steps to actually, you
19 know, wipe it or remove it.
20 Q. Was the server decommissioned in the United
21 States?
22 A. It -- it was unplugged, yeah. Well, it
23 was -- we told everybody everyone not to access it,
24 and I don't know if they shut it off or what they did
25 exactly but --
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 112 of 181 Page ID #:13179
David Bateman Highly Confidential Attorneys' Eyes Only
12/4/2014
55
1 Q. What about when the Tweedledum was taken to
2 Pune, was it --
3 A. Uh-huh.
4 Q. -- did it remain decommissioned or was it
5 recommissioned?
6 A. I told them, hey, here's a server you can
7 use for whatever you want, have at it. And so I
8 didn't tell them to wipe it or clean it off or
9 anything like that.
10 MR. MCDERMOTT: Should we take five?
11 MR. ACKER: Sure.
12 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off record. The
13 time is 10:11 a.m.
14 (Break taken.)
15 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Returning on the record.
16 The time is 10:24 a.m.
17 Counsel.
18 Q. (By MR. MCDERMOTT) Why didn't you wipe clean
19 the Tweedledum server before you took it to Pune?
20 A. I don't -- I don't remember the reason for
21 not wiping it clean. I don't remember -- I don't
22 remember thinking should we wipe it clean. I just
23 I don't -- I don't know.
24 Q. Between February and May of 2012, did
25 Property Solutions take any action to eliminate copies
[email protected] tobyfeldman.com
Toby Feldman, Inc. NATIONWIDE SERVICES
Certified WOB (800) 246.4950
David Bateman 12/4/2014Highly Confidential Attorneys' Eyes Only
tobyfeldman.com NATIONWIDE SERVICES (800) [email protected] Toby Feldman, Inc. Certified WOB
55
1 Q. What about when the Tweedledum was taken to
2 Pune, was it --
3 A. Uh-huh.
4 Q. -- did it remain decommissioned or was it
5 recommissioned?
6 A. I told them, hey, here's a server you can
7 use for whatever you want, have at it. And so I
8 didn't tell them to wipe it or clean it off or
9 anything like that.
10 MR. MCDERMOTT: Should we take five?
11 MR. ACKER: Sure.
12 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off record. The
13 time is 10:11 a.m.
14 (Break taken.)
15 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Returning on the record.
16 The time is 10:24 a.m.
17 Counsel.
18 Q. (By MR. MCDERMOTT) Why didn't you wipe clean
19 the Tweedledum server before you took it to Pune?
20 A. I don't -- I don't remember the reason for
21 not wiping it clean. I don't remember -- I don't
22 remember thinking should we wipe it clean. I just --
23 I don't -- I don't know.
24 Q. Between February and May of 2012, did
25 Property Solutions take any action to eliminate copies
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 113 of 181 Page ID #:13180
David Bateman Highly Confidential Attorneys' Eyes Only
12/4/2014
56
1 of Voyager on any of its servers?
2 A. I think what we did was we -- we gave
3 direction to all of our employees not to access
4 Voyager or Genesis and made it very clear to
5 everyone -- I think we sent out an internal memo or
6 something that just said, if I remember correctly, you
7 know, that nobody was to access the software.
8 Q. Other than sending out this internal memo,
9 did Property Solutions take any steps such as -- take
10 any steps to remove the Voyager software from Property
11 Solutions' servers?
12 MR. ACKER: So objection. Vague as to time.
13 Q. (By MR. MCDERMOTT) Between February and May
14 of 2012.
15 A. I don't -- I don't recall. Removing access,
16 yes.
17 Q. But not removing the copies themselves.
18 A. I don't recall.
19 Q. What did you do to prepare to testify on
20 the -- what we lawyers call 30 (b) (6) topics today?
21 What did you do to prepare?
22 A. Our attorneys gave me a black binder that
23 contained the questions that I might be asked and also
24 accompanying information that we've already compiled
25 and communicated through the legal process for my --
[email protected] tobyfeldman.com
Toby Feldman, Inc. NATIONWIDE SERVICES
Certified WOB (800) 246.4950
David Bateman 12/4/2014Highly Confidential Attorneys' Eyes Only
tobyfeldman.com NATIONWIDE SERVICES (800) [email protected] Toby Feldman, Inc. Certified WOB
56
1 of Voyager on any of its servers?
2 A. I think what we did was we -- we gave
3 direction to all of our employees not to access
4 Voyager or Genesis and made it very clear to
5 everyone -- I think we sent out an internal memo or
6 something that just said, if I remember correctly, you
7 know, that nobody was to access the software.
8 Q. Other than sending out this internal memo,
9 did Property Solutions take any steps such as -- take
10 any steps to remove the Voyager software from Property
11 Solutions' servers?
12 MR. ACKER: So objection. Vague as to time.
13 Q. (By MR. MCDERMOTT) Between February and May
14 of 2012.
15 A. I don't -- I don't recall. Removing access,
16 yes.
17 Q. But not removing the copies themselves.
18 A. I don't recall.
19 Q. What did you do to prepare to testify on
20 the -- what we lawyers call 30(b)(6) topics today?
21 What did you do to prepare?
22 A. Our attorneys gave me a black binder that
23 contained the questions that I might be asked and also
24 accompanying information that we've already compiled
25 and communicated through the legal process for my --
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 114 of 181 Page ID #:13181
David Bateman Highly Confidential Attorneys' Eyes Only
12/4/2014
177
1 posed to them so long as such questions were related
2 to Property Solutions' custom software integrations
3 with Yardi software." That's not a true statement, is
4 it? In other words, you didn't -- you and Mr. Zimmer
5 did not attempt to honestly and fully answer the
6 questions that Yardi posed to you.
7 A. Again, we felt -- we felt at the time like
8 we were trying to be trapped by Yardi into some, you
9 know -- they were -- they were trying to get us to
10 walk through a legal minefield over and over again,
11 and we took the fastest path cross the minefield to
12 avoid stepping on a landmine. We were -- we were
13 purposefully vague in our responses, and we -- we
14 should have been more forthright in those
15 communications with them in retrospect.
16 We -- certainly some of the statements made
17 were factually inaccurate, but again we -- what we
18 were trying to communicate in that response is, look,
19 we don't want to have Voyager on our servers any more
20 than you do. We're trying to get -- you know, we want
21 to get rid of it, and that was the effort made on our
22 end is to get people to stop using it and get rid of
23 it.
24 Q. On the second page, the first full
25 paragraph, "Property Solutions has asked me to
[email protected] tobyfeldman.com
Toby Feldman, Inc. NATIONWIDE SERVICES
Certified WOB (800) 246.4950
David Bateman 12/4/2014Highly Confidential Attorneys' Eyes Only
tobyfeldman.com NATIONWIDE SERVICES (800) [email protected] Toby Feldman, Inc. Certified WOB
177
1 posed to them so long as such questions were related
2 to Property Solutions' custom software integrations
3 with Yardi software." That's not a true statement, is
4 it? In other words, you didn't -- you and Mr. Zimmer
5 did not attempt to honestly and fully answer the
6 questions that Yardi posed to you.
7 A. Again, we felt -- we felt at the time like
8 we were trying to be trapped by Yardi into some, you
9 know -- they were -- they were trying to get us to
10 walk through a legal minefield over and over again,
11 and we took the fastest path cross the minefield to
12 avoid stepping on a landmine. We were -- we were
13 purposefully vague in our responses, and we -- we
14 should have been more forthright in those
15 communications with them in retrospect.
16 We -- certainly some of the statements made
17 were factually inaccurate, but again we -- what we
18 were trying to communicate in that response is, look,
19 we don't want to have Voyager on our servers any more
20 than you do. We're trying to get -- you know, we want
21 to get rid of it, and that was the effort made on our
22 end is to get people to stop using it and get rid of
23 it.
24 Q. On the second page, the first full
25 paragraph, "Property Solutions has asked me to
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 115 of 181 Page ID #:13182
David Bateman Highly Confidential Attorneys' Eyes Only
12/4/2014
178
1 reiterate that it does not have copies of Yardi
2 Voyager software in its possession and that Property
3 Solutions is not accessing Yardi Voyager software
4 through common clients." It does not have copies of
5 Yardi Voyager software in its possession. Now, this
6 is October 5, 2012.
7 A. Uh-huh.
8 Q. As of October 5, 2012, that was a false
9 statement, wasn't it? And we'll get to the "is not
10 accessing Yardi Voyager software" in a moment. Now
11 I'm focusing on the first part of that sentence.
12 "Property Solutions has asked me to reiterate that it
13 does not have copies of Yardi Voyager software in its
14 possession." As of October 5, 2012, that was a false
15 statement.
16 A. We were not aware that the version in India
17 that was at Xento systems, D.B. Xento Systems, that
18 that software was still there, that it existed, nor
19 were we aware of the -- it wasn't installed, but this
20 file of -- the installer file of Yardi Voyager, that
21 there was a copy, I think, on a developer machine
22 somewhere that was -- nobody knew about, another copy
23 that was on some file server somewhere that nobody
24 knew about. We found those after the lawsuit started.
25 But certainly when we responded to this, we
[email protected] tobyfeldman.com
Toby Feldman, Inc. NATIONWIDE SERVICES
Certified WOB (800) 246.4950
David Bateman 12/4/2014Highly Confidential Attorneys' Eyes Only
tobyfeldman.com NATIONWIDE SERVICES (800) [email protected] Toby Feldman, Inc. Certified WOB
178
1 reiterate that it does not have copies of Yardi
2 Voyager software in its possession and that Property
3 Solutions is not accessing Yardi Voyager software
4 through common clients." It does not have copies of
5 Yardi Voyager software in its possession. Now, this
6 is October 5, 2012.
7 A. Uh-huh.
8 Q. As of October 5, 2012, that was a false
9 statement, wasn't it? And we'll get to the "is not
10 accessing Yardi Voyager software" in a moment. Now
11 I'm focusing on the first part of that sentence.
12 "Property Solutions has asked me to reiterate that it
13 does not have copies of Yardi Voyager software in its
14 possession." As of October 5, 2012, that was a false
15 statement.
16 A. We were not aware that the version in India
17 that was at Xento systems, D.B. Xento Systems, that
18 that software was still there, that it existed, nor
19 were we aware of the -- it wasn't installed, but this
20 file of -- the installer file of Yardi Voyager, that
21 there was a copy, I think, on a developer machine
22 somewhere that was -- nobody knew about, another copy
23 that was on some file server somewhere that nobody
24 knew about. We found those after the lawsuit started.
25 But certainly when we responded to this, we
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 116 of 181 Page ID #:13183
David Bateman Highly Confidential Attorneys' Eyes Only
12/4/2014
179
1 weren't accessing those versions of Yardi software
2 that somehow had clung around on some of our -- our
3 servers and, you know, responded to this in what we
4 thought was a very truthful manner.
5 Q. Your testimony is that this statement
6 "Property Solutions has asked me to reiterate" -- that
7 that's -- that sentence is a truthful -- was a
8 truthful statement as -- as of October 5, 2012?
9 A. No, what I --
10 MR. ACKER: That's vague as to time. Are
11 you asking him did he think it was true on October 5th
12 or does he know whether it was true now?
13 A. Yeah, we did have copies of Voyager in
14 Property Solutions' possession at this time, but I did
15 not know or believe that there were any copies in
16 Property Solutions' possession at this time.
17 Q. Okay. You probably answered my question,
18 but let me ask it again --
19 A. Okay.
20 Q. -- because I'm not sure I understand your
21 answer.
22 Did you authorize Mr. Sjoblom to send
23 Exhibit 119?
24 A. I'm sure we did.
25 Q. Mr. Sjoblom says, Property Solutions has
[email protected] tobyfeldman.com
Toby Feldman, Inc. NATIONWIDE SERVICES
Certified WOB (800) 246.4950
David Bateman 12/4/2014Highly Confidential Attorneys' Eyes Only
tobyfeldman.com NATIONWIDE SERVICES (800) [email protected] Toby Feldman, Inc. Certified WOB
179
1 weren't accessing those versions of Yardi software
2 that somehow had clung around on some of our -- our
3 servers and, you know, responded to this in what we
4 thought was a very truthful manner.
5 Q. Your testimony is that this statement
6 "Property Solutions has asked me to reiterate" -- that
7 that's -- that sentence is a truthful -- was a
8 truthful statement as -- as of October 5, 2012?
9 A. No, what I --
10 MR. ACKER: That's vague as to time. Are
11 you asking him did he think it was true on October 5th
12 or does he know whether it was true now?
13 A. Yeah, we did have copies of Voyager in
14 Property Solutions' possession at this time, but I did
15 not know or believe that there were any copies in
16 Property Solutions' possession at this time.
17 Q. Okay. You probably answered my question,
18 but let me ask it again --
19 A. Okay.
20 Q. -- because I'm not sure I understand your
21 answer.
22 Did you authorize Mr. Sjoblom to send
23 Exhibit 119?
24 A. I'm sure we did.
25 Q. Mr. Sjoblom says, Property Solutions has
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 117 of 181 Page ID #:13184
David Bateman Highly Confidential Attorneys' Eyes Only
12/4/2014
180
1 asked me to reiterate something." Do you see that?
2 A. Sorry. Point out again where it was.
3 Q. Sure? The first complete paragraph on page
4 2.
5 A. Okay.
6 Q. "Property Solutions has asked me to
7 reiterate." Did -- so I'm assuming that Property
8 Solutions asked --
9 A. Uh-huh.
10 Q. -- Mr. Sjoblom to --
11 A. Uh-huh.
12 Q. -- reiterate, one, that it, Property
13 Solutions does not have copies of Yardi Voyager
14 software in its possession.
15 A. Yeah, we didn't believe that we did.
16 Q. Even though you had hand-delivered the
17 Tweedledum server containing a copy of the Voyager
18 software to Pune.
19 A. Yes. I -- I told them to use that server,
20 reuse it, re-purpose it for something else. That
21 didn't end up happening unfortunately. So it was
22 my -- honestly, I did not know that this was still
23 sitting there, and I certainly didn't know about the
24 copies that were in the U.S. either that were
25 uninstalled but just sitting in folders somewhere.
[email protected] tobyfeldman.com
Toby Feldman, Inc. NATIONWIDE SERVICES
Certified WOB (800) 246.4950
David Bateman 12/4/2014Highly Confidential Attorneys' Eyes Only
tobyfeldman.com NATIONWIDE SERVICES (800) [email protected] Toby Feldman, Inc. Certified WOB
180
1 asked me to reiterate something." Do you see that?
2 A. Sorry. Point out again where it was.
3 Q. Sure? The first complete paragraph on page
4 2.
5 A. Okay.
6 Q. "Property Solutions has asked me to
7 reiterate." Did -- so I'm assuming that Property
8 Solutions asked --
9 A. Uh-huh.
10 Q. -- Mr. Sjoblom to --
11 A. Uh-huh.
12 Q. -- reiterate, one, that it, Property
13 Solutions does not have copies of Yardi Voyager
14 software in its possession.
15 A. Yeah, we didn't believe that we did.
16 Q. Even though you had hand-delivered the
17 Tweedledum server containing a copy of the Voyager
18 software to Pune.
19 A. Yes. I -- I told them to use that server,
20 reuse it, re-purpose it for something else. That
21 didn't end up happening unfortunately. So it was
22 my -- honestly, I did not know that this was still
23 sitting there, and I certainly didn't know about the
24 copies that were in the U.S. either that were
25 uninstalled but just sitting in folders somewhere.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 118 of 181 Page ID #:13185
David Bateman Highly Confidential Attorneys' Eyes Only
12/4/2014
181
1 Q. But you knew you hadn't wiped the server.
2 A. We knew we still had that piece of hardware
3 in India.
4 Q. And that piece of hardware contained the
5 Voyager software
6 A. I did not know that that piece of hardware
7 still contained the Voyager software.
8 Q. Did you tell anyone in Pune when you handed
9 them the Tweedledum server to wipe the hard drive
10 clean?
11 A. I did tell them -- I told them to re-purpose
12 the server, reuse it for whatever their heart desired.
13 Q. Did you ask people at Property Solutions
14 about whether they continued to access the Yardi
15 Voyager software through common clients before you
16 told Mr. Sjoblom to make this statement in October of
17 2012?
18 A. I did not. I never thought in a million
19 years because I made it -- I tried so hard to make it
20 so abundantly clear to everyone that they should not
21 be logging into Yardi Voyager that I -- I would have
22 never even thought to ask because I felt like I'd made
23 it abundantly clear.
24 Q. Did Mr. Sjoblom know on October 5, 2012,
25 that in February 2012 Property Solutions had a copy of
[email protected] tobyfeldman.com
Toby Feldman, Inc. NATIONWIDE SERVICES
Certified WOB (800) 246.4950
David Bateman 12/4/2014Highly Confidential Attorneys' Eyes Only
tobyfeldman.com NATIONWIDE SERVICES (800) [email protected] Toby Feldman, Inc. Certified WOB
181
1 Q. But you knew you hadn't wiped the server.
2 A. We knew we still had that piece of hardware
3 in India.
4 Q. And that piece of hardware contained the
5 Voyager software.
6 A. I did not know that that piece of hardware
7 still contained the Voyager software.
8 Q. Did you tell anyone in Pune when you handed
9 them the Tweedledum server to wipe the hard drive
10 clean?
11 A. I did tell them -- I told them to re-purpose
12 the server, reuse it for whatever their heart desired.
13 Q. Did you ask people at Property Solutions
14 about whether they continued to access the Yardi
15 Voyager software through common clients before you
16 told Mr. Sjoblom to make this statement in October of
17 2012?
18 A. I did not. I never thought in a million
19 years because I made it -- I tried so hard to make it
20 so abundantly clear to everyone that they should not
21 be logging into Yardi Voyager that I -- I would have
22 never even thought to ask because I felt like I'd made
23 it abundantly clear.
24 Q. Did Mr. Sjoblom know on October 5, 2012,
25 that in February 2012 Property Solutions had a copy of
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 119 of 181 Page ID #:13186
EXHIBIT K
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 120 of 181 Page ID #:13187
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28PSI’s Responses to Yardi’s RFPS, Set One
Case No. 2:13-cv-07764 sd-637245
MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)[email protected] Morrison & Foerster LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105-2482 Telephone: 415.268.7000 Facsimile: 415.268.7522
ERIC M. ACKER (CA SBN 135805)[email protected] CHRISTIAN G. ANDREU-VON EUW (CA SBN 265360) [email protected] MARY PRENDERGAST (CA SBN 272737) [email protected] Morrison & Foerster LLP 12531 High Bluff Drive San Diego, California 92130-2040 Telephone: 858.720.5100 Facsimile: 858.720.5125
Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaimant PROPERTY SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
PROPERTY SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 2:13-CV-07764-FMO-CW
PROPERTY SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC.’S RESPONSES TO YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE
PROPERTY SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Counterclaimant,
v.
YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.,
Counterdefendant.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Hon. Fernando M. Olguin
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 121 of 181 Page ID #:13188
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 PSI’s Responses to Yardi’s RFPS, Set One Case No. 2:13-cv-07764
sd-637245
PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant PROPERTY SOLUTIONS
INTERNATIONAL, INC.
SET NO.: One
Pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant
Property Solutions International, Inc. (“Property Solutions”) hereby responds and
provides objections to Plaintiff Yardi Systems, Inc.’s (“Yardi”) first set of requests
for production of documents .
Yardi served its first set of interrogatories (Nos.1 to 21) and requests for
production (Nos. 1 to 52) in a March 3, 2014, document entitled Yardi Systems,
Inc.’s Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. This
document responds to Yardi’s requests for production. Property Solutions’
responses to Yardi’s interrogatories are found in a separate document.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Property Solutions’ response to Yardi’s requests for production is based on
an investigation that Property Solutions has undertaken, on information and
documents that Property Solutions has located with reasonable efforts, and on
information and documents known to Property Solutions at this time. Property
Solutions has made a reasonable inquiry into the subject matter of the requests for
production, but the information known or readily available to Property Solutions as
of the date of this response is not complete. Property Solutions’ answers to the
requests are based on the information presently in its possession and the analysis it
has now completed. Property Solutions reserves the right to later supplement or
amend its answers and responses to the requests for production throughout its
investigation pursuant to Rule 26(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Property Solutions also reserves the right to use or rely on subsequently discovered
information not included in these responses at any time, including, without
limitation, in depositions, at trial, and in support of or opposition to any motion.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 122 of 181 Page ID #:13189
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2 PSI’s Responses to Yardi’s RFPS, Set One Case No. 2:13-cv-07764
sd-637245
Property Solutions and Yardi are currently negotiating a stipulated ESI Order
that will define the parties’ search obligations with respect to certain classes of
documents. Property Solutions’ responses are based on a preliminary search of its
documents and Property Solutions reserves the right to supplement or amend these
responses once the parties have agreed on the full scope of their search obligations.
Property Solutions does not waive its right to object to the admissibility into
evidence of any documents or information provided in response to Yardi’s requests
for production. Property Solutions further does not waive the right to raise all
questions of authenticity, relevancy, materiality, and privilege for any purpose with
regard to the documents or information provided in response to Yardi’s requests for
production, which may arise in any subsequent proceeding and/or the trial of this or
any other action. Moreover, the assertion by Property Solutions of various general
and specific objections is not a waiver of other objections that might be applicable
or become so at some future time.
DEFINITIONS “ASSERTED COPYRIGHT WORKS” shall mean the software programs
known as “Yardi Voyager 5.0, Yardi Voyager 6.0, the Yardi Voyager Residential
Plug-In 10” that are referenced in paragraph 44 of Yardi’s first amended complaint.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS The responses and objections set forth in this section apply to each of the
requests for production as if each were set forth in full in response to each request.
The assertion of the same, similar, or additional objections in Property Solutions’
specific objections to individual requests for production, or the failure to assert any
additional objection to a request for production, does not waive any of Property
Solutions’ objections set forth in this section or the following sections.
Property Solutions objects to Yardi’s requests for production as premature.
California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2019.210 requires Yardi to identify its
purported trade secrets with sufficient particularity to allow Property Solutions to
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 123 of 181 Page ID #:13190
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3 PSI’s Responses to Yardi’s RFPS, Set One Case No. 2:13-cv-07764
sd-637245
distinguish the purported trade secrets from the general and specialized knowledge
of those skilled in the art. See Perlan Therapeutics, Inc. v. Superior Court, 178
Cal. App. 4th 1333, 1347 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2009). “Where, as here, every cause
of action is factually dependent on the misappropriation allegation, discovery can
commence only after the allegedly misappropriated trade secrets have been
identified with reasonable particularity, as required by section 2019.210.”
Advanced Modular Sputtering, Inc. v. Superior Court, 132 Cal. App. 4th 826, 834-
35, 33 Cal. Rptr. 3d 901, 907 (2005). The disclosure required by Section 2019.210
is designed to set the bounds of discovery and Yardi therefore is prohibited from
serving any discovery until it provides an adequate disclosure. See Id. Without
such a disclosure, Property Solutions cannot fully understand the scope of many of
Yardi’s requests for production. Property Solutions nevertheless has attempted to
respond to Yardi’s requests for production, but it reserves the right to amend its
responses after Yardi provides an adequate disclosure. Property Solutions objects
to the production of any documents related to claims that are factually dependent on
Yardi’s misappropriation allegations before Yardi complies with Section 2019.210.
Property Solutions products include databases that contain vast amounts of
banking information, personal identifying information, and other confidential
information that corresponds to Property Solutions’ direct or indirect customers.
This data is protected by both state and federal regulations that include but are not
limited to: the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq; California Civil
Code §§ 1785.1-1785.36; 1798.29; 1798.80-1798.84; 1798.81.5; 1798.85 –
1798.86; 1785.11.1 and 1785.11.6; California Financial Code §§ 4050-4060;
California Public Utilities Code §§ 2891-2894.10; the Insurance Information and
Privacy Protection Act – California Insurance Code §§ 791 et seq; the SSAE 16
Standard and Service Organization Reporting Standards, PCI SSC Data Security
standards or the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Property Solutions objects to the
requests for production to the extent they seek discovery of any confidential
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 124 of 181 Page ID #:13191
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4 PSI’s Responses to Yardi’s RFPS, Set One Case No. 2:13-cv-07764
sd-637245
customer or resident information, and will not produce any document or data that
contains nonpublic personal identifying information
Property Solutions objects to the requests for production to the extent that
they purport to impose search obligations that are broader than the obligations the
parties agree to in the stipulated ESI Order.
Property Solutions objects to each definition and request for production to
the extent that it purports to impose any requirement or discovery obligation upon
Property Solutions other than as set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and any applicable Local Rule or Order of this Court.
Property Solutions objects to each definition and request for production to
the extent that it seeks information which is not relevant to the claims and defenses
in this action or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence.
Property Solutions objects to each definition and request for production to
the extent that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the
attorney work product doctrine, or any other applicable restriction upon discovery.
No document will be produced or information provided that is subject to the
attorney-client privilege, the work product immunity or any other applicable
restriction upon discovery, nor shall Property Solutions’ responses to Yardi’s
requests for production in any way be deemed to be a waiver of attorney-client
privilege or work-product protection.
Property Solutions objects to each definition and request for production to
the extent that it purports to require Property Solutions to disclose any proprietary
business information, protected information of third parties, or the content of any
part of any agreement between Property Solutions and a third party which by its
terms may not be disclosed by Property Solutions .
In the interest of expediting production, Property Solutions is making a
prompt and diligent review of documents potentially responsive to Yardi’s requests
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 125 of 181 Page ID #:13192
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5 PSI’s Responses to Yardi’s RFPS, Set One Case No. 2:13-cv-07764
sd-637245
for production, accompanied by what Property Solutions considers to be reasonable
safeguards against the production of privileged, third-party proprietary or
confidential, or otherwise protected or non-responsive documents. If, despite such
efforts, Property Solutions does in fact produce one or more such documents, such
production will have been inadvertent and not intended in any way whatsoever to
waive any legal protection that attaches to such documents. Property Solutions
objects to any reading, copying, summarizing, or other use by Yardi of such
documents, and is producing documents with the understanding that Yardi will
immediately notify Property Solutions of any instance where it knows, or
reasonably suspects, that such an inadvertent production has occurred, and
immediately return such documents to Property Solutions.
Property Solutions objects to each request for production that seeks discovery
of materials outside Property Solutions’ possession, custody, or control.
Property Solutions objects to each request for production that is not limited to
a particular time frame to the extent that such request for production seeks
information which is not relevant to the subject matter of the present action; or to
the extent that such request for production seeks information which is not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Property Solutions has interpreted the requests for production utilizing the
ordinary meanings of words. To the extent that any request for production purports
to seek documents or information other than as so interpreted, Property Solutions
objects on the ground that any such request for production is vague, ambiguous,
and overbroad.
Property Solutions objects to the “Definitions” set forth in Yardi’s requests
for production on the grounds that they are overly broad, unduly burdensome,
and/or call for a legal conclusion. In particular, Property Solutions objects to the
definitions of “Property Solutions” and “you” as overly broad and unduly
burdensome because those definitions include entities and individuals not within
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 126 of 181 Page ID #:13193
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6 PSI’s Responses to Yardi’s RFPS, Set One Case No. 2:13-cv-07764
sd-637245
Property Solutions’ control, and also include within their scope relationships that
pre-date the events in suit.
None of these objections and responses is an admission relative to the
existence of any documents or information, to the relevance or admissibility of any
documents or information, to the relevance or admissibility of any documents
produced, or to the truth or accuracy of any statement or characterization contained
in any request for production.
Property Solutions objects to each request for production to the extent that it
is prematurely propounded. Property Solutions has not yet completed its factual
investigation of this case, has not yet completed discovery, and has not yet
completed preparation for trial. Property Solutions reserves the right to rely on
facts, documents, or other evidence that may develop or come to Property
Solutions’ attention at a later time. Property Solutions’ responses are based on
information presently known to Property Solutions and are set forth without
prejudice to Property Solutions’ right to assert additional objections and/or
supplementary responses should Property Solutions discover additional documents,
information, or grounds for objections. Property Solutions reserves the right to
supplement or amend its responses to Yardi’s requests for production at any time
prior to trial.
Subject to the foregoing General Objections and to the specific objections set
forth below, and without waiving any of them, Property Solutions submits the
following responses to Yardi’s requests for production:
RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:
Produce all DOCUMENTS YOU referenced, referred to, or relied upon in
answering any interrogatories propounded by YARDI.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 127 of 181 Page ID #:13194
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7 PSI’s Responses to Yardi’s RFPS, Set One Case No. 2:13-cv-07764
sd-637245
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:
Property Solutions objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
discovery regarding Yardi’s trade secret claims, and/or claims that are factually
dependent on those claims, before Yardi has complied with Section 2019.210 of the
California Code of Civil Procedure. Property Solutions reserves the right to
supplement and/or modify its response after Yardi complies with Section 2019.210.
Property Solutions objects to this request to the extent that it seeks
information or documents protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege,
the work product privilege, or any other applicable privileges.
Property Solutions objects to this request because it is vague and overbroad.
Subject to the General Objections and specific objections outlined above,
Property Solutions responds that it will produce the documents referenced or
referred to in its interrogatories responses after an appropriate protective order is
entered in this action.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:
Produce all DOCUMENTS disclosed in any party’s initial disclosures
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A) and any supplement or
amendment to those disclosures.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:
Property Solutions objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
discovery regarding Yardi’s trade secret claims, and/or claims that are factually
dependent on those claims, before Yardi has complied with Section 2019.210 of the
California Code of Civil Procedure. Property Solutions reserves the right to
supplement and/or modify its response after Yardi complies with Section 2019.210.
Property Solutions objects to the request for “any party’s” documents
because it is overbroad and unduly burdensome.
Subject to the General Objections and specific objections outlined above,
Property Solutions responds that it will produce the non-privileged documents it
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 128 of 181 Page ID #:13195
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8 PSI’s Responses to Yardi’s RFPS, Set One Case No. 2:13-cv-07764
sd-637245
disclosed in its initial disclosures after an appropriate protective order is entered in
this action.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:
Produce all DOCUMENTS YOU referenced, referred to, or relied upon in
drafting YOUR ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:
Property Solutions objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
discovery regarding Yardi’s trade secret claims, and/or claims that are factually
dependent on those claims, before Yardi has complied with Section 2019.210 of the
California Code of Civil Procedure. Property Solutions reserves the right to
supplement and/or modify its response after Yardi complies with Section 2019.210.
Property Solutions objects to this request to the extent that it seeks
information or documents protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege,
the work product privilege, or any other applicable privileges.
Property Solutions objects to this request because it is vague and overbroad.
Subject to the General Objections and specific objections outlined above,
Property Solutions responds that it will produce the documents referenced or
referred to in its answer after an appropriate protective order is entered in this
action.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:
Produce all communication between YOU and YARDI CONCERNING
YOUR access to, possession of, copying of, or use of YARDI SOFTWARE.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:
Property Solutions objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
discovery regarding Yardi’s trade secret claims, and/or claims that are factually
dependent on those claims, before Yardi has complied with Section 2019.210 of the
California Code of Civil Procedure. Property Solutions reserves the right to
supplement and/or modify its response after Yardi complies with Section 2019.210.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 129 of 181 Page ID #:13196
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9 PSI’s Responses to Yardi’s RFPS, Set One Case No. 2:13-cv-07764
sd-637245
Property Solutions objects to this request because it is vague and overbroad.
Property Solutions objects to the phrase “access to, possession of, copying of,
or use of” because it is vague and overbroad.
Subject to the General Objections and specific objections outlined above and
to its understanding of the vague terms and phrases identified above, Property
Solutions responds that it will produce responsive documents in its possession after
an appropriate protective order is entered in this action.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5:
Produce all communication between YOU and YARDI CONCERNING
YOUR design, development, modification, testing, or validation of ENTRATA or
any other software.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5:
Property Solutions objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
discovery regarding Yardi’s trade secret claims, and/or claims that are factually
dependent on those claims, before Yardi has complied with Section 2019.210 of the
California Code of Civil Procedure. Property Solutions reserves the right to
supplement and/or modify its response after Yardi complies with Section 2019.210.
Property Solutions objects to this request because it is vague and overbroad.
Property Solutions objects to the phrase “any other software” because it is
vague and overbroad and is not reasonably calculated to lead the discovery of
admissible evidence.
Property Solutions objects to the phrase “design, development, modification,
testing, or validation” because it is vague and overbroad.
Property Solutions objects to the definition of “ENTRATA” because it is
vague and overbroad.
Subject to the General Objections and specific objections outlined above and
to its understanding of the vague terms and phrases identified above, Property
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 130 of 181 Page ID #:13197
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10 PSI’s Responses to Yardi’s RFPS, Set One Case No. 2:13-cv-07764
sd-637245
Solutions responds that it will produce responsive documents in its possession, if
any, after an appropriate protective order is entered in this action.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6:
Produce all documents CONCERNING communication between YOU and
any employee or representative of YARDI in India CONCERNING any YARDI
SOFTWARE or any software developed by PROPERTY SOLUTIONS.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6:
Property Solutions objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
discovery regarding Yardi’s trade secret claims, and/or claims that are factually
dependent on those claims, before Yardi has complied with Section 2019.210 of the
California Code of Civil Procedure. Property Solutions reserves the right to
supplement and/or modify its response after Yardi complies with Section 2019.210.
Property Solutions objects to this request to the extent that it seeks
information or documents protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege,
the work product privilege, or any other applicable privileges.
Property Solutions objects to this request because it is vague and overbroad.
Property Solutions objects to the phrase “employee or representative of
YARDI in India” because it is vague and ambiguous.
Subject to the General Objections and specific objections outlined above and
to its understanding of the vague terms and phrases identified above, Property
Solutions responds that, after Yardi serves Property Solutions with a trade secret
disclosure that complies with Section 2019.210 and an appropriate protective order
is entered in this action, it will produce non-privileged documents in its possession,
if any, referring to communications with Yardi about the ASSERTED
COPYRIGHT WORKS or any Yardi Software identified in Yardi’s Section
2019.210 disclosure.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 131 of 181 Page ID #:13198
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11 PSI’s Responses to Yardi’s RFPS, Set One Case No. 2:13-cv-07764
sd-637245
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7:
Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING YOUR access to, possession of
copying of, or use of any YARDI SOFTWARE at any time.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7:
Property Solutions objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
discovery regarding Yardi’s trade secret claims, and/or claims that are factually
dependent on those claims, before Yardi has complied with Section 2019.210 of the
California Code of Civil Procedure. Property Solutions reserves the right to
supplement and/or modify its response after Yardi complies with Section 2019.210.
Property Solutions objects to this request to the extent that it seeks
information or documents protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege,
the work product privilege, or any other applicable privileges.
Property Solutions objects to this request because it is vague and overbroad.
Property Solutions objects to the phrase “access to, possession of copying of,
or use of” because it is vague and overbroad.
Subject to the General Objections and specific objections outlined above and
to its understanding of the vague terms and phrases identified above, Property
Solutions responds that, after Yardi serves Property Solutions with a trade secret
disclosure that complies with Section 2019.210 and an appropriate protective order
is entered in this action, Property Solutions will produce non-privileged documents
in its possession, if any, that refer to its possession of copies of the ASSERTED
COPYRIGHT WORKS; copying of the ASSERTED COPYRIGHT WORKS onto
any Property Solutions computers; or access to, possession of, copying of, or use of
any Yardi Software identified in Yardi’s Section 2019.210 disclosure.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8:
Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING YOUR installation or copying
of the VOYAGER SOFTWARE onto any computer.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 132 of 181 Page ID #:13199
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12 PSI’s Responses to Yardi’s RFPS, Set One Case No. 2:13-cv-07764
sd-637245
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8:
Property Solutions objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
discovery regarding Yardi’s trade secret claims, and/or claims that are factually
dependent on those claims, before Yardi has complied with Section 2019.210 of the
California Code of Civil Procedure. Property Solutions reserves the right to
supplement and/or modify its response after Yardi complies with Section 2019.210.
Property Solutions objects to this request to the extent that it seeks
information or documents protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege,
the work product privilege, or any other applicable privileges.
Property Solutions objects to this request because it is vague and overbroad.
Property Solutions objects to the phrase “installation or copying” because it
is vague and overbroad.
Property Solutions objects to the word “computer” because it is vague and
overbroad.
Subject to the General Objections and specific objections outlined above and
to its understanding of the vague terms and phrases identified above, Property
Solutions responds that, after Yardi serves Property Solutions with a trade secret
disclosure that complies with Section 2019.210 and an appropriate protective order
is entered in this action, Property Solutions will produce non-privileged documents
in its possession, if any, that refer to its installation or copying of the ASSERTED
COPYRIGHT WORKS or any Voyager Software identified in Yardi’s Section
2019.210 disclosure onto any computer.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9:
Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING YOUR possession of a copy of
the VOYAGER SOFTWARE as admitted in paragraph 24 of YOUR ANSWER
AND COUNTERCLAIMS, including but not limited to, all DOCUMENTS
CONCERNING the manner in which YOU obtained such copy, the reasons that
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 133 of 181 Page ID #:13200
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13 PSI’s Responses to Yardi’s RFPS, Set One Case No. 2:13-cv-07764
sd-637245
YOU obtained such copy, the manner in which YOU used such copy, and all other
circumstances surrounding YOUR acquisition of such copy.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9:
Property Solutions objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
discovery regarding Yardi’s trade secret claims, and/or claims that are factually
dependent on those claims, before Yardi has complied with Section 2019.210 of the
California Code of Civil Procedure. Property Solutions reserves the right to
supplement and/or modify its response after Yardi complies with Section 2019.210.
Property Solutions objects to this request to the extent that it seeks
information or documents protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege,
the work product privilege, or any other applicable privileges.
Property Solutions objects to this request because it is vague and overbroad.
Subject to the General Objections and specific objections outlined above,
Property Solutions responds that, after Yardi serves Property Solutions with a trade
secret disclosure that complies with Section 2019.210 and an appropriate protective
order is entered in this action, Property Solutions will produce non-privileged
documents in its possession, if any, that refer to its possession of a copy of the
Voyager Software as admitted in paragraph 24 of its answer.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10:
Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING YOUR accessing of any
computer or computer network belonging to YARDI.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10:
Property Solutions objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
discovery regarding Yardi’s trade secret claims, and/or claims that are factually
dependent on those claims, before Yardi has complied with Section 2019.210 of the
California Code of Civil Procedure. Property Solutions reserves the right to
supplement and/or modify its response after Yardi complies with Section 2019.210.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 134 of 181 Page ID #:13201
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
14 PSI’s Responses to Yardi’s RFPS, Set One Case No. 2:13-cv-07764
sd-637245
Property Solutions objects to this request to the extent that it seeks
information or documents protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege,
the work product privilege, or any other applicable privileges.
Property Solutions objects to this request because it is vague and overbroad.
Property Solutions objects to the phrase “accessing of any computer or
computer network” because it is vague and overbroad.
Property Solutions objects to the phrase “belonging to YARDI” because it is
vague and ambiguous.
Subject to the General Objections and specific objections outlined above,
Property Solutions responds that it is willing to meet and confer with Yardi
regarding the appropriate scope of this request.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11:
Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING the design, development,
modification, testing, or validation of ENTRATA that mention or refer to YARDI,
the VOYAGER SOFTWARE, the GENESIS SOFTWARE, or any element or
feature of any YARDI SOFTWARE.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11:
Property Solutions objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
discovery regarding Yardi’s trade secret claims, and/or claims that are factually
dependent on those claims, before Yardi has complied with Section 2019.210 of the
California Code of Civil Procedure. Property Solutions reserves the right to
supplement and/or modify its response after Yardi complies with Section 2019.210.
Property Solutions objects to this request to the extent that it seeks
information or documents protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege,
the work product privilege, or any other applicable privileges.
Property Solutions objects to this request because it is vague and overbroad
and not reasonably calculated to the lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 135 of 181 Page ID #:13202
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
15 PSI’s Responses to Yardi’s RFPS, Set One Case No. 2:13-cv-07764
sd-637245
Property Solutions objects to the phrase “element or feature of YARDI
SOFTWARE” because it is vague and overbroad.
Property Solutions objects to the phrase “design, development, modification,
testing, or validation” because it is vague and overbroad.
Property Solutions objects to the definition of “ENTRATA” because it is
vague and overbroad.
Property Solutions objects to this request to the extent that it seeks protected
confidential data corresponding to direct or indirect Property Solutions’ customers.
Subject to the General Objections and specific objections outlined above and
to its understanding of the vague terms and phrases identified above, Property
Solutions responds that, after Yardi serves Property Solutions with a trade secret
disclosure that complies with Section 2019.210 and an appropriate protective order
is entered in this action, Property Solutions will produce non-privileged documents
in its possession, if any, referring to the design, development, modification, testing,
or validation of Entrata Core that mention any Yardi Software identified in Yardi’s
Section 2019.210 disclosure.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12:
Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING YOUR incorporation,
emulation, or consideration of any element, feature, or characteristic of the
VOYAGER SOFTWARE during the design, development, modification, testing, or
validation of ENTRATA.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12:
Property Solutions objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
discovery regarding Yardi’s trade secret claims, and/or claims that are factually
dependent on those claims, before Yardi has complied with Section 2019.210 of the
California Code of Civil Procedure. Property Solutions reserves the right to
supplement and/or modify its response after Yardi complies with Section 2019.210.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 136 of 181 Page ID #:13203
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16 PSI’s Responses to Yardi’s RFPS, Set One Case No. 2:13-cv-07764
sd-637245
Property Solutions objects to this request to the extent that it seeks
information or documents protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege,
the work product privilege, or any other applicable privileges.
Property Solutions objects to this request because it is vague and overbroad.
Property Solutions objects to the phrase “incorporation, emulation, or
consideration” because it is vague and overbroad.
Property Solutions objects to the phrase “any element, feature, or
characteristic of VOYAGER SOFTWARE” because it is vague and overbroad.
Property Solutions objects to the phrase “design, development, modification,
testing, or validation” because it is vague and overbroad.
Property Solutions objects to the definition of “ENTRATA” because it is
vague and overbroad.
Subject to the General Objections and specific objections outlined above and
to its understanding of the vague terms and phrases identified above, Property
Solutions responds that, after Yardi serves Property Solutions with a trade secret
disclosure that complies with Section 2019.210 and an appropriate protective order
is entered in this action, Property Solutions will produce non-privileged documents
in its possession, if any, referring to the design, development, modification, testing,
or validation of Entrata Core that mention elements of Voyager Software that are
identified in Yardi’s Section 2019.210 disclosure.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13:
Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING YOUR incorporation,
emulation, or consideration of any element, feature, or characteristic of any other
property management software, including any software designed, developed,
marketed or sold by MRI Software or RealPage, during the design, development,
modification, testing, or validation of ENTRATA.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 137 of 181 Page ID #:13204
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
17 PSI’s Responses to Yardi’s RFPS, Set One Case No. 2:13-cv-07764
sd-637245
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13:
Property Solutions objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
discovery regarding Yardi’s trade secret claims, and/or claims that are factually
dependent on those claims, before Yardi has complied with Section 2019.210 of the
California Code of Civil Procedure. Property Solutions reserves the right to
supplement and/or modify its response after Yardi complies with Section 2019.210.
Property Solutions objects to this request to the extent that it seeks
information or documents protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege,
the work product privilege, or any other applicable privileges.
Property Solutions objects to this request because it is vague and overbroad.
Property Solutions objects to the phrase “other property management
software” because it is vague and overbroad.
Property Solutions objects to the phrase “any element, feature, or
characteristic of any other property management software” because it is vague and
overbroad.
Property Solutions objects to the phrase “incorporation, emulation, or
consideration” because it is vague and overbroad.
Property Solutions objects to the phrase “design, development, modification,
testing, or validation” because it is vague and overbroad.
Property Solutions objects to the phrase “software designed, developed,
marketed or sold by MRI Software or RealPage” because it is vague and overbroad.
Property Solutions objects to the definition of “ENTRATA” because it is
vague and overbroad.
Subject to the General Objections and specific objections outlined above,
Property Solutions responds that Property Solutions is willing to meet and confer
with Yardi regarding the appropriate scope of this request.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 138 of 181 Page ID #:13205
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
18 PSI’s Responses to Yardi’s RFPS, Set One Case No. 2:13-cv-07764
sd-637245
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14:
Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING YOUR statement in paragraph
94 of YOUR ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS that YOU looked at each of
YOUR competitors to determine how their software could be improved upon,
including but not limited to all documents CONCERNING that process.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14:
Property Solutions objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
discovery regarding Yardi’s trade secret claims, and/or claims that are factually
dependent on those claims, before Yardi has complied with Section 2019.210 of the
California Code of Civil Procedure. Property Solutions reserves the right to
supplement and/or modify its response after Yardi complies with Section 2019.210.
Property Solutions objects to this request to the extent that it seeks
information or documents protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege,
the work product privilege, or any other applicable privileges.
Property Solutions objects to this request because it is vague and overbroad.
Subject to the General Objections and specific objections outlined above,
Property Solutions responds that Property Solutions is willing to meet and confer
with Yardi regarding the appropriate scope of this request.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15:
Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING the design, development,
modification, testing, or validation of any program, service, utility, or software of
YOURS that mention or refer to YARDI, the VOYAGER SOFTWARE, the
GENESIS SOFTWARE, or any element or feature of any YARDI SOFTWARE.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15:
Property Solutions objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
discovery regarding Yardi’s trade secret claims, and/or claims that are factually
dependent on those claims, before Yardi has complied with Section 2019.210 of the
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 139 of 181 Page ID #:13206
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
19 PSI’s Responses to Yardi’s RFPS, Set One Case No. 2:13-cv-07764
sd-637245
California Code of Civil Procedure. Property Solutions reserves the right to
supplement and/or modify its response after Yardi complies with Section 2019.210.
Property Solutions objects to this request to the extent that it seeks
information or documents protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege,
the work product privilege, or any other applicable privileges.
Property Solutions objects to this request because it is vague and overbroad.
Property Solutions objects to the phrase “any element or feature of any
YARDI SOFTWARE” because it is vague and overbroad and is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Property Solutions objects to the phrase “design, development, modification,
testing, or validation” because it is vague and overbroad.
Property Solutions objects to this request to the extent that it seeks protected
confidential data corresponding to direct or indirect Property Solutions’ customers.
Subject to the General Objections and specific objections outlined above and
to its understanding of the vague terms and phrases identified above, Property
Solutions responds that, after Yardi serves Property Solutions with a trade secret
disclosure that complies with Section 2019.210 and an appropriate protective order
is entered in this action, Property Solutions will produce non-privileged documents
in its possession, if any, referring to the design, development, modification, testing,
or validation of Entrata Core and other Property Solutions Software that is at issue
in this litigation that refer to elements of Voyager Software that are identified in
Yardi’s Section 2019.210 disclosure.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16:
Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING the value of any YARDI
SOFTWARE, any element or feature of any YARDI SOFTWARE, or any other
information regarding any YARDI SOFTWARE, including but not limited to, any
DOCUMENTS CONCERNING YOUR analysis or evaluation of such value.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 140 of 181 Page ID #:13207
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
20 PSI’s Responses to Yardi’s RFPS, Set One Case No. 2:13-cv-07764
sd-637245
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16:
Property Solutions objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
discovery regarding Yardi’s trade secret claims, and/or claims that are factually
dependent on those claims, before Yardi has complied with Section 2019.210 of the
California Code of Civil Procedure. Property Solutions reserves the right to
supplement and/or modify its response after Yardi complies with Section 2019.210.
Property Solutions objects to this request to the extent that it seeks
information or documents protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege,
the work product privilege, or any other applicable privileges.
Property Solutions objects to this request because it is vague and overbroad.
Property Solutions objects to the phrase “any element or feature of any
YARDI SOFTWARE” because it is vague and overbroad.
Property Solutions objects to the phrase “any other information regarding any
YARDI SOFTWARE” because it is vague and overbroad.
Subject to the General Objections and specific objections outlined above and
to its understanding of the vague terms and phrases identified above, Property
Solutions responds that, after Yardi serves Property Solutions with a trade secret
disclosure that complies with Section 2019.210 and an appropriate protective order
is entered in this action, Property Solutions will produce non-privileged documents
in its possession, if any, analyzing of the value of the ASSERTED COPYRIGHT
WORKS and any Yardi Software identified in Yardi’s Section 2019.210 disclosure.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17:
Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING any communication between
YOU and any customer of YARDI CONCERNING any license agreement, service
agreement, confidentiality agreement, nondisclosure agreement, terms of service, or
other contract or agreement between that customer and YARDI.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 141 of 181 Page ID #:13208
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
21 PSI’s Responses to Yardi’s RFPS, Set One Case No. 2:13-cv-07764
sd-637245
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17:
Property Solutions objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
discovery regarding Yardi’s trade secret claims, and/or claims that are factually
dependent on those claims, before Yardi has complied with Section 2019.210 of the
California Code of Civil Procedure. Property Solutions reserves the right to
supplement and/or modify its response after Yardi complies with Section 2019.210.
Property Solutions objects to this request to the extent that it seeks
information or documents protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege,
the work product privilege, or any other applicable privileges.
Property Solutions objects to this request because it is vague and overbroad.
Property Solutions objects to the phrase “any customer of YARDI” because
it is vague and overbroad.
Property Solutions objects to this request to the extent that it seeks protected
confidential data corresponding to direct or indirect Property Solutions’ customers.
Subject to the General Objections and specific objections outlined above and
to its understanding of the vague terms and phrases identified above, Property
Solutions responds that, after Yardi serves Property Solutions with a trade secret
disclosure that complies with Section 2019.210 and an appropriate protective order
is entered in this action, it will produce non-privileged documents in its possession,
if any, referring to or including communication between Property Solutions and any
known Yardi customers referring to any contract or agreement between the
customer and Yardi.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18:
Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING communications YOU had with
any PERSON CONCERNING any request that the PERSON provide YOU access
to any YARDI SOFTWARE.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 142 of 181 Page ID #:13209
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
22 PSI’s Responses to Yardi’s RFPS, Set One Case No. 2:13-cv-07764
sd-637245
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18:
Property Solutions objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
discovery regarding Yardi’s trade secret claims, and/or claims that are factually
dependent on those claims, before Yardi has complied with Section 2019.210 of the
California Code of Civil Procedure. Property Solutions reserves the right to
supplement and/or modify its response after Yardi complies with Section 2019.210.
Property Solutions objects to this request to the extent that it seeks
information or documents protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege,
the work product privilege, or any other applicable privileges.
Property Solutions objects to this request because it is vague and overbroad.
Property Solutions objects to the phrase “access to any YARDI
SOFTWARE” because it is vague and overbroad.
Property Solutions objects to this request to the extent that it seeks protected
confidential data corresponding to direct or indirect Property Solutions’ customers.
Property Solutions objects to this request to the extent that it purports to
require Property Solutions to disclose proprietary information of third parties
without those parties’ consent.
Subject to the General Objections and specific objections outlined above and
to its understanding of the vague terms and phrases identified above, Property
Solutions responds that, after Yardi serves Property Solutions with a trade secret
disclosure that complies with Section 2019.210 and an appropriate protective order
is entered in this action, Property Solutions will produce non-privileged documents
in its possession, if any, referring to or including requests for access to the
ASSERTED COPYRIGHT WORKS or any Yardi software identified in Yardi’s
Section 2019.210 disclosure.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 143 of 181 Page ID #:13210
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
23 PSI’s Responses to Yardi’s RFPS, Set One Case No. 2:13-cv-07764
sd-637245
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19:
Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING communications YOU had with
any PERSON CONCERNING any request that the PERSON provide YOU a copy
of any YARDI SOFTWARE.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19:
Property Solutions objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
discovery regarding Yardi’s trade secret claims, and/or claims that are factually
dependent on those claims, before Yardi has complied with Section 2019.210 of the
California Code of Civil Procedure. Property Solutions reserves the right to
supplement and/or modify its response after Yardi complies with Section 2019.210.
Property Solutions objects to this request to the extent that it seeks
information or documents protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege,
the work product privilege, or any other applicable privileges.
Property Solutions objects to this request because it is vague and overbroad.
Property Solutions objects to this request to the extent that it seeks
information or documents protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege,
the work product privilege, or any other applicable privileges.
Property Solutions objects to the phrase “a copy of any YARDI
SOFTWARE” because it is vague and overbroad.
Property Solutions objects to this request to the extent that it seeks protected
confidential data corresponding to direct or indirect Property Solutions’ customers.
Property Solutions objects to this request to the extent that it purports to
require Property Solutions to disclose proprietary information of third parties
without those parties’ consent.
Subject to the General Objections and specific objections outlined above and
to its understanding of the vague terms and phrases identified above, Property
Solutions responds that, after Yardi serves Property Solutions with a trade secret
disclosure that complies with Section 2019.210 and an appropriate protective order
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 144 of 181 Page ID #:13211
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
24 PSI’s Responses to Yardi’s RFPS, Set One Case No. 2:13-cv-07764
sd-637245
is entered in this action, Property Solutions will produce non-privileged documents
in its possession, if any, referring to or including requests for a copy of the
ASSERTED COPYRIGHT WORKS or any Yardi software that is identified in
Yardi’s Section 2019.210 disclosure.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20:
Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING communications YOU had with
any PERSON CONCERNING any request for YARDI database tables, logic,
components of any YARDI SOFTWARE, or other information CONCERNING
any YARDI SOFTWARE.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20:
Property Solutions objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
discovery regarding Yardi’s trade secret claims, and/or claims that are factually
dependent on those claims, before Yardi has complied with Section 2019.210 of the
California Code of Civil Procedure. Property Solutions reserves the right to
supplement and/or modify its response after Yardi complies with Section 2019.210.
Property Solutions objects to this request to the extent that it seeks
information or documents protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege,
the work product privilege, or any other applicable privileges.
Property Solutions objects to this request because it is vague and overbroad
and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Property Solutions objects to this request to the extent that it purports to
require Property Solutions to disclose proprietary information of third parties
without those parties’ consent.
Property Solutions objects to the phrase “logic, components of any YARDI
SOFTWARE, or other information CONCERNING any YARDI SOFTWARE”
because it is vague and overbroad.
Property Solutions objects to this request to the extent that it seeks protected
confidential data corresponding to direct or indirect Property Solutions’ customers.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 145 of 181 Page ID #:13212
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
25 PSI’s Responses to Yardi’s RFPS, Set One Case No. 2:13-cv-07764
sd-637245
Subject to the General Objections and specific objections outlined above and
to its understanding of the vague terms and phrases identified above, Property
Solutions responds that, after Yardi serves Property Solutions with a trade secret
disclosure that complies with Section 2019.210, Property Solutions will produce
non-privileged documents in its possession, if any, referring to or including
requests for database tables, logic, or components of any Yardi software identified
in Yardi’s Section 2019.210 disclosure or requests for copies of the ASSERTED
COPYRIGHT WORKS.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21:
Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING YOUR use of or access to any
VOYAGER SOFTWARE test environment.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21:
Property Solutions objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
discovery regarding Yardi’s trade secret claims, and/or claims that are factually
dependent on those claims, before Yardi has complied with Section 2019.210 of the
California Code of Civil Procedure. Property Solutions reserves the right to
supplement and/or modify its response after Yardi complies with Section 2019.210.
Property Solutions objects to this request to the extent that it seeks
information or documents protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege,
the work product privilege, or any other applicable privileges.
Property Solutions objects to this request because it is vague and overbroad.
Property Solutions objects to the phrase “use of or access to” because it is
vague and overbroad.
Property Solutions objects to the phrase “VOYAGER SOFTWARE test
environment” because it is vague and overbroad.
Subject to the General Objections and specific objections outlined above and
to its understanding of the vague terms and phrases identified above, Property
Solutions responds that, after Yardi serves Property Solutions with a trade secret
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 146 of 181 Page ID #:13213
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
26 PSI’s Responses to Yardi’s RFPS, Set One Case No. 2:13-cv-07764
sd-637245
disclosure that complies with Section 2019.210 and an appropriate protective order
is entered in this action, Property Solutions will produce non-privileged documents
in its possession, if any, referring to its access to Voyager test environments.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22:
Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING the comment posted to the
website http://mbrewergroup.com/2012/07/is-entrata-the-product-of-a-trojan-horse/
under the pseudonym of “PSI Disgust” which begins: “This is exactly what PSI
does and continues to do. I should know, I work for the company and watch it
happening on a daily basis. Dave Bateman told us client executives to get our
clients to open their Yardi/ASMI software in front of us so we can see what they’re
doing”, including but not limited to all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING any efforts
by YOU to determine the identity of the PERSON who made the comment.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22:
Property Solutions objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
discovery regarding Yardi’s trade secret claims, and/or claims that are factually
dependent on those claims, before Yardi has complied with Section 2019.210 of the
California Code of Civil Procedure. Property Solutions reserves the right to
supplement and/or modify its response after Yardi complies with Section 2019.210.
Property Solutions objects to this request to the extent that it seeks
information or documents protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege,
the work product privilege, or any other applicable privileges.
Property Solutions objects to this request because it is vague and overbroad.
Subject to the General Objections and specific objections outlined above,
Property Solutions responds that, after Yardi serves Property Solutions with a trade
secret disclosure that complies with Section 2019.210 and an appropriate protective
order is entered in this action, Property Solutions will produce non-privileged
responsive documents in its possession, if any.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 147 of 181 Page ID #:13214
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
27 PSI’s Responses to Yardi’s RFPS, Set One Case No. 2:13-cv-07764
sd-637245
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23:
Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING any actions YOU took in
response to the comment described in Request for Production No. 22, including but
not limited to all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING any investigation into such
comment, any action taken against the individual who made the comment, and any
communication made by YOU or any PERSON in response to such comment.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23:
Property Solutions objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
discovery regarding Yardi’s trade secret claims, and/or claims that are factually
dependent on those claims, before Yardi has complied with Section 2019.210 of the
California Code of Civil Procedure. Property Solutions reserves the right to
supplement and/or modify its response after Yardi complies with Section 2019.210.
Property Solutions objects to this request to the extent that it seeks
information or documents protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege,
the work product privilege, or any other applicable privileges.
Property Solutions objects to this request because it is vague and overbroad.
Subject to the General Objections and specific objections outlined above,
Property Solutions responds that, after Yardi serves Property Solutions with a trade
secret disclosure that complies with Section 2019.210 and an appropriate protective
order is entered in this action, Property Solutions will produce non-privileged
responsive documents in its possession, if any.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24:
Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING the comments posted by Jeremy
Bell and Glenn Thomas in response to the comment referred to in Request for
Production No. 22, including but not limited to any communications with or among
Jeremy Bell or Glenn Thomas CONCERNING the comment referred to in Request
for Production No. 20 or the responses that they posted to that comment.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 148 of 181 Page ID #:13215
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
28 PSI’s Responses to Yardi’s RFPS, Set One Case No. 2:13-cv-07764
sd-637245
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24:
Property Solutions objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
discovery regarding Yardi’s trade secret claims, and/or claims that are factually
dependent on those claims, before Yardi has complied with Section 2019.210 of the
California Code of Civil Procedure. Property Solutions reserves the right to
supplement and/or modify its response after Yardi complies with Section 2019.210.
Property Solutions objects to this request to the extent that it seeks
information or documents protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege,
the work product privilege, or any other applicable privileges.
Property Solutions objects to this request because it is vague and overbroad.
Subject to the General Objections and specific objections outlined above,
Property Solutions responds that, after Yardi serves Property Solutions with a trade
secret disclosure that complies with Section 2019.210 and an appropriate protective
order is entered in this action, Property Solutions will produce non-privileged
responsive documents in its possession, if any.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25:
Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING any agreement or draft
agreements between YOU and YARDI.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25:
Property Solutions objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
discovery regarding Yardi’s trade secret claims, and/or claims that are factually
dependent on those claims, before Yardi has complied with Section 2019.210 of the
California Code of Civil Procedure. Property Solutions reserves the right to
supplement and/or modify its response after Yardi complies with Section 2019.210.
Property Solutions objects to this request to the extent that it seeks
information or documents protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege,
the work product privilege, or any other applicable privileges.
Property Solutions objects to this request because it is vague and overbroad.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 149 of 181 Page ID #:13216
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29 PSI’s Responses to Yardi’s RFPS, Set One Case No. 2:13-cv-07764
sd-637245
Subject to the General Objections and specific objections outlined above,
Property Solutions responds that, after Yardi serves Property Solutions with a trade
secret disclosure that complies with Section 2019.210 and an appropriate protective
order is entered in this action, it will produce non-privileged agreements between
Property Solutions and Yardi in its possession, if any.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26:
Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING any information that YARDI
provided YOU pursuant to any agreement between YOU and YARDI.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26:
Property Solutions objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
discovery regarding Yardi’s trade secret claims, and/or claims that are factually
dependent on those claims, before Yardi has complied with Section 2019.210 of the
California Code of Civil Procedure. Property Solutions reserves the right to
supplement and/or modify its response after Yardi complies with Section 2019.210.
Property Solutions objects to this request to the extent that it seeks
information or documents protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege,
the work product privilege, or any other applicable privileges.
Property Solutions objects to this request because it is vague and overbroad.
Property Solutions objects to the phrase “information that YARDI provided
YOU pursuant to any agreement between YOU and YARDI” because it is vague
and overbroad.
Subject to the General Objections and specific objections outlined above and
to its understanding of the vague terms and phrases identified above, Property
Solutions responds that, after Yardi serves Property Solutions with a trade secret
disclosure that complies with Section 2019.210 and an appropriate protective order
is entered in this action, Property Solutions will produce non-privileged responsive
documents in its possession, if any, referring to or including any information Yardi
provided Property Solutions.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 150 of 181 Page ID #:13217
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
30 PSI’s Responses to Yardi’s RFPS, Set One Case No. 2:13-cv-07764
sd-637245
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27:
Produce DOCUMENTS sufficient to show all customers of YOURS that also
use any YARDI SOFTWARE.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27:
Property Solutions objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
discovery regarding Yardi’s trade secret claims, and/or claims that are factually
dependent on those claims, before Yardi has complied with Section 2019.210 of the
California Code of Civil Procedure. Property Solutions reserves the right to
supplement and/or modify its response after Yardi complies with Section 2019.210.
Property Solutions objects to the phrase “customers of YOURS that also use
any YARDI SOFTWARE” because it is vague and ambiguous.
Property Solutions objects to this request to the extent that it purports to
require Property Solutions to disclose proprietary information of third parties
without those parties’ consent.
Property Solutions objects to this request to the extent that it seeks protected
confidential data corresponding to direct or indirect Property Solutions’ customers.
Subject to the General Objections and specific objections outlined above and
to its understanding of the vague terms and phrases identified above, Property
Solutions responds that, after an appropriate protective order is entered in this
action, it will produce documents sufficient to show all of its customers that it
knows use Yardi Software.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28:
Produce three executable copies of every version of ENTRATA and all
instructions necessary to set up, install, and exercise the executable copies.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28:
Property Solutions objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
discovery regarding Yardi’s trade secret claims, and/or claims that are factually
dependent on those claims, before Yardi has complied with Section 2019.210 of the
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 151 of 181 Page ID #:13218
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
31 PSI’s Responses to Yardi’s RFPS, Set One Case No. 2:13-cv-07764
sd-637245
California Code of Civil Procedure. Property Solutions reserves the right to
supplement and/or modify its response after Yardi complies with Section 2019.210.
Property Solutions objects to the phrase “every version of ENTRATA”
because it is vague and ambiguous.
Property Solutions objects to the definition of “ENTRATA” because it is
vague and overbroad.
Property Solutions objects to this request to the extent that it seeks protected
confidential data corresponding to direct or indirect Property Solutions’ customers.
Subject to the General Objections and specific objections outlined above and
to its understanding of the vague terms and phrases identified above, Property
Solutions responds that, after Yardi serves Property Solutions with a trade secret
disclosure that complies with Section 2019.210 and an appropriate protective order
is entered in this action, it will allow persons authorized by that protective order
access to a computer containing the current version of Entrata Core that does not
contain any customer data and provide sufficient instructions to allow the reviewer
to setup, install, and exercise an executable copy of the current version of Entrata
Core.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29:
Produce all user documentation and user manuals for ENTRATA.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29:
Property Solutions objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
discovery regarding Yardi’s trade secret claims, and/or claims that are factually
dependent on those claims, before Yardi has complied with Section 2019.210 of the
California Code of Civil Procedure. Property Solutions reserves the right to
supplement and/or modify its response after Yardi complies with Section 2019.210.
Property Solutions objects to the phrase “all user documentation” because it
is vague and ambiguous.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 152 of 181 Page ID #:13219
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
32 PSI’s Responses to Yardi’s RFPS, Set One Case No. 2:13-cv-07764
sd-637245
Property Solutions objects to the definition of “ENTRATA” because it is
vague and overbroad.
Subject to the General Objections and specific objections outlined above and
to its understanding of the vague terms and phrases identified above, Property
Solutions responds that, after Yardi serves Property Solutions with a trade secret
disclosure that complies with Section 2019.210 and an appropriate protective order
is entered in this action, it will produce copies of user documentation and user
manuals for Entrata Core.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30:
Produce the SOURCE CODE for every version of ENTRATA.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30:
Property Solutions objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
discovery regarding Yardi’s trade secret claims, and/or claims that are factually
dependent on those claims, before Yardi has complied with Section 2019.210 of the
California Code of Civil Procedure. Property Solutions reserves the right to
supplement and/or modify its response after Yardi complies with Section 2019.210.
Property Solutions objects to the phrase “every version of ENTRATA”
because it is vague and ambiguous.
Property Solutions objects to the definition of “ENTRATA” because it is
vague and overbroad.
Property Solutions objects to the definition of “SOURCE CODE” because it
is overbroad and inapplicable to Property Solutions’ development environment.
Subject to the General Objections and specific objections outlined above and
to its understanding of the vague terms and phrases identified above, Property
Solutions responds that, after Yardi serves Property Solutions with a trade secret
disclosure that complies with Section 2019.210 and an appropriate protective order
is entered in this action, it will allow persons authorized by that protective order
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 153 of 181 Page ID #:13220
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
33 PSI’s Responses to Yardi’s RFPS, Set One Case No. 2:13-cv-07764
sd-637245
access to a computer containing source code for the current version of Entrata Core
and a reasonable number of prior versions of Entrata Core.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31:
Produce the database schema for ENTRATA, including all database tables,
columns, and relationships between tables and columns.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31:
Property Solutions objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
discovery regarding Yardi’s trade secret claims, and/or claims that are factually
dependent on those claims, before Yardi has complied with Section 2019.210 of the
California Code of Civil Procedure. Property Solutions reserves the right to
supplement and/or modify its response after Yardi complies with Section 2019.210.
Property Solutions objects to the definition of “ENTRATA” because it is
vague and overbroad.
Property Solutions objects to this request to the extent that it seeks protected
confidential data corresponding to direct or indirect Property Solutions’ customers.
Subject to the General Objections and specific objections outlined above and
to its understanding of the vague terms and phrases identified above, Property
Solutions responds that, after Yardi serves Property Solutions with a trade secret
disclosure that complies with Section 2019.210 and an appropriate protective order
is entered in this action, it will allow persons authorized by that protective order
access to a computer containing the database schema for Entrata Core.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32:
Produce all developer documentation for ENTRATA, including, but not
limited to, all versions of developer manuals, development plans, design or
functional specifications, workflow plans, requirements documentation, API
documentation, references to source code, sample code, instructional materials,
internal and external release notes, and any other DOCUMENTS prepared or used
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 154 of 181 Page ID #:13221
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
34 PSI’s Responses to Yardi’s RFPS, Set One Case No. 2:13-cv-07764
sd-637245
in connection with the design, development, modification, testing, or validation of
ENTRATA.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32:
Property Solutions objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
discovery regarding Yardi’s trade secret claims, and/or claims that are factually
dependent on those claims, before Yardi has complied with Section 2019.210 of the
California Code of Civil Procedure. Property Solutions reserves the right to
supplement and/or modify its response after Yardi complies with Section 2019.210.
Property Solutions objects to this request because it is vague and overbroad.
Property Solutions objects to the phrase “prepared or used in connection with
the design, development, modification, testing, or validation of” because it is vague
and overbroad.
Property Solutions objects to the phrase “design, development, modification,
testing, or validation” because it is vague and overbroad.
Property Solutions objects to the definition of “ENTRATA” because it is
vague and overbroad.
Property Solutions objects to this request to the extent that it seeks protected
confidential data corresponding to direct or indirect Property Solutions’ customers.
Subject to the General Objections and specific objections outlined above,
Property Solutions responds that Property Solutions is willing to meet and confer
with Yardi regarding the appropriate scope of this request after Yardi serves
Property Solutions with a trade secret disclosure that complies with Section
2019.210.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33:
Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING any communication between
YOU and any third party CONCERNING any features, operations, characteristics,
benefits, or qualities of the VOYAGER SOFTWARE.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 155 of 181 Page ID #:13222
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
35 PSI’s Responses to Yardi’s RFPS, Set One Case No. 2:13-cv-07764
sd-637245
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33:
Property Solutions objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
discovery regarding Yardi’s trade secret claims, and/or claims that are factually
dependent on those claims, before Yardi has complied with Section 2019.210 of the
California Code of Civil Procedure. Property Solutions reserves the right to
supplement and/or modify its response after Yardi complies with Section 2019.210.
Property Solutions objects to this request to the extent that it seeks
information or documents protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege,
the work product privilege, or any other applicable privileges.
Property Solutions objects to this request because it is vague and overbroad.
Property Solutions objects to this request to the extent that it purports to
require Property Solutions to disclose proprietary information of third parties
without those parties’ consent.
Property Solutions objects to the phrase “features, operations, characteristics,
benefits, or qualities of” because it is vague and overbroad.
Subject to the General Objections and specific objections outlined above,
Property Solutions responds that Property Solutions is willing to meet and confer
with Yardi regarding the appropriate scope of this request after Yardi serves
Property Solutions with a trade secret disclosure that complies with Section
2019.210.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34:
Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING any comparison of any features,
operations, characteristics, or benefits of ENTRATA to any features, operations,
characteristics, or benefits of the VOYAGER SOFTWARE.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34:
Property Solutions objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
discovery regarding Yardi’s trade secret claims, and/or claims that are factually
dependent on those claims, before Yardi has complied with Section 2019.210 of the
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 156 of 181 Page ID #:13223
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
36 PSI’s Responses to Yardi’s RFPS, Set One Case No. 2:13-cv-07764
sd-637245
California Code of Civil Procedure. Property Solutions reserves the right to
supplement and/or modify its response after Yardi complies with Section 2019.210.
Property Solutions objects to this request to the extent that it seeks
information or documents protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege,
the work product privilege, or any other applicable privileges.
Property Solutions objects to this request because it is vague and overbroad.
Property Solutions objects to the phrase “features, operations, characteristics,
benefits, or qualities of” because it is vague and overbroad.
Property Solutions objects to the definition of “ENTRATA” because it is
vague and overbroad.
Subject to the General Objections and specific objections outlined above and
to its understanding of the vague terms and phrases identified above, Property
Solutions responds that, after Yardi serves Property Solutions with a trade secret
disclosure that complies with Section 2019.210 and an appropriate protective order
is entered in this action, Property Solutions will produce non-privileged documents
in its possession, if any, that compare features of Entrata Core to features of any
Yardi Software identified in Yardi’s Section 2019.210 disclosure.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35:
Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING any bugs or technological
problems that have been reported or discovered with respect to ENTRATA.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35:
Property Solutions objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
discovery regarding Yardi’s trade secret claims, and/or claims that are factually
dependent on those claims, before Yardi has complied with Section 2019.210 of the
California Code of Civil Procedure. Property Solutions reserves the right to
supplement and/or modify its response after Yardi complies with Section 2019.210.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 157 of 181 Page ID #:13224
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
37 PSI’s Responses to Yardi’s RFPS, Set One Case No. 2:13-cv-07764
sd-637245
Property Solutions objects to this request to the extent that it seeks
information or documents protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege,
the work product privilege, or any other applicable privileges.
Property Solutions objects to this request because it is vague and overbroad.
Property Solutions objects to the phrase “bugs or technological problems that
have been reported or discovered” because it is vague and overbroad.
Property Solutions objects to the definition of “ENTRATA” because it is
vague and overbroad.
Property Solutions objects to this request to the extent that it seeks protected
confidential data corresponding to direct or indirect Property Solutions’ customers.
Subject to the General Objections and specific objections outlined above,
Property Solutions responds that it is willing to meet and confer with Yardi
regarding the appropriate scope of this request after Yardi serves Property Solutions
with a trade secret disclosure that complies with Section 2019.210.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36:
Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING YOUR allegation that YARDI
has provided YOU screen shots, detailed instructions, and database table field
names from the VOYAGER SOFTWARE, as alleged in paragraph 84 of YOUR
ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36:
Property Solutions objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
discovery regarding Yardi’s trade secret claims, and/or claims that are factually
dependent on those claims, before Yardi has complied with Section 2019.210 of the
California Code of Civil Procedure. Property Solutions reserves the right to
supplement and/or modify its response after Yardi complies with Section 2019.210.
Property Solutions objects to this request to the extent that it seeks
information or documents protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege,
the work product privilege, or any other applicable privileges.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 158 of 181 Page ID #:13225
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
38 PSI’s Responses to Yardi’s RFPS, Set One Case No. 2:13-cv-07764
sd-637245
Property Solutions objects to this request because it is vague and overbroad.
Subject to the General Objections and specific objections outlined above and
to its understanding of the vague terms and phrases identified above, Property
Solutions responds that, after Yardi serves Property Solutions with a trade secret
disclosure that complies with Section 2019.210 and an appropriate protective order
is entered in this action, Property Solutions will produce non-privileged documents
in its possession referring to or including its communications with YARDI
regarding screen shots, detailed instructions, or database table field names.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37:
Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING any technical information YOU
contend YARDI provided YOU regarding any YARDI SOFTWARE.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37:
Property Solutions objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
discovery regarding Yardi’s trade secret claims, and/or claims that are factually
dependent on those claims, before Yardi has complied with Section 2019.210 of the
California Code of Civil Procedure. Property Solutions reserves the right to
supplement and/or modify its response after Yardi complies with Section 2019.210.
Property Solutions objects to this request to the extent that it seeks
information or documents protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege,
the work product privilege, or any other applicable privileges.
Property Solutions objects to this request because it is vague and overbroad.
Subject to the General Objections and specific objections outlined above and
to its understanding of the vague terms and phrases identified above, Property
Solutions responds that, after Yardi serves Property Solutions with a trade secret
disclosure that complies with Section 2019.210 and an appropriate protective order
is entered in this action, it will produce non-privileged documents in its possession,
if any, referring to or including technical information Yardi provided to Property
Solutions.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 159 of 181 Page ID #:13226
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
39 PSI’s Responses to Yardi’s RFPS, Set One Case No. 2:13-cv-07764
sd-637245
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38:
Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING YOUR allegation that YOU
were an “approved integration partner” for both self-hosted and Yardi-hosted
clients, as alleged in paragraph 77 of YOUR ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38:
Property Solutions objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
discovery regarding Yardi’s trade secret claims, and/or claims that are factually
dependent on those claims, before Yardi has complied with Section 2019.210 of the
California Code of Civil Procedure. Property Solutions reserves the right to
supplement and/or modify its response after Yardi complies with Section 2019.210.
Property Solutions objects to this request to the extent that it seeks
information or documents protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege,
the work product privilege, or any other applicable privileges.
Property Solutions objects to this request because it is vague and overbroad.
Subject to the General Objections and specific objections outlined above and
to its understanding of the vague terms and phrases identified above, Property
Solutions responds that it will produce non-privileged documents in its possession
related to its understanding that it was an approved integration partner for Yardi
after an appropriate protective order is entered in this action.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39:
Produce DOCUMENTS sufficient to show all Internet Protocol (“IP”)
addresses registered to or used by YOU from 2009 to the present.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39:
Property Solutions objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
discovery regarding Yardi’s trade secret claims, and/or claims that are factually
dependent on those claims, before Yardi has complied with Section 2019.210 of the
California Code of Civil Procedure. Property Solutions reserves the right to
supplement and/or modify its response after Yardi complies with Section 2019.210.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 160 of 181 Page ID #:13227
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
40 PSI’s Responses to Yardi’s RFPS, Set One Case No. 2:13-cv-07764
sd-637245
Property Solutions responds that it will produce documents sufficient to show
all IP addresses registered to Property Solutions between 2009 and the present, to
the extent that Property Solutions keeps records of those addresses, after an
appropriate protective order is entered in this action.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 40:
Produce DOCUMENTS sufficient to show every computer owned or
operated by YOU which has ever had a copy of the VOYAGER SOFTWARE on it.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 40:
Property Solutions objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
discovery regarding Yardi’s trade secret claims, and/or claims that are factually
dependent on those claims, before Yardi has complied with Section 2019.210 of the
California Code of Civil Procedure. Property Solutions reserves the right to
supplement and/or modify its response after Yardi complies with Section 2019.210.
Property Solutions objects to this request because it is overbroad and unduly
burdensome.
Subject to the General Objections and specific objections outlined above,
Property Solutions responds that it has provided responsive non-privileged
information in its response to Interrogatory No. 1.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41:
Produce DOCUMENTS sufficient to show every one of YOUR or YOUR
subsidiaries’ or affiliates’ officers, employees, contractors, agents, or
representatives that has ever had access to any YARDI SOFTWARE.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41:
Property Solutions objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
discovery regarding Yardi’s trade secret claims, and/or claims that are factually
dependent on those claims, before Yardi has complied with Section 2019.210 of the
California Code of Civil Procedure. Property Solutions reserves the right to
supplement and/or modify its response after Yardi complies with Section 2019.210.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 161 of 181 Page ID #:13228
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
41 PSI’s Responses to Yardi’s RFPS, Set One Case No. 2:13-cv-07764
sd-637245
Property Solutions objects to this request because it is vague and overbroad.
Property Solutions objects to the phrase the phrase “had access to” as vague,
ambiguous, and overbroad.
Subject to the General Objections and specific objections outlined above and
to its understanding of the vague terms and phrases identified above, Property
Solutions responds that it will provide responsive non-privileged information in its
response to Interrogatory No. 3 after an appropriate protective order is entered in
this action.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 42:
Produce all contracts between YOU and any affiliate, subsidiary, consultant
or contractor who had any involvement in the design, development, modification,
testing or validation of ENTRATA or any other software purportedly developed by
YOU.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 42:
Property Solutions objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
discovery regarding Yardi’s trade secret claims, and/or claims that are factually
dependent on those claims, before Yardi has complied with Section 2019.210 of the
California Code of Civil Procedure. Property Solutions reserves the right to
supplement and/or modify its response after Yardi complies with Section 2019.210.
Property Solutions objects to this request to the extent that it seeks
information or documents protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege,
the work product privilege, or any other applicable privileges.
Property Solutions objects to this request to the extent that it purports to
require Property Solutions to disclose proprietary information of third parties
without those parties’ consent.
Property Solutions objects to the phrase “any involvement in the design,
development, modification, testing or validation” because it is vague and
overbroad.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 162 of 181 Page ID #:13229
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
42 PSI’s Responses to Yardi’s RFPS, Set One Case No. 2:13-cv-07764
sd-637245
Property Solutions objects to the phrase “any other software” because it is
vague and overbroad.
Property Solutions objects to the definition of “ENTRATA” because it is
vague and overbroad.
Property Solutions objects to the phrase “other software purportedly
developed by YOU” because it is vague and overbroad.
Subject to the General Objections and specific objections outlined above,
Property Solutions responds that it is willing to meet and confer with Yardi
regarding the appropriate scope of this request after Yardi serves Property Solutions
with a trade secret disclosure that complies with Section 2019.210.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 43:
Produce, separately for each year of operation, DOCUMENTS sufficient to
show the distribution, sales, and licensing of ENTRATA, including DOCUMENTS
sufficient to show all revenue and profit YOU derived from the distribution, sale, or
licensing of ENTRATA; the number of units distributed, sold, or licensed; the
dollar amount generated from such distributions, sales, or licenses; the dates during
which ENTRATA was sold, distributed, or licensed; where, by whom, to whom
ENTRATA was sold, distributed, or licensed; and the number of rental units
managed by the copies of ENTRATA distributed, sold, or licensed.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 43:
Property Solutions objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
discovery regarding Yardi’s trade secret claims, and/or claims that are factually
dependent on those claims, before Yardi has complied with Section 2019.210 of the
California Code of Civil Procedure. Property Solutions reserves the right to
supplement and/or modify its response after Yardi complies with Section 2019.210.
Property Solutions objects to this request because it is vague and overbroad.
Property Solutions objects to the definition of “ENTRATA” because it is
vague and overbroad.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 163 of 181 Page ID #:13230
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
43 PSI’s Responses to Yardi’s RFPS, Set One Case No. 2:13-cv-07764
sd-637245
Subject to the General Objections and specific objections outlined above and
to its understanding of the vague terms and phrases identified above, Property
Solutions responds that, after Yardi serves Property Solutions with a trade secret
disclosure that complies with Section 2019.210 and an appropriate protective order
is entered in this action, Property Solutions will produce documents sufficient to
show the sales, revenues, and profits of the Entrata Core product.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 44:
Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING the marketing, sale, licensing, or
distribution of ENTRATA that mention or refer to the VOYAGER SOFTWARE or
any YARDI SOFTWARE.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 44:
Property Solutions objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
discovery regarding Yardi’s trade secret claims, and/or claims that are factually
dependent on those claims, before Yardi has complied with Section 2019.210 of the
California Code of Civil Procedure. Property Solutions reserves the right to
supplement and/or modify its response after Yardi complies with Section 2019.210.
Property Solutions objects to this request to the extent that it seeks
information or documents protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege,
the work product privilege, or any other applicable privileges.
Property Solutions objects to this request because it is vague and overbroad.
Property Solutions objects to this request to the extent that it purports to
require Property Solutions to disclose proprietary information of third parties
without those parties’ consent.
Subject to the General Objections and specific objections outlined above and
to its understanding of the vague terms and phrases identified above, Property
Solutions responds that, after Yardi serves Property Solutions with a trade secret
disclosure that complies with Section 2019.210 and an appropriate protective order
is entered in this action, Property Solutions will produce non-privileged marketing
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 164 of 181 Page ID #:13231
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
44 PSI’s Responses to Yardi’s RFPS, Set One Case No. 2:13-cv-07764
sd-637245
and sales documents for Entrata Core in its possession, if any, that refer to the
ASSERTED COPYRIGHT WORKS or any Yardi Software identified in Yardi’s
Section 2019.210 disclosure.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 45:
Produce all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the “gap analysis” YOU allege
YOU performed in paragraph 88 of YOUR ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 45:
Property Solutions objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
discovery regarding Yardi’s trade secret claims, and/or claims that are factually
dependent on those claims, before Yardi has complied with Section 2019.210 of the
California Code of Civil Procedure. Property Solutions reserves the right to
supplement and/or modify its response after Yardi complies with Section 2019.210.
Property Solutions objects to this request to the extent that it seeks
information or documents protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege,
the work product privilege, or any other applicable privileges.
Property Solutions objects to this request because it is vague and overbroad.
Subject to the General Objections and specific objections outlined above and
to its understanding of the vague terms and phrases identified above, Property
Solutions responds that, after Yardi serves Property Solutions with a trade secret
disclosure that complies with Section 2019.210 and an appropriate protective order
is entered in this action, Property Solutions will produce the gap analysis referred to
in its complaint and non-privileged documents in its possession, if any, that refer to
the gap analysis.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 46:
Produce all deposit materials submitted to the U.S. Copyright Office in
connection with the applications for all copyrights owned by YOU or for which
YOU have applied.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 165 of 181 Page ID #:13232
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
45 PSI’s Responses to Yardi’s RFPS, Set One Case No. 2:13-cv-07764
sd-637245
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 46:
Property Solutions objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
discovery regarding Yardi’s trade secret claims, and/or claims that are factually
dependent on those claims, before Yardi has complied with Section 2019.210 of the
California Code of Civil Procedure. Property Solutions reserves the right to
supplement and/or modify its response after Yardi complies with Section 2019.210.
Subject to the General Objections and specific objections outlined above,
Property Solutions responds that it is willing to meet and confer with Yardi
regarding the appropriate scope of this request.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 47:
Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING any effort to gain intellectual
property rights (including copyrights, trade secrets, and patents) in or to
ENTRATA, including but not limited to all deposit materials submitted in
connection with any application for a copyright in ENTRATA.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 47:
Property Solutions objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
discovery regarding Yardi’s trade secret claims, and/or claims that are factually
dependent on those claims, before Yardi has complied with Section 2019.210 of the
California Code of Civil Procedure. Property Solutions reserves the right to
supplement and/or modify its response after Yardi complies with Section 2019.210.
Property Solutions objects to this request to the extent that it seeks
information or documents protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege,
the work product privilege, or any other applicable privileges.
Property Solutions objects to this request because it is vague and overbroad.
Property Solutions objects to the definition of “ENTRATA” because it is
vague and overbroad.
Property Solutions objects to the phrase “any effort to gain intellectual
property rights” because it is vague and overbroad.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 166 of 181 Page ID #:13233
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
46 PSI’s Responses to Yardi’s RFPS, Set One Case No. 2:13-cv-07764
sd-637245
Subject to the General Objections and specific objections outlined above,
Property Solutions responds that it is willing to meet and confer with Yardi
regarding the appropriate scope of this request.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 48:
Produce all DOCUMENTS discussing, analyzing, or evaluating any of the
intellectual property rights that YARDI has asserted in this lawsuit.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 48:
Property Solutions objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
discovery regarding Yardi’s trade secret claims, and/or claims that are factually
dependent on those claims, before Yardi has complied with Section 2019.210 of the
California Code of Civil Procedure. Property Solutions reserves the right to
supplement and/or modify its response after Yardi complies with Section 2019.210.
Property Solutions objects to this request to the extent that it seeks
information or documents protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege,
the work product privilege, or any other applicable privileges.
Property Solutions objects to this request because it is vague and overbroad.
Property Solutions objects to the phrase “intellectual property rights that
YARDI has asserted in this lawsuit” because it is vague and overbroad.
Subject to the General Objections and specific objections outlined above and
to its understanding of the vague terms and phrases identified above, Property
Solutions responds that, after Yardi serves Property Solutions with a trade secret
disclosure that complies with Section 2019.210 and an appropriate protective order
is entered in this action, Property Solutions will produce non-privileged documents
in its possession, if any, analyzing intellectual property rights associated with the
ASSERTED COPYRIGHT WORKS or any Yardi Software identified in Yardi’s
Section 2019.210 disclosure.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 167 of 181 Page ID #:13234
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
47 PSI’s Responses to Yardi’s RFPS, Set One Case No. 2:13-cv-07764
sd-637245
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 49:
Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING the factual basis for either of
YOUR claims for declaratory judgment not produced pursuant to any other request.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 49:
Property Solutions objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
discovery regarding Yardi’s trade secret claims, and/or claims that are factually
dependent on those claims, before Yardi has complied with Section 2019.210 of the
California Code of Civil Procedure. Property Solutions reserves the right to
supplement and/or modify its response after Yardi complies with Section 2019.210.
Property Solutions objects to this request to the extent that it seeks
information or documents protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege,
the work product privilege, or any other applicable privileges.
Property Solutions objects to this request because it is vague and overbroad.
Subject to the General Objections and specific objections outlined above,
Property Solutions responds that, after Yardi serves Property Solutions with a trade
secret disclosure that complies with Section 2019.210 and an appropriate protective
order is entered in this action, Property Solutions will produce non-privileged
documents that it may use to support its declaratory judgment claims that are not
produced pursuant to any other request, if any.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 50:
Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING any of the affirmative defenses
set forth in YOUR ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS not produced pursuant to
any other request.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 50:
Property Solutions objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
discovery regarding Yardi’s trade secret claims, and/or claims that are factually
dependent on those claims, before Yardi has complied with Section 2019.210 of the
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 168 of 181 Page ID #:13235
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
48 PSI’s Responses to Yardi’s RFPS, Set One Case No. 2:13-cv-07764
sd-637245
California Code of Civil Procedure. Property Solutions reserves the right to
supplement and/or modify its response after Yardi complies with Section 2019.210.
Property Solutions objects to this request to the extent that it seeks
information or documents protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege,
the work product privilege, or any other applicable privileges.
Property Solutions objects to this request because it is vague and overbroad.
Subject to the General Objections and specific objections outlined above,
Property Solutions responds that, after Yardi serves Property Solutions with a trade
secret disclosure that complies with Section 2019.210 and an appropriate protective
order is entered in this action, Property Solutions will produce non-privileged
documents that it may use to support its affirmative defenses that are not produced
pursuant to any other request, if any.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 51:
Produce all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING any of the allegations in YOUR
ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS not produced pursuant to any other request.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 51:
Property Solutions objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
discovery regarding Yardi’s trade secret claims, and/or claims that are factually
dependent on those claims, before Yardi has complied with Section 2019.210 of the
California Code of Civil Procedure. Property Solutions reserves the right to
supplement and/or modify its response after Yardi complies with Section 2019.210.
Property Solutions objects to this request to the extent that it seeks
information or documents protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege,
the work product privilege, or any other applicable privileges.
Property Solutions objects to this request because it is vague and overbroad.
Subject to the General Objections and specific objections outlined above,
Property Solutions responds that, after Yardi serves Property Solutions with a trade
secret disclosure that complies with Section 2019.210 and an appropriate protective
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 169 of 181 Page ID #:13236
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
49 PSI’s Responses to Yardi’s RFPS, Set One Case No. 2:13-cv-07764
sd-637245
order is entered in this action, Property Solutions will produce non-privileged
documents that it may use to support its allegations that are not produced pursuant
to any other request, if any.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 52:
Produce DOCUMENTS sufficient to show YOUR policies and/or procedures
regarding the retention of DOCUMENTS and/or other records.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 52:
Property Solutions objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
discovery regarding Yardi’s trade secret claims, and/or claims that are factually
dependent on those claims, before Yardi has complied with Section 2019.210 of the
California Code of Civil Procedure. Property Solutions reserves the right to
supplement and/or modify its response after Yardi complies with Section 2019.210.
Subject to the General Objections and specific objections outlined above,
Property Solutions responds that it will produce non-privileged responsive
documents in its possession, if any.
Dated: May 7, 2014 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
By: Christian G. Andreu-von Euw
Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaimant PROPERTY SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
RRISON & FFFFFFFFFFOOOOOOOERS
CCCCCCCCCChhhhhhhhrisssssstttttiiiiiiiaaaaaaaannnnnnnnn GGGGGGGG. Andreu
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 170 of 181 Page ID #:13237
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 Certificate of ServiceCase No. 2:13-cv-07764 FMO (CWx)
sd-637245
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I declare that I am employed with the law firm of Morrison & Foerster LLP,whose address is 12531 High Bluff Drive, San Diego, California, 92130-2040. I am not a party to the within cause, and I am over the age of eighteen years.
I further declare that on May 7, 2014, I served a copy of:
PROPERTY SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC.’S RESPONSES TO YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE
BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE [Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. rule 5(b)] byelectronically mailing a true and correct copy through Morrison & Foerster LLP's electronic mail system to the e-mail address(es) set forth below, or as stated on the attached service list per agreement in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure rule 5(b).
Laura E. Bielinski Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP 1020 State Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Phone: 805.963.7000 Email: [email protected]
X E-mail
John V. McDermott Karl L. Schock Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP 410 Seventeenth Street, Suite 2200 Denver, CO 80202-4432 Phone: 303.223.1100 Email: [email protected]
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
X E-mail
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed at San Diego, California, this 7th day of May, 2014.
Christian G. Andreu-von Euw Christian G. Andreu-von Euw (signature)(((((((((ssssssssiiiiiiiigggggggnature)
ay of May,,,,, 222222014.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 171 of 181 Page ID #:13238
EXHIBIT L
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 172 of 181 Page ID #:13239
sd-646375
Writer’s Direct Contact
858.720.7973 [email protected]
12531 HIGH BLUFF DRIVE SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92130-2040
TELEPHONE: 858.720.5100 FACSIMILE: 858.720.5125
WWW.MOFO.COM
M O R R I S O N & F O E R S T E R L L P
N E W Y O R K , S A N F R A N C I S C O , L O S A N G E L E S , P A L O A L T O , S A C R A M E N T O , S A N D I E G O , D E N V E R , N O R T H E R N V I R G I N I A , W A S H I N G T O N , D . C .
T O K Y O , L O N D O N , B R U S S E L S , B E I J I N G , S H A N G H A I , H O N G K O N G
August 1, 2014
Via E-mail
Karl L. Schock Michael Hoke Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP 410 Seventeenth Street, Suite 2200 Denver, CO 80202 303.223.1125 [email protected]
Re: Yardi v. Property Solutions - Case No. 13-CV-7664 – Meet and Confer Summary
Dear Karl and Michael:
Thank you for the productive meet and confer yesterday. Below is a summary of our call, and we have noted any issues that remain outstanding for one or more of the parties. Please confirm this reflects your understanding as well.
A. Yardi’s Document Production
Yardi confirmed that it is planning to produce more documents, including more documents from the custodians from whom documents already have been produced. For example, we noted that only 22 documents have so far been produced from Anant Yardi, when we expect that he would have far more responsive documents. We asked whether Yardi intends to produce documents from an earlier time period, as the documents produced generally appear to be from 2010 onwards, when the parties’ pleadings include factual allegations (and both sides have produced relevant documents) going back as far as 2004. By way of example, we noted that James Beane was identified by Yardi in its initial disclosures as a person with information on PSI’s allegation that Yardi assisted PSI with its integration in the 2007 timeframe, yet the earliest document produced from James Beane was from late 2010.
You stated you would follow up on earlier documents for these and the other custodians and confirm the date ranges you used for your search. We stated that, if a custodian does not have documents from a particular time period, we would need to know the details. We also reiterated our request for Yardi’s document retention policies so we can better understand if and why Yardi is deleting or failing to preserve certain information.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 173 of 181 Page ID #:13240
Karl Shock August 1, 2014 Page Two
sd-646375
You also mentioned that you used January 2006 as a start date for your collection. We explained that documents going back to the initiation of the parties’ relationship in 2004 are relevant to this dispute, particularly given the fact that the there is no question that anything provided by Yardi prior to 2006 could not be subject to the 2006 NDA upon which Yardi bases its breach of contract claim. You indicated you would discuss with your client searching for documents between 2004 and 2006 and would get back to us.
We asked whether Yardi is imaging each custodian’s computer and e-mail account in its entirety and then searching for documents responsive to Property Solutions’ RFPs. You confirmed that Yardi is in fact imaging the entire computer and e-mail account of each custodian and then searching that entire image for responsive documents. If that is not the case, we ask that you inform us immediately. You also confirmed that Yardi is searching any central severs for responsive documents. Both parties confirmed that they intend to comply with the requirements of the ESI order.
B. Yardi’s RFP Responses
RFPs Nos. 1-3
We pointed out that Yardi agreed in its RFP responses to produce documents in response to these three RFPs for an appropriate timeframe and list of custodians. Now that a list of custodians has been provided (subject to PSI’s reservation of rights to add additional custodians up to the limits imposed by the ESI order), and we discussed an appropriate timeframe (although the issue of 2004 v. 2006 as starting date remains outstanding), Yardi agreed to produce documents responsive to these RFPs.
Third Party Integrations
We clarified that PSI is primarily seeking documents that demonstrate Yardi’s sharing of technical information or credentials with third parties, so that we can determine whether Yardi does so without reasonable measures to protect its trade secrets in place. This would include all communications with third parties in which Yardi provides any technical information related to Yardi’s disclosed trade secrets, or in which Yardi provides credentials to third parties for accessing any element of those trade secrets. You indicated you would reconsider your objections in light of this narrowing.
Yardi Hosting Services
We indicated we would be willing to limit our requests to documents relating to Yardi’s hosting of PSI’s software. We explained that such documents are relevant to determining what, if any, knowledge Yardi gained about PSI’s software from its hosting of that software. For example, documents about Yardi’s hosting that evidence Yardi’s awareness of any
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 174 of 181 Page ID #:13241
Karl Shock August 1, 2014 Page Three
sd-646375
database access by PSI’s software are relevant to PSI’s defenses of estoppel, waiver, consent, and inadequate measures to protect trade secrets. You indicated you would reconsider your objections in light of this narrowing.
Agreements
Yardi confirmed that all standard form contracts have been produced. Yardi reserved the right to produce additional contracts it alleges to have been breached by mutual customers should discovery reveal the need.
Sales and Revenue for Voyager
You confirmed that you are working on getting revenue information for Voyager. We explained that the additional pieces of information requested in our July 21 letter are drawn from industry practices and the standard licensing terms Yardi has produced, and are necessary for us to understand that revenue information in context. You stated that you are currently determining whether such information is available but will produce it if so. We offered to confer further if one or more pieces of that information are unavailable or unduly difficult to determine.
We did not discuss PSI’s request that Yardi produce revenue information going back to 2006, rather than back to 2010. For clarity, PSI’s position is that PSI is entitled to revenue information for Voyager as well as any revenue Yardi earned related to PSI’s integrations for the entire period in which such integrations were active. First, this period is relevant to any damages Yardi intends to claim it suffered as a result of PSI’s integrations. Second, Yardi’s revenue beginning in early 2006, just before PSI successfully integrated with Voyager, is relevant to determining any trend in sales that Voyager may have experienced as a result of PSI’s integrations. (See PSI’s Counterclaims, D.I. 45 ¶ 108-109, 111.) Finally, Yardi has admitted that at least as early as 2008, Yardi charged customers to host third-party custom interfaces on Yardi’s servers. (Yardi’s Answer to Counterclaims, D.I. 46 ¶ 108.) If Yardi is aware of any revenue gleaned from such hosting or other services related to PSI’s integrations from before 2008, PSI is entitled to that information as well. Please let us know if Yardi will not agree to produce revenue information beginning January 1, 2006.
Organizational Charts
We narrowed PSI’s request to organizational charts from 2006 to the present, and you indicated you thought that would be acceptable. Please confirm.
Revenue Forecasts
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 175 of 181 Page ID #:13242
Karl Shock August 1, 2014 Page Four
sd-646375
You indicated you were looking into whether revenue forecasts are available and indicated you would discuss with your client. The parties agreed that, although their positions on the relative importance of forecasts would differ, such forecasts would be relevant to any damages theory in which Yardi sought lost profits for sales it could have made had PSI not entered the marketplace.
Information about Marketing and Functionality
You stated that you intend to produce marketing documentation for Voyager. In an effort to narrow PSI’s requests, we stated that what PSI seeks here is any marketing material that discloses any information related to Yardi’s trade secrets, the screenshots evidencing those trade secrets, and any separate element relevant to your copyright claims. You stated that you would consider this narrowed request.
User Documentation
You indicated that Yardi is collecting and will produce user documentation for Voyager, and stated that we would receive a response from you soon on whether you intend to produce user documentation for Genesis. We reiterated PSI’s position that the Genesis documentation is important since Yardi provided a copy of Genesis to PSI, and PSI needs to be able to compare Genesis and Voyager to determine how that disclosure is relevant to its claims and defenses.
Developer Documentation
You indicated that Yardi is collecting and will produce developer documentation directed to external developers for Voyager. You also stated that you did not initially understand these requests to encompass training materials and other such documents directed at third party integrators, but confirmed that you would be collecting those as well. As for internal documentation, PSI provided a further explanation of what it seeks: high level documents explaining the structure of the Voyager software. You indicated you would consider this narrowing and determine if any such documentation exists.
C. PSI’s RFP Responses
PSI confirmed that it intends and is preparing to produce additional documents, and the parties discussed specific RFPs as outlined below.
Natives
We explained that the non-produced natives are executable files, databases or other similar files that are extremely difficult to properly review. Some may contain source code, and
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 176 of 181 Page ID #:13243
Karl Shock August 1, 2014 Page Five
sd-646375
others (such as the database files) likely contain a large amount of personally identifying information that would take an extremely long time to review and redact. As a result, PSI asked that Yardi identify any specific files it sees a need for, and PSI will consider those requests on a case by case basis.
RFP No. 10
PSI objected to this RFP as overbroad and vague and ambiguous because it could potentially encompass any time a PSI employee went on Yardi’s website. Yardi clarified that it was seeking documents concerning PSI’s logging into any Yardi hosted database or software on Yardi servers, and PSI agreed to produce such documents, to the extent they exist.
RFP No. 13
PSI objected to the relevance of RFP 13, since documents related to PSI’s use of RealPage and MRI technology, even if they existed, would not be relevant to whether PSI incorporated Yardi’s trade secrets or copyrighted technology. You stated you would need to confer and get back to us on this RFP.
RFP No. 14
PSI objected to Yardi’s use of the broad term “concerning” and also objected that documents responsive to this request were likely to be responsive to many of Yardi’s other RFPs. After some discussion, PSI agreed to produce any documents that evince or support the statement made in paragraph 94 of its complaint.
RFP No. 32
Because the parties expect to resolve their dispute over the adequacy of Yardi’s trade secret disclosure, PSI agreed to produce documents in response to RFP 32 after it has reviewed Yardi’s final trade secret disclosure.
RFP No. 33
PSI again asked for clarification of what was meant by documents “concerning” the communications described in this request. You explained that you were concerned with documents attached to emails, and PSI confirmed that we would produce both communications responsive to this request and any attachments to those emails.
More generally, both sides confirmed that they are producing whole families in compliance with the ESI order (e.g., when an email is relevant, all attachments will also be produced unless there are issues of privilege, which will be noted through slipsheets or otherwise).
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 177 of 181 Page ID #:13244
Karl Shock August 1, 2014 Page Six
sd-646375
RFP No. 35
When we asked for the relevance of these documents, you explained that Yardi was interested in the development of the software and specifically any time PSI might have responded to a reported bug by, e.g., asking how Voyager performs that task. We responded that such a document would no doubt be responsive to other RFPs and would likely be relevant. PSI agreed to produce documents in response to RFP No. 35 to the extent they reference or relate to Yardi or Yardi software.
RFP No. 40
Yardi objected that PSI has not provided any documents demonstrating which PSI computers contain copies of Voyager. We stated that our response, incorporating PSI’s response to interrogatory No. 1, which lists the requested servers, satisfies the request for “documents sufficient to show” every PSI computer with a copy of Voyager on it.
RFP No. 42
PSI objected to producing every third party or consultant agreement on third party privacy and relevance grounds. You stated that Yardi is seeking these documents for two reasons: (1) to identify any third parties that may have worked on development of Entrata and (2) to determine whether any such agreements contain a scope of work including examination of Yardi software or competitor software in general. PSI stated that to get the information desired under (1), Yardi could simply propound an interrogatory rather than seeking the confidential terms of agreements with each and every one of these contractors. PSI agreed, however, to produce agreements with any contractors for whom the scope of work mentions Yardi or analysis of competitor software.
RFP Nos. 46 and 47
PSI asked for additional information regarding the relevance of these requests. You stated that you would get back to us on both.
D. PSI’s Interrogatory Responses
PSI agreed to supplement our interrogatory responses when we have additional information, and agreed to do so within a month. On Interrogatory No. 3 specifically, you clarified that by “access” you mean actually logged into or otherwise interacted with the software. We noted that PSI may not track such access, but agreed to supplement this response.
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 178 of 181 Page ID #:13245
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 179 of 181 Page ID #:13246
[PROPOSED] ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S RULE 16 MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY
Case No. 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGRx
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Jason P. Gonzalez (SBN 178768) Shawn G. Hansen (SBN 197033) Neal J. Gauger (SBN 293161) Karina G. Puttieva (SBN 317702) NIXON PEABODY, LLP 300 South Grand Ave. Suite 4100 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 629-6019 Facsimile: (213) 629-6000 Email: [email protected]
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiff YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.
Plaintiff,
vs.
PROPERTY SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
Defendant.
PROPERTY SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Counter-Claimant,
vs.
YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.
Counter-Defendant
Case No. 2:13-CV-07764-FMO (AGRx)
[PROPOSED] ORDER ON PLAINTIFF YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.’S RULE 16 MOTION TO MODIFY THE COURT’S SCHEDULING ORDER TO REOPEN LIMITED DISCOVERY FOR INQUIRY INTO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ENTRATA, INC.’S RELATIONSHIP WITH DB XENTO SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Hon. Fernando M. Olguin
Hearing Date: TBD Hearing Time: 10:00 am Courtroom: 6D
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 180 of 181 Page ID #:13247
[PROPOSED] ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S RULE 16 MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY
- 2 - Case No. 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGRx
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
This matter came before the Court on PLAINTIFF YARDI SYSTEMS,
INC.’S RULE 16 MOTION TO MODIFY THE COURT’S SCHEDULING
ORDER TO REOPEN LIMITED DISCOVERY FOR INQUIRY INTO
ENTRATA, INC.’S RELATIONSHIP WITH DB XENTO SYSTEMS PRIVATE
LIMITED. After due consideration of the pleadings and the entire record herein,
the Court finds Good Cause modify the Scheduling Order and to reopen limited
discovery. Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September___, 2018 _____________________________
Honorable Fernando M. Olguin
Case 2:13-cv-07764-FMO-AGR Document 315-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 181 of 181 Page ID #:13248