Ward v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al

Filing 140

RESPONSE to Motion re 116 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Cisco's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in Support filed by Cisco Systems, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1A, # 2 Exhibit 1B, # 3 Exhibit 1C, # 4 Exhibit 1D, # 5 Exhibit 2, # 6 Exhibit 3, # 7 Exhibit 4, # 8 Exhibit 5, # 9 Exhibit 6, # 10 Exhibit 7, # 11 Exhibit 8, # 12 Exhibit 9, # 13 Exhibit 10, # 14 Exhibit 11, # 15 Exhibit 12, # 16 Exhibit 13, # 17 Exhibit 14, # 18 Exhibit 15, # 19 Exhibit 16, # 20 Exhibit 17, # 21 Exhibit 18, # 22 Exhibit 19, # 23 Exhibit 20, # 24 Exhibit 21, # 25 Exhibit 22, # 26 Exhibit 23, # 27 Exhibit 24, # 28 Exhibit 25, # 29 Exhibit 26, # 30 Exhibit 27, # 31 Exhibit 28, # 32 Exhibit 29)(Babcock, Charles)

Ward v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al

Doc. 140 Att. 7

Case 4:08-cv-04022-JLH Document 140-8

Filed 11/05/09 Page 1 of 3

EXHIBIT 5

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 4:08-cv-04022-JLH Document 140-8

Filed 11/05/09 Page 2 of 3

esn

From:
Sent

To: Subject:

Eric M. Albritton Friday, March 14, 2008 2:53 PM Arnie Mathts RE: Fwd. 5.07cv156 ESN LLC v Cisco Systems, Inc.

EXHIBIT

NO. 14
Thx. You done good. I appreciate you. Original Message From: Agde J. Mathis <[e-mail] Sent: Frtday, · arch 14, 2008 7:39 PM To: Eric M. Albritton <[e-mail] > Subject: RE: Fwd: 5:07cv156 ESN LLO v, Cisco Systems, Inc. Here 's what the email savs... Attached for your information are (1) docket sheet for the patent infringement cauc above; (2) Notice ot Electronic Filing ("NEP') for the civil complaint and exhibits filed 10/16/2007; and (3) computer-generated systems traneaction log for the cane above ehet reflects all database traneaetions in the case. r am writing to clarify aed correct information given to you over the phone yeeterday. Here aee the faete, as I understand them: The Texarkana clerk's office opened a "shell case" at the request of Mr. Eric Albritton's law ftrm (Albritton was lead counsel for the plaintiff) at (1:21 p.m. on Wednesday, October 15, 2007 (see circled item, page 1, systems transactton log) (nete: the systems transaction log is incapable of being altered by the clerk's office). Plaintiff'e ccunsel indicated that it was important that they file teeir complaint at the earliest possible juncture on the following day. According tc my etaff, Amy, an employee of Mr. Albritton's firm, logged in to the CM/ECF detabase lalle on Wednesday, October 15, 2007, She aesembled the electronic complaint and accompanying documents for filing before midnight. In the process of preparing ehis filing, docket entry text was automntfcally generated by the CeteECF system that reflected the filing date aa October 15th, since Amy had composed the docket entry before midnight. At 12:02 a.m. on the 16th, Amy electronically filed the complaint and accompanying documents from her computer. This is refleeted in the NEEe which states that plaintitCs complaint and exhibits were electronically entered at 12:01 3,M. on Thursday, October 16, 2007 and filed on October 15, 2007 (see circled item, page one of the NSF). The NEF is a computer-generated, encrypted document that is incapable of being altered. The NEF, however, aleo clearly reflects in the seetione marked "document stamp" the: the complaint and attachments were electronically filed on et:Caber 16th (see smaller circled itema on p ages 1 and 2 at the NEF). On or about Thursday, October 17, 2007, Amy contacted the Texarkana clerk's office and expressed concern that the docket sheet reflected October 15th as the date the complaent was filed, She wanted the clerk's office to change the date to October 16th, becaese she had welted to file the complaint until after midnight on the 16th. The Texarkana deputy clerk was reluctant to change the date, and referred Amy to the Tyler clerk's oeflcv. Amy made the same request of the Tyler deputy clerk. The Tyler deputy clere determined that, in order to electronically file the complaint on the 16th, Amy would have had to initiate the filing proceee after midnight. Since she -initiated the process before midnight, the computer calculated the filed date as of the 15th. Under the circumstances, the Tyler docket clerk agreed to modefy the date filed for the compIatnt on the docket. At 4:43 p.m. sheet to reflect Octobet 16t as the actual filed date for the ccmplaint. on O·tober 17th, the Tyler docket clerk changed the deee filed for the complaint from October 15th to October 16th (see circled items on pages 2 and 3, oyeeeme Leaaeaction log). I was aware of this elteation at the time it occurred. Hindsight being 20-20, 1 should have instructed the Tyler docket clerk to tell Mr. Albritton to file a motion to corre · t the docket report rather than having the deputy clerk do a correcting entry.

CONFIDENTLAL FNIA 0857

Case 4:08-cv-04022-JLH Document 140-8

Filed 11/05/09 Page 3 of 3

Please adjust your story on this to reflect the correct chain of events, and call
Mk if you have any questions.

The chain is right. I talked to Texarakana and then I talked to David Provines and then the they were suppose to transfer me to David Maland but he was out and I was given to Peggy Thompson. I explained to each of them that the document had to be filed on October 16, 2007. I filed the document at 12:01 en October 16, 2007, but the docket was showing it was filed on October 15, 2007. And we need to find out why it was stating two difterent dates and what need to be done so that it would show the correct date to the October 1.6, 2007. They did state that I was in the system before midnight on October 15 and that was why it was saying October 15. I said that we had filed lots of stuff before and the time that you entered the system was never the time that show uo once the document was filed. Yours very truly, Amie j. Mathis Legal Assistant Albritton Law Fi.rm P.O. Box 2649 Longview, Texas 75606 Telephone[phone] Eacsimile(903)758-7397 www.emafirm.com [e-mail] This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential, and privileged materiaL for the sole Ll.se of the intended recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments thereto) by othes is strictly prohibited. if you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto.

Original Message-From: Eric M. Albritton Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 12:37 PM To: Amie J. Mathis Subject: PK: Fwd: 5:07cv156 ESN LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. Is this right?

CONFIDENTIAL EmA 085S