Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al
Filing
1601
Statement re 1596 Order Samsung's Submission in Response to the Court's August 6, 2012 Order by Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Poret and Jacoby Excerpts, # 2 Exhibit B - DX 2556 Statement, # 3 Exhibit 1 to DX2556 Statement)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 8/7/2012)
EXHIBIT A
Confidential
Page 1
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
SAN JOSE DIVISION
4
APPLE, INC., a California
5
corporation,
6
7
Plaintiff,
8
-vs-
No. 11-CV-01846-LHK
9
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
10
a Korean business entity; et al.,
11
Defendants.
/
12
13
VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF HAL PORET
14
CONFIDENTIAL
15
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
16
THURSDAY, APRIL 19, 2012
17
18
19
20
21
Reported by: LOUISE MARIE SOUSOURES, CSR NO. 3575
22
23
Certified LiveNote Reporter
JOb 48723
24
25
TSG Reporting - Worldwide
(877) 702-9580
Confidential
Page 2
1
2
3
THURSDAY, APRIL 19, 2012
8:56 A.M.
4
5
6
7
Deposition of HAL PORET,
8
held at the offices of Quinn Emanuel, 50 California
9
Street, San Francisco, California, before Louise Marie
10
Sousoures, a Certified Shorthand Reporter and a
11
Certified LiveNote Reporter
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
TSG Reporting - Worldwide
(877) 702-9580
Confidential
Page 3
1
A P P E A R A N C E S
2
3
FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
4
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
5
425 MARKET STREET
6
SAN FRANCISCO, CA
7
BY:
94105
BROOKS M. BEARD,
8
TARYN RAWSON,
9
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
10
11
12
13
FOR THE DEFENDANT:
14
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
15
865 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET, 10TH FLOOR
16
LOS ANGELES, CA
17
BY:
18
90017
DAIVD W. QUINTO,
ATTORNEY AT LAW
19
20
21
22
23
THE VIDEOGRAPHER:
24
PETE SAIS
25
TSG Reporting - Worldwide
(877) 702-9580
Confidential
Page 4
1
2
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED
3
by and between the attorneys for the
4
respective parties herein, that filing and
5
sealing be and the same are hereby waived.
6
IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED
7
that all objections, except as to the form
8
of the question, shall be reserved to the
9
time of the trial.
10
IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED
11
that the within deposition may be sworn to
12
and signed before any officer authorized
13
to administer an oath, with the same
14
force and effect as if signed and sworn
15
to before the Court.
16
17
18
19
- oOo -
20
21
22
23
24
25
TSG Reporting - Worldwide
(877) 702-9580
Confidential
Page 5
1
P R O C E E D I N G S
2
-oOo-
3
4
08:29
THE VIDEOGRAPHER:
Good morning.
This is the
08:56
5
start of disk labeled number 1 for the videotaped
08:56
6
deposition of Hal Poret in the matter of Apple,
08:56
7
Incorporated versus Samsung Electronics Company,
08:56
8
Limited et al. in the United States District Court,
08:56
9
Northern District of California, San Jose Division,
08:56
civil action 11-CV-01846-LHK.
08:56
10
11
This deposition is being held at 50
08:56
12
California Street in San Francisco, California on
08:56
13
April 19th, 2012 at approximately 8:56 a.m.
08:56
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
My name is Pete Sais from TSG Reporting Inc.
and I'm the legal video specialist.
The court reporter is Louise Sousoures in
association with TSG Reporting.
08:56
08:57
08:57
Will counsel introduce yourself and the court
reporter can swear in the witness.
MR. QUINTO:
08:56
08:57
08:57
David Quinto, Quinn Emanuel for
defendants.
08:57
08:57
MR. BEARD:
23
Foerster for Apple.
24
MS. RAWSON:
25
Brooks Beard with Morrison &
Foerster for Apple.
08:57
08:57
Taryn Rawson for Morrison &
TSG Reporting - Worldwide
08:57
08:57
(877) 702-9580
Confidential
Page 106
1
Q.
What all would you need to think about --
12:38
2
let's focus on the first one which is the LG 2X --
12:38
3
G2x.
12:38
4
What would you need to think about in
12:38
5
deciding whether this is too similar to be used as a
12:38
6
control?
12:38
7
A.
A lot.
I'd have to sit down with the
12:38
8
complaint and look at the trade dress elements again.
12:38
9
I'd want to get a good picture of this that I can
12:38
10
actually get a fair sense of it that doesn't have all
12:38
11
these other images blocking you from seeing it
12:38
12
cleanly.
12:38
13
I'd have to think about, you know, how it
12:38
14
would appear with the icons blurred and it's just not
12:38
15
the kind of thing I make a snap judgment about.
12:39
16
Q.
As you sit here, are there any that you think
12:39
17
strike you immediately as something that -- as being
12:39
18
sufficiently dissimilar it could be used as a control?
12:39
19
20
MR. BEARD:
Objection, incomplete
hypothetical.
21
12:39
12:39
THE WITNESS:
There's nothing here that I
12:39
22
have a quick judgment on one way or the other.
12:39
23
BY MR. QUINTO:
12:39
24
25
Q.
Something I forgot to ask you earlier, apart
12:39
from preparing for today's deposition and apart from
12:39
TSG Reporting - Worldwide
(877) 702-9580
Confidential
Page 107
1
preparing the rebuttal report in response to Mazis's
12:40
2
survey regarding whether Apple icons required a
12:40
3
secondary meaning, have you done any work in relation
12:40
4
to this case since last August?
12:40
5
The only other thing that I've done is after
12:40
6
reading Dr. Jacoby's report I went back into my data
12:40
7
and looked at a number of things just to confirm for
12:40
8
myself these points he's raising are -- actually have
12:40
9
no impact on the survey results, but that's really the
12:40
only additional work that I've done.
12:40
10
11
12
13
A.
Q.
So it's your opinion that not one of his
criticisms has any bearing on the survey results?
A.
Well, it's my -- what I'm saying is that of
12:40
12:40
12:40
14
the criticisms where you can actually go into the data
12:40
15
and confirm yes or no this criticism has any merit,
12:41
16
they don't.
12:41
17
There are other ones that I, you know,
12:41
18
disagree with, but they're not really ones that it's a
12:41
19
matter of looking at data or not.
12:41
20
Q.
21
heart?
22
A.
23
Were there any criticisms that you took to
12:41
12:41
I need to go through it and remember what
they were specifically.
12:41
12:41
24
The only thing he says that I basically --
12:41
25
that comes to mind that I agree with is that it is
12:41
TSG Reporting - Worldwide
(877) 702-9580
Confidential
Page 108
1
difficult for people to remember exactly when they
12:41
2
formed a mental impression of something, such as when
12:41
3
they came to associate the look of a smartphone with
12:41
4
Apple.
12:41
5
However, while I agree with that as a general
12:41
6
proposition, I disagree with his whole take on it
12:42
7
because first of all, everything -- he's
12:42
8
misunderstanding the whole purpose and the way that
12:42
9
question was used and just using it for purposes that
12:42
10
don't make any sense and I think he's also missing the
12:42
11
point that it doesn't matter whether somebody can
12:42
12
accurately remember whether it was 2006 or 2007 or
12:42
13
what month it was in that time period, it's -- the
12:42
14
broad point is whether there was a meaningful trend of
12:42
15
people associating something with Apple before a
12:42
16
certain period of time and people did not need to have
12:42
17
a precise memory of when they formed their impression
12:42
18
for the survey to measure that.
12:43
19
Q.
You said that you think that Dr. Jacoby's
12:43
20
missing the point, which is that it doesn't matter
12:43
21
whether somebody can accurately remember whether it
12:43
22
was 2006 or 2007 or what month it was and what time
12:43
23
period.
12:43
24
25
And yet your report attempts to pin it down
in relation to a particular month, does it not?
TSG Reporting - Worldwide
(877) 702-9580
12:43
12:43
Confidential
Page 133
1
meaning.
2
13:30
So including people who owned mobile phones
13:30
3
but don't fall within the narrower category of
13:30
4
secondary meaning universe being the recent purchasers
13:30
5
or the likely future purchasers gave us a broader base
13:30
6
of relevant consumers to see what the recognition
13:30
7
level of the trade dress was there.
13:30
8
9
10
11
Q.
Is it your testimony that the cellular
13:30
telephone survey you performed could be used both to
13:31
measure secondary meaning and in a dilution analysis?
13:31
A.
13:31
What I mean is this -- by including somewhat
12
No, that's not what I was saying.
13:31
13
of a broader audience at least there are some results
13:31
14
just as you were asking me before what would the
13:31
15
results have been among people who bought a phone more
13:31
16
than 12 months ago, we have those results.
13:31
17
So if somebody is interested in getting a
13:31
18
sense of is the iPhone trade dress recognized amongst
13:31
19
a broader audience there's data on that.
13:31
20
Anywhere in your report do you break out your
13:32
21
findings with respect to secondary meaning among just
13:32
22
the group of respondents who were likely to purchase a
13:32
23
cellular telephone in the coming 12 months?
13:32
24
25
Q.
A.
I don't think so.
I mean it's in the data
that's produced along with the report, but it's not
TSG Reporting - Worldwide
(877) 702-9580
13:32
13:32
Confidential
Page 134
1
laid out like that in the body of the report.
13:32
2
Q.
Why not?
13:32
3
A.
Because I don't see the relevance of breaking
13:32
4
that out as a separate group to look at when that's
13:32
5
just one piece of the relevant universe.
13:32
6
7
Q.
among prospective purchasers is not relevant?
8
9
MR. BEARD:
THE WITNESS:
Q.
15
No, that's not what I said.
A.
I'm sorry, would you explain it again,
13:33
13:33
13:33
13:33
I just said the universe as I see it is --
consists of recent and likely future purchasers.
16
13:33
13:33
please?
14
13:33
13:33
BY MR. QUINTO:
12
13
Objection, misstates and
mischaracterizes prior testimony.
10
11
So in your view, looking at secondary meaning
So I don't see the reason for breaking out
13:33
13:33
13:33
17
the results based on only part of that being just the
13:33
18
future purchasers, but anybody who wants to do that,
13:33
19
it's in the data.
13:33
20
Q.
Do you intend to analyze your data further
13:33
21
between now and trial, your data for either the cell
13:34
22
phone or the tablet computer surveys?
13:34
23
24
25
A.
I don't know.
Only if there's some reason
to.
13:34
13:34
Q.
As you sit here today, you have no such
TSG Reporting - Worldwide
(877) 702-9580
13:34
Confidential
Page 135
1
intention?
13:34
2
A.
13:34
The only intention that I might have is, as I
3
said, I went back and looked at certain aspects in
13:34
4
response to the Jacoby report to check for myself is
13:34
5
there any merit to any of this.
13:35
6
As I said, I've looked at the data and found
13:35
7
there's not and I don't know if at some point I will
13:35
8
be -- I'll be asked to sort of put that data forward
13:35
9
to show how those points that he is raising have no
13:35
10
impact on the reliability of the results, but that's
13:35
11
not the only thing that comes to mind that I could end
13:35
12
up doing with the data.
13:35
13
14
15
16
Q.
How many hours did you devote to considering
Dr. Jacoby's report and re-examining your data?
A.
I'd have to check.
I don't know, maybe six
to eight hours, maybe ten hours.
13:35
13:35
13:35
13:36
17
Q.
Was that this week?
13:36
18
A.
Yes.
13:36
19
Q.
And as you sit here, there's no further work
13:36
20
that you intend to do as a result of looking at
13:36
21
Dr. Jacoby's report?
13:36
22
A.
The only other thing is, as I mentioned, I
13:36
23
may be able to go and confirm through some
13:36
24
nonconfidential route that the respondents from the
13:36
25
Toluna and e-Rewards panels were not overlapping at
13:36
TSG Reporting - Worldwide
(877) 702-9580
Confidential
Page 136
1
anything more than a negligible level and, again, I
13:36
2
don't know how things will transpire, but if I'm asked
13:37
3
to do a more formal response to the Jacoby report or
13:37
4
if there are motions related to the surveys, I need to
13:37
5
do a more formal analysis of data on certain points to
13:37
6
address some of these criticisms that really have no
13:37
7
merit, then I would do that, but I don't know if that
13:37
8
will be necessary.
13:37
9
Q.
In the cellular telephone survey, what
13:37
10
percentage of respondents were likely to purchase a
13:37
11
cellular telephone within the next 12 months?
13:37
12
A.
I'd have to check the data.
13:37
13
Q.
Can you tell from looking at the report?
13:37
14
A.
I don't think so.
13:38
No, I can't tell that specifically.
13:38
With respect to the tablet -- strike that.
13:38
With respect to the tablet computer report,
13:38
15
16
Q.
17
18
were all the respondents likely purchasers of tablet
13:38
19
computers in the next 12 months?
13:38
20
A.
All of them?
13:38
21
Q.
Right.
13:38
22
A.
No, some of them would have been recent
13:38
23
24
25
purchasers.
13:38
Q.
13:38
Do you know what percentage were likely
purchasers in the next 12 months?
TSG Reporting - Worldwide
13:38
(877) 702-9580
Confidential
Page 162
1
So if anybody is interested in seeing who
14:33
2
composes any of these categories they can see that for
14:33
3
themselves in the data.
14:34
4
I did go out of my way to list respondent
14:34
5
numbers in the body of the report to be helpful in the
14:34
6
instances where I thought that was most significant,
14:34
7
but it would be a pretty tedious, long, absurd report
14:34
8
if I was calling out respondent ID numbers for
14:34
9
everything that was discussed throughout the report.
14:34
10
Q.
Looking at paragraph 77 on page 50, the first
14:34
11
sentence refers to a particular group of 16
14:34
12
respondents.
14:34
13
14
If I wanted to look them up in the data,
would they be identified?
14:34
14:34
15
A.
Yes.
14:34
16
Q.
Turning to paragraph 91, are the control
14:34
17
percentages subtracted from the data here?
14:35
18
A.
No.
14:35
19
Q.
Why is that?
14:35
20
A.
Because it would make no sense to do that.
14:35
21
Q.
Why do you say that?
14:35
22
A.
Because these numbers are not stating
14:36
23
secondary meaning percentages.
14:36
24
I can tell -- I can tell what you're thinking
14:36
25
because Dr. Jacoby was confused about this, but these
14:36
TSG Reporting - Worldwide
(877) 702-9580
Confidential
Page 163
1
numbers are not stating that this was the secondary
14:36
2
meaning percentage at a certain time.
14:36
3
4
5
6
7
So the control has no applicability to what
these numbers mean and it would make no sense.
Q.
14:36
So explain to Dr. Jacoby and to me what
14:36
you're doing here and why it would make no sense.
A.
14:36
So Dr. Jacoby seems to think I'm stating here
14:36
14:36
8
that the secondary meaning level is 84.4 percent and
14:36
9
he is then saying no, that shouldn't be right.
14:36
10
That
isn't what I'm saying here.
11
14:36
I'm literally reporting there were 270 people
14:36
12
who associated the trade dress with Apple and gave a
14:36
13
time period when they thought that happened and 84.4
14:37
14
percent of those people said it was before July 2010.
14:37
15
So that -- all this means is if one were to
14:37
16
look at the secondary meaning level of the survey,
14:37
17
which shows secondary meaning, let's say well, isn't
14:37
18
it possible that that really just happened later in
14:37
19
2010 or after the Samsung products already came out,
14:37
20
this tends to suggest no, that is a very far-fetched
14:37
21
scenario because the large majority of people said
14:37
22
that they associated this with Apple before that.
14:37
23
Q.
If you were to consider only the responses of
14:37
24
people planning to buy within the next 12 months, and
14:38
25
subtract out the control percentages, would the
14:38
TSG Reporting - Worldwide
(877) 702-9580
Confidential
Page 164
1
secondary meaning percentages here be in the 30s?
2
3
MR. BEARD:
mischaracterizes prior testimony and the report.
4
5
THE WITNESS:
14:38
14:38
14:38
So the whole question is based on an
14:38
incorrect understanding.
8
9
So the first answer has to be,
14:38
again, these are not secondary meaning percentages.
6
7
Objection, misstates,
14:38
14:38
None of these numbers are secondary meaning
percentages.
So the whole idea of subtracting
14:38
14:38
10
anything out or comparing it to the control to arrive
14:38
11
at a secondary meaning level makes no sense.
14:38
12
BY MR. QUINTO:
14:38
13
Q.
So using these numbers you cannot -- you
14:38
14
cannot get to secondary meaning; is that what you're
14:38
15
saying?
14:38
16
17
18
A.
Yes, these numbers are not -- they are not
usable to tell you -- well, let's back up.
14:38
14:39
So we came out with an iPhone secondary
14:39
19
meaning level something like 64 percent as of the time
14:39
20
of the survey and the question is well, what was it as
14:39
21
of July 2010.
14:39
22
These numbers here on page 57 do not in any
14:39
23
way allow you to say here's what the exact percentage
14:39
24
would have been in July 2010, it's just telling you a
14:39
25
fairly broad common sense point that is there any
14:39
TSG Reporting - Worldwide
(877) 702-9580
Confidential
Page 165
1
reason to question that this 64 percent secondary
14:39
2
meaning level is a new phenomenon or is it likely at
14:39
3
least a substantial portion of that already existed
14:39
4
and these numbers are telling you there's no evidence
14:39
5
that this high level of secondary meaning is just a
14:39
6
very recent phenomenon.
14:39
7
8
9
10
11
The evidence shows the opposite, it's likely
an older phenomenon.
Q.
Okay.
14:40
So you cannot get from the chart in
paragraph 91 to secondary meaning; is that right?
A.
14:39
You cannot get -- you cannot use that chart
14:40
14:40
14:40
12
to say what the secondary meaning level was in July of
14:40
13
2010 nor can you do anything that Dr. Jacoby did with
14:40
14
these numbers in his report.
14:40
15
16
17
18
It's just a broad brush common sense look at
the pattern.
Q.
14:40
14:40
Let me ask you to look at paragraph 95 of
your report.
14:41
14:41
19
A.
Okay.
14:41
20
Q.
Where you state the 55.0 percent result is on
14:41
21
its own sufficient to establish that the overall
14:41
22
appearance of the iPad has acquired secondary meaning.
14:41
23
24
25
Has the 55 percent there been adjusted to
reflect the control group percentage?
A.
Not yet, which is why I put that footnote
TSG Reporting - Worldwide
(877) 702-9580
14:41
14:41
14:41
Confidential
Page 166
1
there noting that that is going to happen once you get
14:42
2
to the control and I show what the net figure is
14:42
3
there, but at this point, I'm just discussing the test
14:42
4
group results and I'm in no way suggesting you don't
14:42
5
need to use the control group.
14:42
6
7
Q.
Your footnote indicates that the true figure
is 38 percent.
14:42
14:42
8
Dr. Jacoby came up with 36.4 percent.
14:42
9
Do you understand why there's a discrepancy?
14:42
I don't know where you're getting that 36.4
14:42
10
11
A.
percent.
12
13
Q.
Well, when he attempted to adjust this for
the control group data his result was 36.4 percent.
14
15
What exactly does he say?
Did you review his figures when you went
through his report?
16
A.
14:42
14:42
14:42
14:43
14:43
I reviewed everything in his report, but I
14:43
17
can't remember where he got -- there were lots of
14:43
18
numbers in his report that, you know, were based on
14:43
19
misunderstandings, the wrong data, incorrect analyses.
14:43
20
21
So I can't remember where every random number
in his report came from.
22
23
Q.
Okay.
14:43
14:43
Let me ask you to look at paragraph
117.
14:43
14:44
24
A.
Okay.
14:44
25
Q.
Does the chart here reflect any adjustment
14:44
TSG Reporting - Worldwide
(877) 702-9580
Confidential
Page 167
1
2
3
for the control percentages?
A.
6
levels at all.
Q.
14:45
14:45
These are not showing secondary meaning
14:45
14:45
I was afraid you were going to tell me that.
14:45
Have you ever had an expert report rejected
7
8
This is the same discussion we just had for
the iPhone chart.
4
5
14:44
14:45
in whole or in part by a court on Daubert grounds?
14:46
9
A.
No.
14:46
10
Q.
Have you ever had an expert report held
14:46
11
inadmissible for any reason in whole or in part by a
14:46
12
court?
14:46
13
A.
The only thing that might qualify for that,
14:46
14
I'm not sure, is I had a case where I did one survey
14:46
15
at the beginning of a case in a reverse confusion case
14:46
16
where I couldn't really do it the way I would want to
14:46
17
because in a reverse confusion situation when the mark
14:47
18
has just started being used it hasn't been out there
14:47
19
long enough to test whether reverse confusion has
14:47
20
happened.
14:47
21
So I then did a second survey later in the
14:47
22
case after the mark had been out for a couple of years
14:47
23
and the judge accepted my survey and, in fact, gave
14:47
24
summary judgment to the defendant who my survey had
14:47
25
been for which showed a lack of confusion, but the
14:47
TSG Reporting - Worldwide
(877) 702-9580
Confidential
Page 245
1
I, LOUISE MARIE SOUSOURES, duly
2
authorized to administer oaths pursuant to Section
3
2093(b) of the California Code of Civil Procedure, do
4
hereby certify: That the witness in the foregoing
5
deposition was by me duly sworn to testify the truth
6
in the within-entitled cause; that said deposition was
7
taken at the time and place therein cited; that the
8
testimony of the said witness was reported by me and
9
was hereafter transcribed under my direction into
10
typewriting; that the foregoing is a complete and
11
accurate record of said testimony; and that the
12
witness was given an opportunity to read and correct
13
said deposition and to subscribe the same.
14
Should the signature of the witness not be affixed
15
to the deposition, the witness shall not have availed
16
himself or herself of the opportunity to sign or the
17
signature has been waived.
18
I further certify that I am not of counsel, nor
19
attorney for any of the parties in the foregoing
20
deposition and caption named, nor in any way
21
interested in the outcome of the cause named in said
22
caption.
23
DATE:4-19-12
24
LOUISE MARIE SOUSOURES, CSR. #3575
25
TSG Reporting - Worldwide
(877) 702-9580
Confidential
Page 246
1
2
INDEX OF EXAMINATIONS
3
4
PAGE
BY MR. QUINTO
6
5
6
7
8
9
INDEX OF EXHIBITS
10
11
NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
12
Exhibit 1
Five-page printout from Internet
105
13
Exhibit 2
Expert report of Hal Poret in
129
PAGE
14
the matter of Apple, Inc.
15
versus Samsung Electronics
16
Company Limited et al.
17
Exhibit 3
Document entitled "Mobile phone
18
secondary meaning survey"
19
146
dated May 2011
20
Exhibit 4
Expert rebuttal report of Hal
21
Poret in the matter of Apple
22
Inc. versus Samsung Electronics
23
Company Limited et al.
24
25
TSG Reporting - Worldwide
(877) 702-9580
169
Confidential
Page 247
1
ERRATA SHEET FOR THE TRANSCRIPT OF:
2
Case Name: Apple vs Samsung
3
Dep. Date: THURSDAY, APRIL 19, 2012
4
Deponent: HAL PORET
5
CORRECTIONS:
6
Pg. Ln. Now Reads
7
___ ___ ______________ ______________ ______
8
___ ___ ______________ ______________ ______
9
___ ___ ______________ ______________ ______
10
___ ___ ______________ ______________ ______
11
___ ___ ______________ ______________ ______
12
___ ___ ______________ ______________ ______
13
___ ___ ______________ ______________ ______
14
___ ___ ______________ ______________ ______
15
___ ___ ______________ ______________ ______
16
___ ___ ______________ ______________ ______
17
___ ___ ______________ ______________ ______
18
____________________
19
Signature of Deponent
20
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME
Should Read
Reason
THIS____DAY OF____________, 2011.
21
_______________________________
22
(Notary Public) MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:_______
23
HAL PORET
17:23
24
17:23
17:24
25
TSG Reporting - Worldwide
(877) 702-9580
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?