Scribd

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXASDALLAS DIVISIONZENIMAX MEDIA, INC. and §ID SOFTWARE, LLC, §Plaintiffs, §v. §No. 3:14-CV-1849-K (BF)OCULUS VR, LLC, et al., §Defendants. §ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion (A) to Permit Disclosure of Any “DemonstrablyInaccurate” Representations Made to Court and (B) to Compel Production of Hard Drive [ECF No.690] (“Motion to Permit Disclosure and to Compel”) referred to the United States Magistrate Judgefor determination. Electronic Order Referring Mot., ECF No. 728. Upon consideration, the Motionto Permit Disclosure and to Compel [ECF No. 690] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.In this motion, Plaintiffs state that Defendants object to the disclosure of information that theindependent expert Andrew S. Rosen finds as “factually inaccurate” and “demonstrably inaccurate”representations. Mot. 1, ECF No. 690. Plaintiffs state that Mr. Rosen has made the followingstatements:•“statements and representations that have been sworn to and are before the court are factuallyinaccurate,”•“opinions expressed in expert reports that are before the court that are demonstrablyinaccurate,” and•“something within an image that leads me to question the authenticity, reliability or integrityof an image or its contents.”Mot. 2, ECF No. 690. Plaintiffs state that prior to the issuance of Mr. Rosen’s reports, and inresponse to Mr. Rosen’s inquiry directed to the parties, Plaintiffs informed him that he was free tocomment on and provide further elaboration of his troubling findings, but that Defendants objected

Case 3:14-cv-01849-K Document 729 Filed 10/27/16 Page 1 of 3 PageID 28210

to the full disclosure and took the narrow position that Mr. Rosen must restrict his comments to theextent that it is relevant to his analysis of the five specific issues before him. Mot. 3, ECF No. 690. In addition, Plaintiffs seek John Carmack’s hard drive based on Mr. Rosen’s findings that someonedeleted critical log files on the hard drive. Mot. 4, ECF No. 690. Plaintiffs further seek fromDefendants any communications with Mr. Carmack relating to the April 2014 collection of his harddrive for imaging that is redacted for privilege, if necessary. Mot. 10, ECF No. 690.Defendants argue in their response that the Court already rejected Plaintiffs’ request for directaccess to the hard drive images and nothing in Mr. Rosen’s reports should change the Court’s prior ruling. Resp. 2, ECF No. 709. In addition, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ request to allow Mr.Rosen to comment on any statements made by the parties about the Carmack MacBook, the Cooper ThinkPad, and the subject USB drive is contrary to the Court’s recent ruling that Mr. Rosen was toaddress only the questions urged by Plaintiffs as the basis for their demand for the Carmack andCooper hard drive images, and any other matter agreed to by the parties. Resp. 7, ECF No. 709.Moreover, Defendants argue that Mr. Rosen is not familiar with the facts of this case or issues incontroversy beyond what was necessary to perform his limited task. Resp. 8, EC No. 709. Plaintiffs argue in their reply that Defendants offer no reason why Mr. Rosen should not bedirected to speak completely regarding the “factually inaccurate” and “demonstrably inaccurate”representations he identified. Reply 1, ECF No. 711. Plaintiffs argue that Defendants’ response doesnot dispute Plaintiffs’ contention that Mr. Rosen’s findings directly challenge the truthfulness of sworn statements that are before the Court. Reply 1-2, ECF No. 711. In addition, Plaintiffs reiteratethat Mr. Rosen’s findings present a compelling basis for ordering Defendants to produce an imageof the hard drives at issue. Reply 2, ECF No. 711. Plaintiffs contend that they intend to offer the hard2

Case 3:14-cv-01849-K Document 729 Filed 10/27/16 Page 2 of 3 PageID 28211