Motion Pattern Analytics

urz has engaged in dilatory tactics by filing numerous motions instead of complying with discovery.

FRCP 37

FRCP 69(a)

Dkt. 53

Dkt. 63

Dkt. 80

RELIEF REQUESTED -> COURT'S PRIOR DISCOVERY ORDERS (2023) -> SANCTIONS HEARING (FEB. 2024) -> ESI SANCTIONS ORDER (DKT. 111) -> ESI PRESERVATION ORDER (DKT. 118) -> URZ FAILED TO COMPLY (PRE-INSPECTION) -> URZ FAILED TO PRESERVE ESI (PRE-INSPECTI -> SITE INSPECTION AND ESI COLLECTION

I. INTRODUCTION -> II. GROUNDS FOR SANCTIONS -> A. CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS REGARDING SU -> B. POST-TERMINATION COMMUNICATIONS -> C. MISCHARACTERIZATION OF PERFORMANCE AN -> III. LEGAL BASIS -> IV. PRAYER

PLAINTIFF MOTION FOR SANCTIONS PURSUANT -> TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THIS COURT: -> STATEMENT OF ISSUES AND ORDER -> STANDARDS OF REVIEW -> FACTUAL BACKGROUND -> ARGUMENT -> CONCLUSION -> CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH WORD COUN

I. INTRODUCTION -> II. BACKGROUND -> III. ARGUMENT -> A. EXPERT REPORTS ABOUT ALTICE'S SYSTEM -> B. SELECT INSTANT MESSENGER CONVERSATION -> IV. CONCLUSION

TABLE OF CONTENTS -> I. INTRODUCTION -> II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND -> III. ARGUMENT -> A. HEADWATER'S P.R. 3-1 CONTENTIONS ACCU -> B. VERIZON'S FAILURE TO PRODUCE THE REQU -> IV. CONCLUSION

I. INTRODUCTION -> II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND -> III. ARGUMENT -> A. HEADWATER'S P.R. 3-1 CONTENTIONS ACCU -> B. T-MOBILE'S FAILURE TO PRODUCE THE REQ -> IV. CONCLUSION

I. -> II. -> III. -> EXHIBIT "A" -> 1. MONETARY DEMANDS -> 2. JERRY JONES AS THE PUTATIVE FATHER -> 3. JERRY JONES AS A PARTY TO THE AGREEME -> 4. ALLEGED PAYMENTS BY JONES

FACTS -> LEGAL STANDARD -> ARGUMENT -> HARM ANALYSIS -> STRIKE EVIDENCE -> ATTORNEYS FEES -> CONCLUSION

I. -> GROUNDS -> II. -> CONCLUSION

ms. bennis' affirmative reasonable royalty opinion should be excluded because it lacks a discernible methodology and is impermissible ipse dixit.

I. DISCOVERY -> II. CLAIM FOR RELIEF -> III. PARTIES -> IV. JURISDICTION AND VENUE -> V. STATEMENT OF FACTS -> VI. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT -> VII. CAUSES OF ACTION -> COUNT 1 BREACH OF CONTRACT

I. INTRODUCTION -> II. BACKGROUND AND FACTS -> A. THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT AND THE -> B. REGULATORY HISTORY -> 1. 1940-2004 -> 2. THE 2016 RULE AND 2019 RULE -> C. THE 2024 RULE -> III. STANDARD

ms. bennis' baseless and prejudicial assertions of "royalty stacking" should be excluded because they are unreliable and lack actual evidence.

ms. bennis' opinions regarding previously undisclosed noninfringing alternatives should be excluded due to failure to disclose during discovery and lack of economic analysis.

Commonwealth Sci. & Indus. Research Org. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 809 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2015)

Immersion Corp. v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., No. 2:17-cv-572-JRG, Dkt. No. 188 (E.D. Tex. May. 2, 2019)