Preview
10
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
19CV349042
Santa Clara — Civil
Stephen H. Sutro (SBN 172168)
Suzanne R. Fogarty (SBN 154319)
Meghan C. Killian (SBN 310195)
Duane Morris LLP
One Market Plaza
Spear Tower, Suite 2200
San Francisco, CA 94105
Tel: 415.957.3000
Fax: 415.957.3001
E-mail: SHSutro@DuaneMorris.com
SRFogarty@DuaneMorris.com
MCKillian@DuaneMorris.com
Brad Thompson (admitted pro hac vice)
Bert Greene (admitted pro hac vice)
Duane Morris LLP
Las Cimas IV
900 S. Capital of Texas Hwy., Suite 300
Austin, TX 78746-5435
Tel: 512.277.2300
Fax: 512.277.2301
E-mail: | BThompson@DuaneMorris.com
BGreene@DuaneMorris.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
SUNPOWER CORPORATION
R, Bur}
Electronically Filed
by Superior Court of CA,
County of Santa Clara,
on 11/3/2020 7:21 PM
Reviewed By: R. Burciaga
Case #19CV349042
Envelope: 5233247
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
SUNPOWER CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARTIN DEBONO, STANDARD INDUSTRIES
INC., GAF ENERGY, and DOES 1-100,
Defendants.
Case No. 19CV349042
PLAINTIFF SUNPOWER
CORPORATION’S REPLY IN
SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR
JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL
DISCOVERY RESPONSES
Date: November 10, 2020
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Dept.: 21
Judge: Thang N. Barrett
Trial Date: None set
Complaint filed: June 14, 2019
SUNPOWER’S REPLY ISO REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ISO MOTION TO COMPEL,
CASE NO. 19CV349042
iaga10
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
L JUDGE KULKARNI’S OCTOBER 1, 2020 ORDER IS RELEVANT AND
JUDICIALLY NOTICEABLE
Defendants admit that Standard/GAF! argued that SunPower’s 2AD at issue here is
“remarkably similar” to SunPower’s trade secret designation that Judge Kulkarni recently approved
in his October 1, 2020 Order.? (Defendants’ Opposition to SunPower’s Request for Judicial Notice
(“RIN Opp.”), 1:19-21.) Accordingly, the Order is properly the subject of judicial notice by the
Court. (See Cal. Evid. Code § 350; §451(a) [notice of “[t]he decisional ... law of this state”);
§ 452(d) [notice of “records of ... any court of this state”); 452(h) [notice of “[flacts and
propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute”); §453 [judicial notice of matters specified in
§452 is mandatory if party requests it and provides notice].) Defendants’ objections based on
relevance have no merit.>
Defendants’ own arguments to this Court concede relevance. Specifically, on August 17,
2020, Standard/GAF argued that the SunPower trade secret designation at issue in the companion
case to this one, the Bunea Action,* was “remarkably similar” to SunPower’s 2AD and the “mode of
identifying trade secret in [the] arbitration is the same as in the DeBono case.” (RJN Ex. B, October
1, 2020 Order, 7:16-19).° As a result, Judge Kulkarni granted Standard’s request for judicial notice
of the Orders in this case. (/d., at fn. 1.) After reviewing all of the orders in this case, however,
Judge Kulkarni ruled against Standard/GAF in the companion case on October 1, 2020, and ordered
Standard/GAF to comply with the third-party discovery order at issue in that case.
' Standard/GAF refers to defendants Standard Industries Inc. and GAF Energy LLC.
2 See, October 1, 2020 Order Concerning Parties’ Petitions, Standard Industries and GAF Energy
LLC v. SunPower Corporation, Santa Clara Superior Court, Case No. 20CV368810, and SunPower
Corporation v. Standard Industries and GAF Energy LLC, Santa Clara Superior Court, Case No.
20CV368636 (J. Kulkarni) (“October 1st Order” or “Order’”) attached as Exhibit B to SunPower’s
Request for Judicial Notice.
3 The cases Defendants cite in support of their request to deny judicial notice are not persuasive.
Nat'l Asian Am. Coal. v. Newsom (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 993 and Towns v. Davidson (2007) 147
Cal.App.4th 461, 473 n.3 both involved requests for judicial notice from cases involving different
parties. Meanwhile, in Orion Commc’ns, Inc. v. Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 152, 157,
the Court actually took judicial notice of the Court orders as requested.
4 SunPower refers to the cases before Judge Kulkarni the “companion case” or the “Bunea Action.”
5 Additionally, Standard’s statements in its court filings (SunPower’s RJN Exs. C-H) are also
admissible as statements of a party opponent pursuant to Evidence Code section 1220.
2
SUNPOWER’S REPLY ISO REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ISO MOTION TO COMPEL,
CASE NO. 19CV34904210
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Moreover, the October 1, 2020 Order is probative because Judge Kulkarni held SunPower’s
trade secret designation in the companion case satisfied the requirements under Section 2019.210
because SunPower’s “designations provide fair notice to Standard, are reasonably particular, and
frame the proper scope of discovery satisfy the requirements of section 2019.210.” (RIN Ex. B,
October 12020 Order, 7:23-25.) (emphasis added)® Judge Kulkarni rejected the same arguments
that Defendants make here, and in so ruling another department of this Court held:
“as long as trade secrets are identified with reasonable particularity, it doesn't matter if
they are identified with reference to a document or not. It's the concept or idea that is
the trade secret, not the document. And SunPower's designations identify with
reasonable particularity the trade secrets they claim are at issue (albeit with reference
to documents).” (/d., 8:2-8.) (emphasis added.)
That holding is relevant here, where SunPower’s 2AD — which Standard/GAF repeatedly
asserted was identical in style to the approved Bunea Designation — complies with Section 2019.210
for the same reasons.
Defendants’ procedural arguments and claim that SunPower’s Request for Judicial Notice is
an “unauthorized brief” also fail. Both parties have routinely requested judicial notice of court
records in this action. In fact, Defendants submitted their own Request for Judicial Notice in support
of their Opposition to SunPower’s Motion to Compel.
Court records are subject to judicial notice pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(d).’
California Evidence Code section 453 provides that “[t]he trial court shall take judicial notice of any
matter specified in Section 452 if a party requests it and: (a) [g]ives each adverse party sufficient
notice of the request, through the pleadings or otherwise, to enable such adverse party to prepare to
meet the request; and (b) [fJurnishes the court with sufficient information to enable it to take judicial
notice of the matter.” (emphasis added.) All of the documents referenced in SunPower’s Request for
Judicial Notice fall squarely within the above-defined categories.
6 “An order made in one department . . . can neither be ignored nor overlooked in another
department.” (/n re Kowalski (1971) 21 Cal.App.3d 67, 70.)
7 Judicial notice is also proper under §451(a) (notice of “[t]he decisional ... law of this state”); and
§452(h) (notice of “[f]acts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute”).
3
SUNPOWER’S REPLY ISO REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ISO MOTION TO COMPEL,
CASE NO. 19CV34904210
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, SunPower respectfully requests that the Court grant
SunPower’s Request for Judicial Notice.
Dated: November 3, 2020 DUANE MORRIS Lip
By:__/s/ Stephen H. Sutro
Stephen H. Sutro (SBN 172168)
Suzanne R. Fogarty (SBN 154319)
Meghan C. Killian (SBN 310195)
Brad Thompson (admitted pro hac vice)
Bert Greene (admitted pro hac vice)
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
SunPower Corporation
4
SUNPOWER’S REPLY ISO REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ISO MOTION TO COMPEL,
CASE NO. 19CV349042Ov
oo
PROOF OF SERVICE
SunPower Corporation v. Martin DeBono, Standard Industries, Inc., GAF Energy;
and DOES 1 - 100
Santa Clara County Superior Court, Action No. 19CV349042
I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years, and not a party to interested in
the cause. I am an employee with Duane Morris LLP and my business address is One Market Plaza,
Spear Tower, Suite 2200, San Francisco, California 94105. I am readily familiar with this firm’s
practices for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal
Service and for transmitting documents by FedEx, fax, email, messenger and other modes. On the
date stated below, I served the following documents:
PLAINTIFF SUNPOWER CORPORATION’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR
JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL
DISCOVERY RESPONSES
BY U.S. MAIL: I enclosed the documents in a sealed envelope or package addressed
to the person(s) set forth below, and placed the envelope for collection and mailing
following our ordinary business practices, which are that on the same day
correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary
course of business with the United States Postal Service in San Francisco, California,
ina sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. OR
(J T enclosed the documents in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the
person(s) set forth below, and deposited the sealed envelope with the United States
Postal Service, with the postage fully prepaid.
BY MESSENGER SERVICE: I enclosed the documents in an envelope or package
addressed to the person(s) set forth below and providing the package(s) to a
professional messenger service for same day delivery service.
BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I personally delivered the documents to the persons at
the addresses listed below. (1) For a party represented by an attorney, delivery was
made to the attorney or the attorney’s office by leaving the documents in an envelope
or package clearly labeled to identify the attorney being served with a receptionist or
an individual in charge of the office. (2) For a party, delivery was made to the party or
by leaving the documents at the party’s residence with some person not less than 18
years of age between the hours of eight in the morning and six in the evening.
BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I enclosed the documents in a sealed envelope or
package provided by FedEx and addressed to the person(s) listed below by placing the
envelope or package(s) for collection and transmittal by FedEx pursuant to my firm’s
ordinary business practices, which are that on the same day a FedEx envelope or
package is placed for collection, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with
FedEx for overnight delivery, with all charges fully prepaid.
BY FACSIMILE: Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept
service by fax transmission, I faxed the documents to the person(s) at the fax
number(s) listed below. No error was reported by the fax machine that I used. A copy
of the record of the fax transmission(s), which I printed out, is attached.
BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: VIA E-Service by vendor Nationwide Legal LLC
on all counsel on November 3, 2020.
Ix
2
PROOF OF SERVICE
DM1\10284992.1Jonathan A. Patchen, Esq. Counsel for Defendant, Martin DeBono
Daniel P. Martin, Esq.
Baker Botts L.L.P. Via Electronic Service
101 California Street, Suite 3600
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: 415.291.6209
E-mail: jonathan.patchen@bakerbotts.com
daniel.martin@bakerbotts.com
Cheryl A. Cauley, Esq. Counsel for Defendant, Martin DeBono
Baker Botts L.L.P.
1001 Page Mill Road Via Electronic Service
Building One, Suite 200
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Telephone: 650-739-7500
E-mail: cheryl.cauley@bakerbotts.com
John (Jay) Neukom, Esq. Counsel for Defendants, Standard/GAF
Caroline Van Ness, Esq. Energy
Michelle Kao, Esq.
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom Via Electronic Service
LLP
525 University Avenue, Suite 1400
Palo Alto, CA 94301-1908
Telephone: 650.470.4560
E-mail: john.neukom@skadden.com
Caroline. VanNess@skadden.com
Michelle.Kao@skadden.com
Abraham A. Tabaie, Esq. Counsel for Defendants, Standard/GAF
Raza Rasheed, Esq. Energy
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
300 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 3400 Via Electronic Service
Los Angeles, CA 90071
E-mail: atabaie@skadden.com
raza.tasheed@skadden.com
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
is true and correct.
Dated: November 3, 2020 /s/_ Jean Marie Reed
Jean Marie Reed
3
PROOF OF SERVICE
DM1\10284992.1
Preview
10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19CV349042 Santa Clara — Civil Stephen H. Sutro (SBN 172168) Suzanne R. Fogarty (SBN 154319) Meghan C. Killian (SBN 310195) Duane Morris LLP One Market Plaza Spear Tower, Suite 2200 San Francisco, CA 94105 Tel: 415.957.3000 Fax: 415.957.3001 E-mail: SHSutro@DuaneMorris.com SRFogarty@DuaneMorris.com MCKillian@DuaneMorris.com Brad Thompson (admitted pro hac vice) Bert Greene (admitted pro hac vice) Duane Morris LLP Las Cimas IV 900 S. Capital of Texas Hwy., Suite 300 Austin, TX 78746-5435 Tel: 512.277.2300 Fax: 512.277.2301 E-mail: | BThompson@DuaneMorris.com BGreene@DuaneMorris.com Attorneys for Plaintiff, SUNPOWER CORPORATION R, Bur} Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 11/3/2020 7:21 PM Reviewed By: R. Burciaga Case #19CV349042 Envelope: 5233247 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA SUNPOWER CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. MARTIN DEBONO, STANDARD INDUSTRIES INC., GAF ENERGY, and DOES 1-100, Defendants. Case No. 19CV349042 PLAINTIFF SUNPOWER CORPORATION’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES Date: November 10, 2020 Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept.: 21 Judge: Thang N. Barrett Trial Date: None set Complaint filed: June 14, 2019 SUNPOWER’S REPLY ISO REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ISO MOTION TO COMPEL, CASE NO. 19CV349042 iaga10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 L JUDGE KULKARNI’S OCTOBER 1, 2020 ORDER IS RELEVANT AND JUDICIALLY NOTICEABLE Defendants admit that Standard/GAF! argued that SunPower’s 2AD at issue here is “remarkably similar” to SunPower’s trade secret designation that Judge Kulkarni recently approved in his October 1, 2020 Order.? (Defendants’ Opposition to SunPower’s Request for Judicial Notice (“RIN Opp.”), 1:19-21.) Accordingly, the Order is properly the subject of judicial notice by the Court. (See Cal. Evid. Code § 350; §451(a) [notice of “[t]he decisional ... law of this state”); § 452(d) [notice of “records of ... any court of this state”); 452(h) [notice of “[flacts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute”); §453 [judicial notice of matters specified in §452 is mandatory if party requests it and provides notice].) Defendants’ objections based on relevance have no merit.> Defendants’ own arguments to this Court concede relevance. Specifically, on August 17, 2020, Standard/GAF argued that the SunPower trade secret designation at issue in the companion case to this one, the Bunea Action,* was “remarkably similar” to SunPower’s 2AD and the “mode of identifying trade secret in [the] arbitration is the same as in the DeBono case.” (RJN Ex. B, October 1, 2020 Order, 7:16-19).° As a result, Judge Kulkarni granted Standard’s request for judicial notice of the Orders in this case. (/d., at fn. 1.) After reviewing all of the orders in this case, however, Judge Kulkarni ruled against Standard/GAF in the companion case on October 1, 2020, and ordered Standard/GAF to comply with the third-party discovery order at issue in that case. ' Standard/GAF refers to defendants Standard Industries Inc. and GAF Energy LLC. 2 See, October 1, 2020 Order Concerning Parties’ Petitions, Standard Industries and GAF Energy LLC v. SunPower Corporation, Santa Clara Superior Court, Case No. 20CV368810, and SunPower Corporation v. Standard Industries and GAF Energy LLC, Santa Clara Superior Court, Case No. 20CV368636 (J. Kulkarni) (“October 1st Order” or “Order’”) attached as Exhibit B to SunPower’s Request for Judicial Notice. 3 The cases Defendants cite in support of their request to deny judicial notice are not persuasive. Nat'l Asian Am. Coal. v. Newsom (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 993 and Towns v. Davidson (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 461, 473 n.3 both involved requests for judicial notice from cases involving different parties. Meanwhile, in Orion Commc’ns, Inc. v. Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 152, 157, the Court actually took judicial notice of the Court orders as requested. 4 SunPower refers to the cases before Judge Kulkarni the “companion case” or the “Bunea Action.” 5 Additionally, Standard’s statements in its court filings (SunPower’s RJN Exs. C-H) are also admissible as statements of a party opponent pursuant to Evidence Code section 1220. 2 SUNPOWER’S REPLY ISO REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ISO MOTION TO COMPEL, CASE NO. 19CV34904210 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Moreover, the October 1, 2020 Order is probative because Judge Kulkarni held SunPower’s trade secret designation in the companion case satisfied the requirements under Section 2019.210 because SunPower’s “designations provide fair notice to Standard, are reasonably particular, and frame the proper scope of discovery satisfy the requirements of section 2019.210.” (RIN Ex. B, October 12020 Order, 7:23-25.) (emphasis added)® Judge Kulkarni rejected the same arguments that Defendants make here, and in so ruling another department of this Court held: “as long as trade secrets are identified with reasonable particularity, it doesn't matter if they are identified with reference to a document or not. It's the concept or idea that is the trade secret, not the document. And SunPower's designations identify with reasonable particularity the trade secrets they claim are at issue (albeit with reference to documents).” (/d., 8:2-8.) (emphasis added.) That holding is relevant here, where SunPower’s 2AD — which Standard/GAF repeatedly asserted was identical in style to the approved Bunea Designation — complies with Section 2019.210 for the same reasons. Defendants’ procedural arguments and claim that SunPower’s Request for Judicial Notice is an “unauthorized brief” also fail. Both parties have routinely requested judicial notice of court records in this action. In fact, Defendants submitted their own Request for Judicial Notice in support of their Opposition to SunPower’s Motion to Compel. Court records are subject to judicial notice pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(d).’ California Evidence Code section 453 provides that “[t]he trial court shall take judicial notice of any matter specified in Section 452 if a party requests it and: (a) [g]ives each adverse party sufficient notice of the request, through the pleadings or otherwise, to enable such adverse party to prepare to meet the request; and (b) [fJurnishes the court with sufficient information to enable it to take judicial notice of the matter.” (emphasis added.) All of the documents referenced in SunPower’s Request for Judicial Notice fall squarely within the above-defined categories. 6 “An order made in one department . . . can neither be ignored nor overlooked in another department.” (/n re Kowalski (1971) 21 Cal.App.3d 67, 70.) 7 Judicial notice is also proper under §451(a) (notice of “[t]he decisional ... law of this state”); and §452(h) (notice of “[f]acts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute”). 3 SUNPOWER’S REPLY ISO REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ISO MOTION TO COMPEL, CASE NO. 19CV34904210 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, SunPower respectfully requests that the Court grant SunPower’s Request for Judicial Notice. Dated: November 3, 2020 DUANE MORRIS Lip By:__/s/ Stephen H. Sutro Stephen H. Sutro (SBN 172168) Suzanne R. Fogarty (SBN 154319) Meghan C. Killian (SBN 310195) Brad Thompson (admitted pro hac vice) Bert Greene (admitted pro hac vice) Attorneys for Plaintiff, SunPower Corporation 4 SUNPOWER’S REPLY ISO REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ISO MOTION TO COMPEL, CASE NO. 19CV349042Ov oo PROOF OF SERVICE SunPower Corporation v. Martin DeBono, Standard Industries, Inc., GAF Energy; and DOES 1 - 100 Santa Clara County Superior Court, Action No. 19CV349042 I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years, and not a party to interested in the cause. I am an employee with Duane Morris LLP and my business address is One Market Plaza, Spear Tower, Suite 2200, San Francisco, California 94105. I am readily familiar with this firm’s practices for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service and for transmitting documents by FedEx, fax, email, messenger and other modes. On the date stated below, I served the following documents: PLAINTIFF SUNPOWER CORPORATION’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES BY U.S. MAIL: I enclosed the documents in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the person(s) set forth below, and placed the envelope for collection and mailing following our ordinary business practices, which are that on the same day correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service in San Francisco, California, ina sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. OR (J T enclosed the documents in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the person(s) set forth below, and deposited the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service, with the postage fully prepaid. BY MESSENGER SERVICE: I enclosed the documents in an envelope or package addressed to the person(s) set forth below and providing the package(s) to a professional messenger service for same day delivery service. BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I personally delivered the documents to the persons at the addresses listed below. (1) For a party represented by an attorney, delivery was made to the attorney or the attorney’s office by leaving the documents in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the attorney being served with a receptionist or an individual in charge of the office. (2) For a party, delivery was made to the party or by leaving the documents at the party’s residence with some person not less than 18 years of age between the hours of eight in the morning and six in the evening. BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I enclosed the documents in a sealed envelope or package provided by FedEx and addressed to the person(s) listed below by placing the envelope or package(s) for collection and transmittal by FedEx pursuant to my firm’s ordinary business practices, which are that on the same day a FedEx envelope or package is placed for collection, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with FedEx for overnight delivery, with all charges fully prepaid. BY FACSIMILE: Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept service by fax transmission, I faxed the documents to the person(s) at the fax number(s) listed below. No error was reported by the fax machine that I used. A copy of the record of the fax transmission(s), which I printed out, is attached. BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: VIA E-Service by vendor Nationwide Legal LLC on all counsel on November 3, 2020. Ix 2 PROOF OF SERVICE DM1\10284992.1Jonathan A. Patchen, Esq. Counsel for Defendant, Martin DeBono Daniel P. Martin, Esq. Baker Botts L.L.P. Via Electronic Service 101 California Street, Suite 3600 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: 415.291.6209 E-mail: jonathan.patchen@bakerbotts.com daniel.martin@bakerbotts.com Cheryl A. Cauley, Esq. Counsel for Defendant, Martin DeBono Baker Botts L.L.P. 1001 Page Mill Road Via Electronic Service Building One, Suite 200 Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: 650-739-7500 E-mail: cheryl.cauley@bakerbotts.com John (Jay) Neukom, Esq. Counsel for Defendants, Standard/GAF Caroline Van Ness, Esq. Energy Michelle Kao, Esq. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom Via Electronic Service LLP 525 University Avenue, Suite 1400 Palo Alto, CA 94301-1908 Telephone: 650.470.4560 E-mail: john.neukom@skadden.com Caroline. VanNess@skadden.com Michelle.Kao@skadden.com Abraham A. Tabaie, Esq. Counsel for Defendants, Standard/GAF Raza Rasheed, Esq. Energy Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP 300 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 3400 Via Electronic Service Los Angeles, CA 90071 E-mail: atabaie@skadden.com raza.tasheed@skadden.com I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: November 3, 2020 /s/_ Jean Marie Reed Jean Marie Reed 3 PROOF OF SERVICE DM1\10284992.1