Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 97 Filed 04/13/22 Page 1 of 26
`
`Exhibit 10
`REDACTED VERSION
`OF ECF NO. 75-1
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 97 Filed 04/13/22 Page 2 of 26
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`Alfred R. Fabricant
`afabricant@fabricantllp.com
`Peter Lambrianakos
`plambrianakos@fabricantllp.com
`Vincent J. Rubino, III
`vrubino@fabricantllp.com
`FABRICANT LLP
`411 Theodore Fremd Road, Suite 206 South
`Rye, New York 10580
`Telephone: (212) 257-5797
`Facsimile: (212) 257-5796
`
`Benjamin T. Wang
`bwang@raklaw.com
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90025
`Telephone: (310) 826-7474
`Facsimile: (310) 826-9226
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`AGIS Software Development LLC
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA.
`
`(San Jose Division)
`
`LYFT, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
` Case No. 5:21-cv-04653-BLF
`
`DEFENDANT AGIS SOFTWARE
`DEVELOPMENT LLC’S FIRST
`SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND
`RESPONSES TO LYFT INC.’S FIRST
`SET OF JURISDICTIONAL
`INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-5) TO
`DEFENDANT AGIS SOFTWARE
`DEVELOPMENT LLC, ADVANCED
`GROUND INFORMATION SERVICES,
`INC., AND AGIS HOLDINGS, INC.
`
`Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman
`
`
`DEFENDANT AGIS SOFTWARE’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO LYFT’S FIRST SET OF JURIDICTIONAL INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-5)
`5:21-cv-04653-BLF
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 97 Filed 04/13/22 Page 3 of 26
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil
`Procedure, the Local Rules of this Court, and the Court’s January 28, 2022 Order, Defendant
`AGIS Software Development LLC (“AGIS Software” or “Defendant”) hereby submits these
`supplemental responses to Plaintiff Lyft, Inc.’s (“Lyft” or “Plaintiff”) First Set of Jurisdictional
`Interrogatories (Nos. 1-5) in writing, under oath, and in accordance with the following definitions
`and instructions, within thirty (30) days of the date of service thereof dated February 4, 2022.
`These Interrogatories are continuing in nature and require supplementation in accordance with the
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as follows:
`These responses are made solely for the purposes of this action, and are made without
`waiving, or intending to waive, the right at any time to revise, correct, modify, supplement, or
`clarify any response provided herein or the right to object on any proper grounds to the use of
`these responses, for any purpose in whole or in part, in any subsequent proceedings or any other
`action. The right to raise any applicable objections at any time is expressly reserved. A response to
`any interrogatory herein should not be taken as an admission or acceptance of the existence of any
`facts set forth or assumed by such interrogatory, or that such response constitutes admissible
`evidence. The responses herein reflect only the present state of AGIS Software’s investigation and
`the present state of discovery. Except as otherwise indicated, an objection and/or response to a
`specific interrogatory does not imply that facts responsive to the interrogatory exist.
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS
`AGIS Software objects to these Interrogatories as improperly directed to non-
`1.
`parties, Advanced Ground Information Systems, Inc. and AGIS Holdings, Inc. Advanced Ground
`Information Systems, Inc. and AGIS Holdings, Inc. are not parties to the present litigation. The
`Court granted jurisdictional discovery in the form of five interrogatories to AGIS Software and
`one four-hour Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of AGIS Software. Dkt. 61 at 10. AGIS Software responds
`on behalf of AGIS Software only.
`AGIS Software objects to these Definitions, Instructions, and Interrogatories as
`2.
`overly broad, unduly burdensome, not proportional to the needs of this case, and seeking to
`
`2
`
`DEFENDANT AGIS SOFTWARE’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO LYFT’S FIRST SET OF JURIDICTIONAL INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-5),
`5:21-cv-04653-BLF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 97 Filed 04/13/22 Page 4 of 26
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`impose burdens beyond those required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Civil
`and Patent Rules of the Northern District of California, and the Orders governing this action.
`AGIS Software will respond to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories consistent with the Federal Rules of
`Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of this Court, and/or Orders of this Court.
`AGIS Software objects to the Definition of “AGIS,” “Defendant,” “You,” and
`3.
`“Your” as overly burdensome, not proportional to the needs of the case and not relevant to any
`party’s claims or defenses because they include persons and entities outside of AGIS Software and
`who are not under the control of AGIS Software. Accordingly, AGIS Software provides answers
`to these Interrogatories on behalf of AGIS Software only. AGIS Software further objects to these
`definitions to extent that they call for information from then-current or prior subsidiaries, parents,
`affiliates, divisions, successors, predecessors, agents, employees, representatives, directors,
`officers, trustees, and attorneys, that are not owned or controlled by AGIS Software or that are not
`in the possession of AGIS Software. AGIS Software further objects to these definitions to the
`extent they call for information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the work
`product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege or immunity insofar as the definition purports
`to include attorneys.
`AGIS Software objects to the Definition of “Third Party” and “Third Parties” as
`4.
`overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeking information not within AGIS Software’s
`possession, custody, or control.
`AGIS Software objects to the Definition of “Person” as overly broad, unduly
`5.
`burdensome, and seeking information not within AGIS Software’s possession, custody, or control.
`AGIS Software objects to the Definitions of “Communication,” “Document,”
`6.
`“Concerning,” “concern(s),” “referring to,” “relating to,” “related to,” “relate(s) to,” “pertaining
`to,” “pertain(s) to,” and “identify” as (i) overly broad; (ii) unduly burdensome; (iii) not
`proportional to the needs of this case; (iv) not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses; (v)
`seeking information that is not within AGIS Software’s possession, custody, or control; and (vi)
`imposing burdens beyond the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local
`
`3
`
`DEFENDANT AGIS SOFTWARE’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO LYFT’S FIRST SET OF JURIDICTIONAL INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-5),
`5:21-cv-04653-BLF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 97 Filed 04/13/22 Page 5 of 26
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Civil and Patent Rules of the Northern District of California, and the Orders governing this action.
`AGIS Software objects to these Definitions to extent they call for the production of
`7.
`information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine,
`or any other applicable privilege or immunity insofar as the definition purports to include
`attorneys.
`AGIS Software objects to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories to the extent they seek
`8.
`information not relevant to a claim or a defense of this litigation or proportional to the needs of the
`case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the
`parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the
`discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery
`outweighs its likely benefit. By responding to any Interrogatory or identifying or producing
`documents or materials in response thereto, AGIS Software is not acknowledging or conceding the
`relevance of any such material and reserves the right to object to the introduction of the evidence
`on relevancy or any other grounds.
`AGIS Software objects to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories to the extent they seek material
`9.
`protected by, or which may only be answered by, reliance upon any privileged or work product
`information, including mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of AGIS
`Software’s counsel, experts, or consultants developed with or in anticipation of litigation. To the
`extent reasonably possible, AGIS Software will attempt to interpret the Interrogatories as not
`seeking privileged information. Inadvertent reference to privileged information by AGIS Software
`shall not constitute a waiver of any applicable privilege.
`AGIS Software objects to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories as seeking information that is
`10.
`less burdensomely and/or more appropriately obtained through other discovery means.
`AGIS Software objects to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories to the extent that they require
`11.
`premature disclosure of expert testimony, evidence, argument, contentions, or any other disclosure
`inconsistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Civil and Patent Rules of the
`Northern District of California, or the Orders governing this action.
`
`4
`
`DEFENDANT AGIS SOFTWARE’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO LYFT’S FIRST SET OF JURIDICTIONAL INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-5),
`5:21-cv-04653-BLF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 97 Filed 04/13/22 Page 6 of 26
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`AGIS Software objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they seek legal
`12.
`conclusions. Where an Interrogatory includes words and concepts indicative of a legal conclusion,
`AGIS Software does not represent that such conclusions apply by responding to the Interrogatory.
`AGIS Software objects to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories to the extent that they
`13.
`improperly seek to shift Plaintiff’s burden of proof to AGIS Software.
`AGIS Software objects to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories to the extent that they call for
`14.
`information that is confidential, proprietary, and/or trade secrets of a third-party. AGIS Software
`cannot divulge confidential, proprietary, and/or trade secret information of a third-party to the
`extent AGIS Software is under any obligation to maintain such third-party information in
`confidence and to not disclose it, unless and until the third-party grants permission to do so.
`AGIS Software objects to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories as premature to the extent that
`15.
`discovery is not complete in this case. Accordingly, additional facts and witnesses may be
`discovered as discovery progresses.
`AGIS Software objects to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories to the extent they comprise
`16.
`multiple discrete subparts in contravention of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`AGIS Software reserves the right to use at trial and in any other proceeding in this
`17.
`action any such additional documents, witnesses, facts, and evidence that may have been omitted
`from these responses for one of the foregoing reasons or otherwise, and without obligating AGIS
`Software to do so, AGIS Software reserves the right to supplement or amend these responses in
`the future as may be appropriate.
`AGIS Software’s responses shall not constitute admissions that any particular
`18.
`documents exist, are relevant, material, or are admissible in evidence.
`SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES
`JURISDICTIONAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1
`Identify all interactions, including Communications, between AGIS Software, AGIS
`Holdings, and/or AGIS, Inc. and any Person, company, or entity located, based, or incorporated in
`California from 2015 to the present, including but not limited to customers or potential customers
`
`5
`
`DEFENDANT AGIS SOFTWARE’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO LYFT’S FIRST SET OF JURIDICTIONAL INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-5),
`5:21-cv-04653-BLF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 97 Filed 04/13/22 Page 7 of 26
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`of AGIS, Inc., licensees or potential licensees of AGIS Software and/or AGIS, Inc., law enforcement
`agencies, fire departments, first responders, state and local government agencies or departments,
`current and former members of the military, the State of California and any of its departments or
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RESPONSE TO JURISDICTIONAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1
`AGIS Software incorporates by references its General Objections as if fully set forth
`herein. AGIS Software objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected by
`the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, and/or any other applicable privilege. AGIS
`Software objects to this Interrogatory as unclear, vague, and ambiguous, particularly with respect
`to the phrase “all interactions,” “potential customers,” and “potential licensees.” AGIS Software
`objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeking information not
`proportional to the needs of this case. AGIS Software objects to this Interrogatory as vague and
`ambiguous. AGIS Software objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that may
`be protected from disclosure by Non-Disclosure Agreements or is otherwise in the possession of a
`third-party to which a duty of confidentiality is owed. AGIS Software objects to this Interrogatory
`as seeking information that is not relevant to any claims or defenses of any party to this action and
`is not proportional to the needs of the case.
`Subject to and without waiving its General and Specific Objections to this Interrogatory,
`AGIS Software responds as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`DEFENDANT AGIS SOFTWARE’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO LYFT’S FIRST SET OF JURIDICTIONAL INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-5),
`5:21-cv-04653-BLF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 97 Filed 04/13/22 Page 8 of 26
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AGIS Software is the assignee and owner of the patents identified in the June 16, 2021
`complaint. AGIS Software is unaware of any communications with AGIS, Inc. and AGIS
`Holdings regarding any licensees and customers or any “interactions,” including
`“Communications” with “law enforcement agencies, fire departments, first responders, state and
`local government agencies or departments, current and former members of the military, the State
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The public record shows that AGIS, Inc. filed a complaint against Life360, Inc. in the
`Southern District of Florida on May 16, 2014. See Advanced Ground Information Systems, Inc. v.
`Life360, Inc., No. 9:14-cv-80651 (S.D. Fla.). According to the public record of Life360’s answer
`in that case, Life360 did not contest jurisdiction in the Southern District of Florida and the case
`proceeded in that district.
`AGIS Software has had no “interactions,” including “Communications” with “law
`enforcement agencies, fire departments, first responders, state and local government agencies or
`departments, current and former members of the military, the State of California and any of its
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`DEFENDANT AGIS SOFTWARE’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO LYFT’S FIRST SET OF JURIDICTIONAL INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-5),
`5:21-cv-04653-BLF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 97 Filed 04/13/22 Page 9 of 26
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`[and] Life360, Inc.”
`AGIS Software filed complaints against Apple Inc. and HTC Corporation on June 21, 2017
`in the Eastern District of Texas. See AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 2:17-cv-00516-
`JRG (E.D. Tex.); AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. HTC Corp., No. 2:17-cv-00514-JRG (E.D. Tex.).
`AGIS Software filed complaints against Google LLC, Waze Mobile Limited, and Samsung
`Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. on November 4, 2019 in the Eastern
`District of Texas. See AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Google LLC, No. 2:19-cv-00361-JRG (E.D.
`Tex.); AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. and Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., No.
`2:19-cv-00362-JRG (E.D. Tex.); AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Waze Mobile Ltd., No. 2:19-cv-
`00359-JRG (E.D. Tex.). AGIS Software filed complaints against WhatsApp LLC and Uber
`Technologies, Inc., d/b/a Uber on January 29, 2021 in the Eastern District of Texas. See AGIS
`Software Dev. LLC v. WhatsApp, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00029-JRG (E.D. Tex.); AGIS Software Dev.
`LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc., d/b/a Uber, No. 2:21-cv-00026-JRG (E.D. Tex.). AGIS Software
`filed a complaint against T-Mobile USA, Inc. and T-Mobile US, Inc. on March 3, 2021 in the
`Eastern District of Texas. See AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-
`00072-JRG (E.D. Tex.). Each of the complaints identified in this paragraph asserted patent-
`infringement claims in the Eastern District of Texas and were litigated before the U.S. District
`Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
`AGIS Software identifies AGIS, Inc. as a licensee of AGIS Software’s patents. AGIS
`Software is aware that AGIS, Inc. makes and sells the LifeRing and ASSIST software products.
`To the best of AGIS Software’s knowledge, AGIS, Inc. has no activities, contacts, and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`DEFENDANT AGIS SOFTWARE’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO LYFT’S FIRST SET OF JURIDICTIONAL INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-5),
`5:21-cv-04653-BLF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 97 Filed 04/13/22 Page 10 of 26
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`Discovery in this case is ongoing and AGIS Software continues to investigate this matter.
`AGIS Software will supplement this response to provide any additional responsive, non-privileged
`information to the extent such information exists, can be ascertained after a reasonable
`investigation in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and any applicable Court
`order, and is in the possession, custody, or control of AGIS Software. AGIS Software reserves the
`right to supplement its response to this Interrogatory, including identifying additional documents
`pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d).
`03/16/2022 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO JURISDICTIONAL INTERROGATORY
`NO. 1
`
`AGIS Software incorporates by references its General and Specific Objections to this
`Interrogatory, as if fully set forth herein. Subject to and without waiving its General and Specific
`Objections to this Interrogatory, AGIS Software provides the following supplemental response as
`follows:
`Counsel for Lyft has requested additional information regarding the identification of
`complaints filed in the Eastern District of Texas against Defendants Apple Inc., WhatsApp,
`Google, T-Mobile, Waze, HTC, and Samsung, and Uber. There have been no communications
`from AGIS Software to Defendants. To the extent mediation proceedings occurred between AGIS
`Software and any Defendants, such mediation proceedings were held before Judge David Folsom
`located in Dallas, Texas. AGIS Software has had no communications with Facebook.
`
`JURISDICTIONAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2
`Identify all transfers of money, including payments, made to or received by AGIS
`Software from 2017 to the present, including but not limited to all payments for facilities, staff,
`services, patent licenses, capital contributions, and/or transfers involving AGIS, Inc. or AGIS
`Holdings, including the bank account(s) from which the payment was made or to which the
`payment was deposited.
`
`9
`
`DEFENDANT AGIS SOFTWARE’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO LYFT’S FIRST SET OF JURIDICTIONAL INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-5),
`5:21-cv-04653-BLF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 97 Filed 04/13/22 Page 11 of 26
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`RESPONSE TO JURISDICTIONAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2
`AGIS Software incorporates by reference its General Objections as if fully set forth herein.
`AGIS Software objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeking
`information not proportional to the needs of the case. AGIS Software objects to this Interrogatory
`to the extent that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product
`doctrine, and/or any other applicable privilege. AGIS Software objects to this Interrogatory as
`unclear, vague, and ambiguous, particularly with respect to the phrase, “all transfers of money.”
`AGIS Software further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion.
`AGIS Software objects to this Interrogatory as seeking information that may be protected from
`disclosure by Non-Disclosure Agreements or is otherwise in the possession of a third-party to
`which a duty of confidentiality is owed. AGIS Software objects to this Interrogatory as seeking
`information that is not relevant to the claims or defenses of any party to this action, and not
`proportional to the needs of the case. AGIS Software objects to this Interrogatory as having
`multiple subparts, each counting towards Defendant’s total number of Interrogatories.
`Further, AGIS Software objects to the time period “since 2017” as irrelevant, overly broad,
`unduly burdensome, and seeking information not proportional to the needs of the case. This
`interrogatory is provided for jurisdictional discovery. Minimum contacts must exist either at the
`time the suit is filed or within a reasonable period of time immediately prior to the filing of the
`lawsuit.
`Subject to and without waiving its General and Specific Objections, AGIS Software
`responds as follows:
`AGIS Software maintains its own bank account. AGIS Software does not share this bank
`account with any other entity.
`AGIS Software identifies the following listing of all transfers to and from AGIS
`Software’s bank account since three months before the filing of Lyft’s June 16, 2021 complaint.
`
`
`10
`
`DEFENDANT AGIS SOFTWARE’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO LYFT’S FIRST SET OF JURIDICTIONAL INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-5),
`5:21-cv-04653-BLF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 97 Filed 04/13/22 Page 12 of 26
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`The above listing is a complete listing of all transfers to and from AGIS Software’s bank
`account since three months before the filing of Lyft’s June 16, 2021 complaint.
`Discovery in this case is ongoing and AGIS Software continues to investigate this matter.
`AGIS Software will supplement this response to provide any additional responsive, non-privileged
`information to the extent such information exists, can be ascertained after a reasonable
`investigation in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and any applicable Court
`order, and is in the possession, custody, or control of AGIS Software. AGIS Software reserves the
`right to supplement its response to this Interrogatory, including identifying additional documents
`pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d).
`03/16/2022 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO JURISDICTIONAL INTERROGATORY
`NO. 2
`
`AGIS Software incorporates by references its General and Specific Objections to this
`Interrogatory, as if fully set forth herein. Subject to and without waiving its General and Specific
`Objections to this Interrogatory, AGIS Software provides the following supplemental response as
`follows:
`Counsel for Lyft has requested additional information regarding the identification of
`
`11
`
`DEFENDANT AGIS SOFTWARE’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO LYFT’S FIRST SET OF JURIDICTIONAL INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-5),
`5:21-cv-04653-BLF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 97 Filed 04/13/22 Page 13 of 26
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`transfers made since 2017. While AGIS Software disagrees that this information is relevant to the
`inquiry of minimum contacts, AGIS Software provides this information The below listing is a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`DEFENDANT AGIS SOFTWARE’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO LYFT’S FIRST SET OF JURIDICTIONAL INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-5),
`5:21-cv-04653-BLF
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`5:21-cv-04653-BLF
`
`13
`
`13
`DEFENDANT AGIS SOFTWARE’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO LYFT’S FIRST SET OF JURIDICTIONAL INTERROGATORIES(NOS.1-5),
`DEFENDANT AGIS SOFTWARE’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO LYFT’S FIRST SET OF JURIDICTIONAL INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-5),
`5:21-cv-04653-BLF
`
`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 97 Filed 04/13/22 Page 14 of 26
`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 97 Filed 04/13/22 Page 14 of 26
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`oOomeaNNHDAFPWNY
`vemmeeeeNWNBPWONYO|CO
`NyNYNYNYNYNYNYNYNYYFFFonNHAFPWONYKS&COOOWwW~
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`i3 Bt
`H5S<N 5m
`
`e
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`5:21-cv-04653-BLF
`
`14
`
`14
`DEFENDANT AGIS SOFTWARE’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO LYFT’S FIRST SET OF JURIDICTIONAL INTERROGATORIES(NOS.1-5),
`DEFENDANT AGIS SOFTWARE’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO LYFT’S FIRST SET OF JURIDICTIONAL INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-5),
`5:21-cv-04653-BLF
`
`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 97 Filed 04/13/22 Page 15 of 26
`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 97 Filed 04/13/22 Page 15 of 26
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`oOomeaNNHDAFPWNY
`vemmeeeeNWNBPWONYO|CO
`NyNYNYNYNYNYNYNYNYYFFFonNHAFPWONYKS&COOOWwW~
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`i3 Bt
`H5S<N 5m
`
`e
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`5:21-cv-04653-BLF
`
`15
`
`15
`DEFENDANT AGIS SOFTWARE’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO LYFT’S FIRST SET OF JURIDICTIONAL INTERROGATORIES(NOS.1-5),
`DEFENDANT AGIS SOFTWARE’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO LYFT’S FIRST SET OF JURIDICTIONAL INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-5),
`5:21-cv-04653-BLF
`
`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 97 Filed 04/13/22 Page 16 of 26
`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 97 Filed 04/13/22 Page 16 of 26
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`oOomeaNNHDAFPWNY
`vemmeeeeNWNBPWONYO|CO
`NyNYNYNYNYNYNYNYNYYFFFonNHAFPWONYKS&COOOWwW~
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`i3 Bt
`H5S<N 5m
`
`e
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`5:21-cv-04653-BLF
`
`16
`
`16
`DEFENDANT AGIS SOFTWARE’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO LYFT’S FIRST SET OF JURIDICTIONAL INTERROGATORIES(NOS.1-5),
`DEFENDANT AGIS SOFTWARE’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO LYFT’S FIRST SET OF JURIDICTIONAL INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-5),
`5:21-cv-04653-BLF
`
`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 97 Filed 04/13/22 Page 17 of 26
`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 97 Filed 04/13/22 Page 17 of 26
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`oOomeaNNHDAFPWNY
`vemmeeeeNWNBPWONYO|CO
`NyNYNYNYNYNYNYNYNYYFFFonNHAFPWONYKS&COOOWwW~
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`i3 Bt
`H5S<N 5m
`
`e
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 97 Filed 04/13/22 Page 18 of 26
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`In the above listing, AGIS redacts only amounts that are covered under third-party
`
`confidentiality requirements.
`
`JURISDICTIONAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3
`Identify all corporate meetings, including but not limited to any board or officer meetings,
`performed by AGIS Software from 2017 to the present, including attendees, agendas, and
`
`17
`
`DEFENDANT AGIS SOFTWARE’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO LYFT’S FIRST SET OF JURIDICTIONAL INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-5),
`5:21-cv-04653-BLF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 97 Filed 04/13/22 Page 19 of 26
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`associated meeting minutes for each meeting.
`RESPONSE TO JURISDICTIONAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3
`AGIS Software hereby incorporates by reference its General Objections as if fully set forth
`herein. AGIS Software objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and
`seeking information not proportional to the needs of the case. AGIS Software objects to this
`Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, work
`product doctrine, and/or any other applicable privilege. AGIS Software objects to this
`Interrogatory to the extent it seeks a legal conclusion. AGIS Software objects to this Interrogatory
`as unclear, vague, and ambiguous, particularly with respect to the phrases, “all corporate
`meetings,” “any board or officer meetings performed.” AGIS Software objects to this
`Interrogatory as seeking information that is not relevant to the claims or defenses of any party to
`this action, and not proportional to the needs of the case. AGIS Software objects to this
`Interrogatory as having multiple subparts, each counting towards Plaintiff’s total number of
`Interrogatories.
`Further, AGIS Software objects to the time period “from 2017” as irrelevant, overly broad,
`unduly burdensome, and seeking information not proportional to the needs of the case. This
`Interrogatory is provided for jurisdictional discovery. Minimum contacts must exist either at the
`time the suit is filed or within a reasonable period of time immediately prior to the filing of the
`lawsuit.
`Subject to and without waiving its General and Specific Objections to this Interrogatory,
`AGIS Software responds as follows:
`AGIS Software is not a corporation and does not have a “board.” Because AGIS Software
`is a limited liability company, it is not required to hold any meetings. For the formation of the
`company, AGIS Software held one formation meeting in June 2017. Besides this formation
`meeting, AGIS Software does not have any records or minutes of any “corporate meetings” or
`“any board or officer meetings performed by AGIS Software.”
`Discovery in this case is ongoing and AGIS Software continues to investigate this matter.
`
`18
`
`DEFENDANT AGIS SOFTWARE’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO LYFT’S FIRST SET OF JURIDICTIONAL INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-5),
`5:21-cv-04653-BLF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 97 Filed 04/13/22 Page 20 of 26
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`AGIS Software will supplement this response to provide any additional responsive, non-privileged
`information to the extent such information exists, can be ascertained after a reasonable
`investigation in accordan