Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 220, PageID.12214 Filed 01/23/24 Page 1 of 7
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`IN RE NEO WIRELESS, LLC
`PATENT LITIG.
`
`Case No. 2:22-md-03034-TGB
`
`HON. TERRENCE G. BERG
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`NEO WIRELESS, LLC’S PARTIALLY OPPOSED1 MOTION TO EXTEND
`THE TIME TO COMPLETE DISCOVERY
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s Practice Guidelines, Plaintiff Neo Wireless, LLC
`
`(“Neo”) hereby files this motion for an extension of the deadlines defined in the
`
`Scheduling Order in this case (Dkt. 84). For the reasons explained below, Neo’s
`
`motion is timely and there is good cause for the requested extension.
`
`Neo requests a brief two-week extension to the discovery period and a
`
`corresponding extension to subsequent deadlines, as set forth in the table attached as
`
`Exhibit A. Alternatively, Neo requests a limited extension of the discovery period
`
`solely for the purpose of pursuing the matters specified below.
`
`
`1 Ford does not oppose the requested extension. Because Neo and Toyota have
`resolved all discovery timing issues as between them, Neo and Toyota agree that any
`discovery extension will not include Toyota and that the fact discovery period in the
`Toyota case will close on the original deadline. But Toyota does not oppose and
`instead takes no position on Neo’s motion to extend discovery with regard to any
`other defendant, or to extend the remaining case deadlines for all defendants. The
`remaining Defendants oppose the extension. Per Local Rule 7.1(a)(2)(A), counsel
`for Neo conferred with opposing counsel and explained the nature of this motion and
`its legal bases and requested but did not obtain concurrence in the relief sought.
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`IN RE NEO WIRELESS, LLC
`PATENT LITIG.
`
`Case No. 2:22-md-03034-TGB
`
`HON. TERRENCE G. BERG
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`NEO WIRELESS, LLC’S PARTIALLY OPPOSED1 MOTION TO EXTEND
`THE TIME TO COMPLETE DISCOVERY
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s Practice Guidelines, Plaintiff Neo Wireless, LLC
`
`(“Neo”) hereby files this motion for an extension of the deadlines defined in the
`
`Scheduling Order in this case (Dkt. 84). For the reasons explained below, Neo’s
`
`motion is timely and there is good cause for the requested extension.
`
`Neo requests a brief two-week extension to the discovery period and a
`
`corresponding extension to subsequent deadlines, as set forth in the table attached as
`
`Exhibit A. Alternatively, Neo requests a limited extension of the discovery period
`
`solely for the purpose of pursuing the matters specified below.
`
`
`1 Ford does not oppose the requested extension. Because Neo and Toyota have
`resolved all discovery timing issues as between them, Neo and Toyota agree that any
`discovery extension will not include Toyota and that the fact discovery period in the
`Toyota case will close on the original deadline. But Toyota does not oppose and
`instead takes no position on Neo’s motion to extend discovery with regard to any
`other defendant, or to extend the remaining case deadlines for all defendants. The
`remaining Defendants oppose the extension. Per Local Rule 7.1(a)(2)(A), counsel
`for Neo conferred with opposing counsel and explained the nature of this motion and
`its legal bases and requested but did not obtain concurrence in the relief sought.
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 220, PageID.12215 Filed 01/23/24 Page 2 of 7
`
`Good cause exists for this extension because (1) a number of Defendants have
`
`requested that they be allowed to present a 30(b)(6) deponent, or take a third-party
`
`deposition, after the current close of fact discovery, and (2) Neo may require
`
`additional time to finalize and authenticate the large amount of discovery obtained
`
`from Defendants’ third-party suppliers, and all Defendants other than Toyota and
`
`FCA have not yet agreed to streamline that process.
`
`1. Multiple Defendants Have Requested Depositions Outside Fact Discovery
`
`First and foremost, multiple Defendants have requested that they be allowed
`
`to present a 30(b)(6) deponent (in response to Neo’s July 2023 30(b)(6) Notice)
`
`outside the current fact discovery period: Honda requested a deposition on January
`
`31st, as already addressed by the Court; Ford has requested a deposition take place
`
`on February 9th (and thus does not oppose this motion); and Nissan has requested a
`
`deposition in February (though it still has not told Neo a specific date).
`
`Moreover, at least one third-party subpoenaed by Defendants—Avanci—has
`
`requested that its deposition take place outside the fact discovery period, on January
`
`30th. Defendants have requested that Neo agree to a limited extension of the
`
`discovery period for each of these depositions.
`
`Neo has relied on Defendants’ representations that these accommodations are
`
`necessary and, given that there are nineteen other depositions already taking place
`
`in January (due to most Defendants’ choice to delay presenting their 30(b)(6)
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 220, PageID.12216 Filed 01/23/24 Page 3 of 7
`
`witnesses in response to Neo’s July 2023 Notice until the eleventh hour), Neo does
`
`not oppose Defendants’ requests. However, to avoid serially seeking individual
`
`limited requests to the Court for each of these depositions, and to account for the
`
`fact that these late depositions will inhibit Neo’s preparation of its expert reports by
`
`the established February 26th deadline, Neo proposed a general, agreed two-week
`
`extension of the case deadlines. Yet, with the exception of Ford (and exempting
`
`Toyota, per footnote 1 above), the Defendants have nevertheless opposed Neo’s
`
`requested wholesale extension.
`
`Neo believes that these circumstances alone provide good cause for the
`
`requested extension, so that the Court does not have to adjudicate four separate
`
`motions for extension, and so Neo has sufficient time to complete its expert reports
`
`following the belated depositions. See Boykin v. Comerica Mgmt. Co., No. CIV A
`
`09-CV-10234-AA, 2009 WL 2222899, at *2 (E.D. Mich. July 22, 2009) (“Therefore,
`
`in part because as a practical matter discovery will be continuing, the Court finds
`
`good cause pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4) to extend the discovery deadline. That
`
`extension will necessitate the extension of other deadlines.”).
`
`2. Certain Defendants Have Not Agreed to Streamline Third-Party Discovery
`of Their Suppliers
`
`Good cause also exists for a general extension because of the large number of
`
`third-parties who have produced technical information and documents in this case
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 220, PageID.12217 Filed 01/23/24 Page 4 of 7
`
`(many of whom are still finalizing those productions) but have yet to authenticate
`
`that information via a deposition or declaration.
`
`As the Court will recall from past disputes, Neo has had to serve subpoenas
`
`on more than fifteen third-parties to obtain the source code (and corresponding
`
`information) for the Defendants’ products. Neo has worked tirelessly to collect all
`
`of this information from fifteen companies in order to correlate, for each Defendant:
`
`the TCU module in each car, the modem chip in each TCU, the software version in
`
`each modem, and the source code for that version. All of this basic technical
`
`information is uncontroversial. Thus, many of the third-parties have resisted Neo’s
`
`requests for a deposition to properly authenticate the produced information, on the
`
`grounds that it should be uncontroversial for Defendants to stipulate to the
`
`admissibility of this information rather than burden a third-party with a needless
`
`deposition.
`
`Rather than move to compel ten or more third-party depositions, Neo began
`
`suggesting to Defendants back in February of 2023 that the parties agree to a general
`
`stipulation that they would not object on authenticity or hearsay grounds to this sort
`
`of information produced by subpoenaed third-parties. But Defendants rejected that
`
`proposal on the grounds that it should be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Thus,
`
`in recent weeks, as the third-parties have begun to finalize their productions, Neo
`
`has gone to great lengths to prepare (with the third-parties) specific declarations
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 220, PageID.12218 Filed 01/23/24 Page 5 of 7
`
`authenticating and explaining the produced information, and asked Defendants to
`
`accept these declarations in lieu of deposition to reduce the burden on all parties.
`
`Toyota and FCA have agreed to Neo’s proposals. Others (Ford, GM, Nissan)
`
`have agreed to some of those proposals, but Neo is still conferring with them on the
`
`particulars. Honda and Tesla have not provided an answer, despite repeated attempts
`
`by Neo to confer.
`
`Given that some Defendants have not agreed to streamline this discovery via
`
`declaration, Neo needs additional time to either (1) continue conferring to reach an
`
`agreement; or (2) coordinate depositions with the third-parties, even if just to
`
`authenticate uncontroversial information. Neo is hopeful that, given more time,
`
`Defendants will agree to Neo’s reasonable proposals for proving up this evidence
`
`without the need for a deposition. But with fact discovery closing soon, while the
`
`parties are in the midst of a flurry of party depositions, good cause exists for a two-
`
`week extension to allow the parties additional time to finalize these matters without
`
`needless depositions or court intervention. And because the remaining deadlines in
`
`the case are keyed off the close of fact discovery, there is also good cause for
`
`extending the remaining deadlines a commensurate two weeks.
`
`For the reasons above, Neo requests the Court grant the requested extension.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 220, PageID.12219 Filed 01/23/24 Page 6 of 7
`
`DATED: January 23, 2024
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/s/ Christopher S. Stewart
`Jason D. Cassady
`Texas State Bar No. 24045625
`Email: jcassady@caldwellcc.com
`Christopher S. Stewart
`Texas State Bar No. 24079399
`Email: cstewart@caldwellcc.com
`CALDWELL CASSADY CURRY P.C.
`2121 N. Pearl St., Suite 1200
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`Telephone: (214) 888-4848
`Facsimile: (214) 888-4849
`
`
`
`Jaye Quadrozzi (P71646)
`Email: quadrozzi@youngpc.com
`YOUNG, GARCIA & QUADROZZI, PC
`2775 Stansbury Blvd., Suite 125
`Farmington Hills, Michigan 48334
`Telephone: (248) 353-8620
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`NEO WIRELESS LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 220, PageID.12220 Filed 01/23/24 Page 7 of 7
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that on January 23, 2024, the foregoing document
`
`was filed electronically with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which
`
`will send notification of such filing to all attorneys of record.
`
`/s/ Jaye Quadrozzi
`Jaye Quadrozzi
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
