`
`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
`
`