`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`CAUSE NO. 6:14-CV-678
`LEAD CASE
`
`§§§§§§
`
`§
`
`§§§§
`
`TRACBEAM, L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`T-MOBILE US, INC. AND
`T-MOBILE USA, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`ORDER
`
`Before the Court are various motions concerning the parties’ submission of a Docket
`
`Control Order, Discovery Order, and Protective Order. Having considered the parties’ filings,
`
`the Court rules as follows.
`
`The parties’ Joint Motion to Resolve Disputes Concerning the Proposed Discovery Order
`
`and to Enter Discovery Order (Docket No. 55) is GRANTED. Plaintiff may take up to 70 hours
`
`of deposition testimony and up to 15 depositions from each of Apple, Inc. and the T-Mobile
`
`entities (“Defendants”) (including 30(b)(6) depositions). Defendants may take up to 20 hours of
`
`deposition testimony from TracBeam, L.L.C. (including 30(b)(6) depositions and the depositions
`
`of Dennis Dupray). Defendants may collectively take a single deposition limited to seven hours
`
`of Frederick Warren LeBlanc. Deposition time of Mr. LeBlanc shall not be counted towards the
`
`limits for third party depositions. Finally, each side may take up to 10 third-party depositions, up
`
`to a length of seven hours each. The parties are ORDERED to resubmit a proposed Discovery
`
`Order incorporating these limits within two weeks of the date of this Order. As the litigation
`
`progresses, the parties may meet and confer and file a motion to adjust these limits as necessary.
`
`1
`
`Exhibit 2001
`T-Mobile et al. v. TracBeam, LLC
`IPR2016-00728
`
`
`
`Case 6:14-cv-00678-RWS Document 75 Filed 06/02/15 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 1129
`
`The parties’ Joint Motion to Resolve Disputes Concerning Proposed Docket Control
`
`Order and to Enter a Docket Control Order (Docket No. 56) is DENIED. Rather than forcing
`
`the parties to adopt an accelerated version of the Model Order Focusing Patent Claims and Prior
`
`Art, the plaintiff is ORDERED to elect a reasonable number of asserted claims within three
`
`weeks. Further, the parties are ORDERED to meet and confer within three weeks and submit a
`
`proposed Docket Control Order. In that Docket Control Order, the parties are strongly
`
`encouraged to implement a more traditional version of the Model Order. In applying the Model
`
`Order, Defendants shall count each obviousness combination as a reference in at least the final
`
`election of asserted art.
`
`The parties’ Joint Motion to Resolve Disputes Concerning Proposed Protective Order and
`
`Enter Protective Order (Docket No. 67) is DENIED. The parties’ disputes are not so extensive
`
`that compromise is out of the question. Accordingly, the parties are ORDERED to meet and
`
`confer within three weeks to resolve the outstanding disputes and resubmit a proposed
`
`Protective Order.
`
`In light of the foregoing rulings, the Court DENIES AS MOOT the parties’ Joint Motion
`
`for an Extension of Time to File a Proposed Discovery Order and Docket Control Order (Docket
`
`No. 53); the parties’ Joint Motion for an Extension of Time to File a Proposed Protective Order
`
`(Docket No. 52); the parties’ Joint Motion to Extend Deadlines to File a Proposed Discovery
`
`Order, Docket Control Order, and Protective Order (Docket No. 46); Plaintiff’s Unopposed
`
`Motion for an Extension of Time to File a Proposed Discovery Order and Proposed Docket
`
`Control Order (Docket No. 43).
`
`SIGNED this 2nd day of June, 2015.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`___________________________________________________________________________________________
`ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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
