`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`CYWEE GROUP LTD.,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`AND SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`NO. 2:17-CV-00140-WCB-RSP
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. AND SAMSUNG
`ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.’S SUR-REPLY IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S
`MOTION TO COMPEL CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE DEPOSITION ON THE
`SUBJECT OF IMPORTATION AND SALES TO SAMSUNG SUBSIDIARIES
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 221 Filed 10/19/18 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 10468
`
`
`CyWee’s Reply confirms that its Motion to Compel Corporate Representative Deposition
`
`on the Subject of Importation and Sales is based on the flawed premise that Samsung hid the
`
`existence of subsidiary importers of the Accused Products. To the contrary,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Accordingly, CyWee’s Motion should be denied.
`
`I.
`
`SAMSUNG DID NOT HIDE THE EXISTENCE OF ADDITIONAL IMPORTING
`SUBSIDIARIES
`
`CyWee argues that it is entitled to this deposition after the close of fact discovery because
`
`it believes SEC and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“SEA”) (collectively, “Samsung”) are
`
`hiding the existence of additional importers. This theory is flawed for a number of reasons.
`
`First, Samsung is not hiding importers.
`
`disclosed voluntarily in response to a letter sent by CyWee after the close of fact discovery
`
`That was
`
`requesting this information.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Second, CyWee apparently believes Samsung is hiding additional importers based on its
`
`incorrect theory that Samsung “failed to disclose” this information “in its disclosures mandated
`
`by the Local Rules.” Dkt. No. 198 at 2. CyWee, however, provides no legal support for its claim
`
`that importation information for entities not named in this case is relevant to its claims of direct
`
`infringement. CyWee likewise provides no legal support for its claim that the information is
`
`relevant since “CyWee accuses SEC of inducing its subsidiaries to infringe.” Dkt. No. 198 at 1–
`
`2. Although CyWee’s complaint included boilerplate language regarding induced infringement,
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 221 Filed 10/19/18 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 10469
`
`
`CyWee’s infringement contentions omit this theory. Dkt. No. 9 ¶ 25; Supplemental Declaration
`
`of Elizabeth L. Brann ¶ 2, Ex. 7. “The Local Patent Rules directed to infringement contentions
`
`are designed to ensure that defendants are given full and timely notice of the allegations against
`
`them.” Sycamore IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Corp., No. 2:16-CV-588-WCB, 2017 WL 4517953,
`
`at *5 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 10, 2017). CyWee’s contentions cannot have provided any such notice of
`
`induced infringement because they entirely omit this theory. Further, since the theory was not in
`
`the contentions, Samsung reasonably believed (and continues to believe) it is not properly
`
`asserted. Nike, Inc. v. Adidas Am. Inc., 479 F. Supp. 2d 664, 670 (E.D. Tex. 2007) (“Based on
`
`the brief statements in the July 2006 contentions, followed by the October 2006 contentions in
`
`which there was no mention of the doctrine of equivalents, it was reasonable for [Defendant] to
`
`assume that the doctrine of equivalents was not being pursued.”). Regardless, Samsung has
`
`already disclosed the allegedly relevant information.
`
`Further, if CyWee’s theory were true—i.e., that Samsung hid the existence of importers
`
`contrary to the Local Rules—it does not make sense that Samsung would
`
`
`
`in response to a letter served by CyWee after the close of
`
`fact discovery. Samsung’s forthcoming disclosures rebut CyWee’s conspiracy theory.
`
`Third, CyWee’s only other alleged support that Samsung hid the existence
`
` is the testimony of Sean Diaz. CyWee’s reply, however, confirms that Mr. Diaz only
`
` CyWee claims that since “[t]hat testimony was false . . . [f]or
`
`
`
`that reason alone, CyWee seeks a Samsung corporate representative to testify under oath in a
`
`deposition whether any additional SEC subsidiaries exist that import Accused Products.” Id. at
`
`3–4. Since CyWee’s statement that Mr. Diaz’s “testimony was false” (Id. at 3) is demonstrably
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 221 Filed 10/19/18 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 10470
`
`
`incorrect, however, and since this incorrectly labeled “false testimony” is by CyWee’s admission
`
`the basis for its Motion, the Motion should be denied.
`
`Finally, CyWee provides no legal support for the claim that its paranoia constitutes good
`
`cause for this belated deposition. The record shows that Samsung has been very forthcoming in
`
`the disclosure of importers, despite the questionable relevance of these requests.
`
`II.
`
`THE DEPOSITION IS NOT PROPORTIONAL TO THE NEEDS OF THE CASE
`
`Samsung has already disclosed the importers of the Accused Products, as well as
`
`
`
` Since there appears to be no additional information to be obtained from this deposition, and
`
`the requested topics have questionable relevance in any event, this request is not proportional to
`
`the needs of the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The burden and expense of producing a witness
`
`for deposition far outweighs the benefit of any information CyWee might hope to obtain from
`
`the deposition. Specifically, CyWee has produced no evidence that any additional importers
`
`exist, and Samsung has already disclosed the importers it located. Dkt. No. 157-5 at 2. Therefore,
`
`CyWee’s Motion essentially demands that a Samsung witness prepare for and attend a deposition
`
`that will amount to little more than a fishing expedition.
`
`III. CYWEE’S CONDUCT IN THIS CASE ILLUSTRATES WHY A DECLARATION
`WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT
`
`CyWee claims that “[a] simple and direct way” to avoid this deposition is for Samsung to
`
`provide a declaration stating “that no SEC subsidiary
`
` acts as an
`
`importer of record of any Accused Products into the United States.” CyWee’s approach in this
`
`case, however, suggests strongly that such a declaration would be anything but “a simple way” to
`
`avoid additional discovery disputes.
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 221 Filed 10/19/18 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 10471
`
`
`For example, Samsung voluntarily produced material cost files in this case, yet CyWee is
`
`currently demanding a deposition to obtain this exact data. Dkt. No. 180 at 8–9. Additionally,
`
`CyWee’s reply to this Motion twists Samsung’s cooperation in
`
`
`
`, which specifically was crafted in order to minimize discovery and disputes, into
`
`support for a deposition on importation, stating
`
`
`
`
`
`Despite CyWee’s claims, it has rarely taken
`
`Samsung’s discovery cooperation at face value. Given this pattern, Samsung sees no reason why
`
`such a declaration would be useful. That said, if the Court is inclined to order further discovery,
`
`Samsung requests the opportunity to discuss with the Court the option of providing a declaration
`
`in lieu of a deposition.
`
`IV. CYWEE’S FOUR ADDITIONAL REQUESTS FOR RELIEF ARE IMPROPER
`
`CyWee lists four additional requests for supplemental disclosures related to operations of
`
`other Samsung subsidiaries, additional alleged importation and sales, and terms of those sales.
`
`Dkt. No. 198 at 5. CyWee cannot dispute, however, that the parties have not met and conferred
`
`on these issues. Dkt. No. 194 at 6. Further, some of the requests demand discovery from
`
` Thus, these requests appear to be an attempt to circumvent
`
`
`
`those agreements. These additional requests should be denied.
`
`V.
`
`SANCTIONS AGAINST CYWEE ARE APPROPRIATE
`
`CyWee’s reply doubles down on its numerous prior mischaracterizations. The record is
`
`clear that Samsung did not hide the existence of additional subsidiary importers through Mr.
`
`Diaz’s testimony or otherwise. CyWee also continues to make unsupported, inflammatory
`
`accusations against Samsung. Dkt. No. 198 at 4. Again, CyWee does not explain how it came to
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 221 Filed 10/19/18 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 10472
`
`
`the conclusion that importation information was hidden in other cases. Further, CyWee ignores
`
`that it drastically misrepresented to the Court the potential scope of this alleged “fraud.” Dkt. No.
`
`194 at 6–8. Regardless, this accusation has nothing to do with the present Motion. Accordingly,
`
`Samsung requests attorneys’ fees incurred in opposing CyWee’s baseless Motion.
`
`VI. CONCLUSION
`
`The record shows that Samsung has never hidden the existence of additional subsidiary
`
`importers of the Accused Products. Further, SEC has agreed to
`
` Therefore, Samsung respectfully requests
`
`that the Court deny CyWee’s Motion.
`
`
`
`DATED: October 17, 2018
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Christopher W. Kennerly
`Christopher W. Kennerly
`TX Bar No. 00795077
`chriskennerly@paulhastings.com
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`1117 S. California Ave.
`Palo Alto, California 94304
`Telephone: (650) 320-1800
`Facsimile:
`(650) 320-1900
`
`Barry Sher (pro hac vice)
`NY Bar No. 2325777
`barrysher@paulhastings.com
`Zachary Zwillinger (pro hac vice)
`NY Bar No. 5071154
`zacharyzwillinger@paulhastings.com
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, New York 10166
`Telephone: (212) 318-6000
`Facsimile:
`(212) 319-4090
`
`Elizabeth L. Brann (pro hac vice)
`CA Bar No. 222873
`elizabethbrann@paulhastings.com
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 221 Filed 10/19/18 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 10473
`
`
`Bob Chen (pro hac vice)
`CA Bar No. 273098
`bobchen@paulhastings.com
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`4747 Executive Drive, 12th Floor
`San Diego, California 92121
`Telephone: (858) 458-3000
`Facsimile:
`(858) 458-3005
`
`Melissa R. Smith
`TX Bar No. 24001351
`melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com
`GILLAM & SMITH, LLP
`303 S. Washington Ave.
`Marshall, TX 75670
`Telephone: (903) 934-8450
`Facsimile: (903) 934-9257
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD AND
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was filed
`
`
`
`
`
`
`electronically in compliance with Local Rule CV-5 on October 17, 2018. As of this date, all
`
`counsel of record had consented to electronic service and are being served with a copy of this
`
`document through the Court’s CM/ECF system under Local Rule CV-5(a)(3)(A) and by email.
`
` /s/ Christopher W. Kennerly
`Christopher W. Kennerly
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION TO SEAL
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that under Local Rule CV-5(a)(7), the foregoing document is filed under
`
`
`
`seal pursuant to the Court’s Protective Order entered in this matter.
`
` /s/ Christopher W. Kennerly
`Christopher W. Kennerly
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`
`
`