Case 2:17-cv-00140-RWS-RSP Document 52 Filed 12/20/17 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1373
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
` CASE NO. 2:17-cv-00140-RWS-RSP
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`CYWEE GROUP LTD.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`AND
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF CYWEE’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
`INTERROGATORY RESPONSES
`
`
`
`
`Samsung’s Response to CyWee’s Motion to Compel (Dkt. 51, “Response”) ignores the
`
`parties’ lengthy meet and confer efforts, and tries to hide behind unfounded objections in an
`
`effort to avoid responding to the most basic, simple questions.1 The Court should order
`
`Samsung to fully answer Interrogatory Nos. 7, 8, 10, and 19.
`
`I. ARGUMENT
`
`The Federal Rules are clear—interrogatories can relate to any matter that may be broadly
`
`inquired into under Rule 26. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2). An interrogatory is not objectionable
`
`“merely because it asks for an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of
`
`law to fact.” Id. Despite these broad tenets, Samsung has refused to provide even the most
`
`rudimentary information concerning the identities of persons with knowledge of relevant facts,
`
`
`1 Samsung also filed a motion to strike CyWee’s motion to compel. (Dkt. 50). That motion
`contends that CyWee exceeded the page limitations imposed by a standing order that should
`not even apply to this case, and the motion contains blatant misrepresentations regarding a
`meet-and-confer held by counsel prior to its filing. CyWee will timely file a separate response
`to the motion to strike in order to address those issues.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-RWS-RSP Document 52 Filed 12/20/17 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 1374
`
`identification of relevant documents, and information regarding Samsung’s products that
`
`CyWee’s experts need in order to develop their opinions in this matter. The discovery CyWee
`
`seeks is narrow and not burdensome. Samsung has tacitly conceded the relevance of much of
`
`the information sought. But Samsung has taken it upon itself to be the sole arbiter of the scope
`
`of what it must produce, and it persists in refusing to provide basic information CyWee needs
`
`to develop its case. The Court should order Samsung to fully respond to the interrogatories.
`
`A. Interrogatory No. 7: Samsung has conceded relevance, but still refuses to answer the
`question.
`
`CyWee’s Interrogatory No. 7 seeks one of the most basic categories of discovery—
`
`identification of individuals who may have knowledge of relevant facts. Samsung’s
`
`Response initially states that it has “provided all relevant information responsive to
`
`Interrogatory No. 7.” (Response at 3). But that is obviously not true, because Samsung then
`
`spends over a page of its Response trying to justify why it should not be required to identify
`
`the individuals who would have participated in the Hypothetical Negotiation on Samsung’s
`
`behalf. According to Samsung, broadly identifying “[t]he Licensing Team within Samsung
`
`Electronics Co., Ltd.” is sufficiently responsive, but disclosing the identities of the individuals
`
`who comprise that team is outside the bounds of discoverability. Samsung’s position is
`
`meritless.
`
`The Federal Rules explicitly state that “the identity and location of persons who know of
`
`any discoverable matter” is within the bounds of permissible discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`26(b)(1). By generally identifying its “Licensing Team,” Samsung has already admitted that
`
`Interrogatory No. 7 seeks relevant and discoverable information. Since Samsung has
`
`acknowledged the existence of a “Licensing Team,” then it can easily identify the members
`
`of that team. CyWee needs this information in order to conduct discovery into its damages
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-RWS-RSP Document 52 Filed 12/20/17 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 1375
`
`theories, and to identify individuals at Samsung who might be the subject of depositions.
`
`The Court should order Samsung to respond.
`
`B. Interrogatory No. 8: Samsung has conceded relevance; but still refuses to provide the
`requested information.
`
`Like the preceding question, CyWee’s Interrogatory No. 8 is simple—it asks Samsung to
`
`identify license agreements that were negotiated by the individuals on the Licensing Team.
`
`Samsung tacitly admits that this request seeks relevant information, insofar as it has committed
`
`to producing what it subjectively believes are “comparable licenses.” (Response at 5). But
`
`inexplicably, Samsung still has not disclosed what responsive documents (if any) it contends
`
`have already been produced, or what responsive documents remain to be produced. Nor has
`
`Samsung disclosed the criteria that it has used to unilaterally determine which licenses are
`
`“comparable” to the Hypothetical License in this case. Samsung is not the sole arbiter of
`
`relevance, and simply protesting that other licenses are dissimilar to the Hypothetical License
`
`at issue is insufficient to evade their production. Mirror Worlds Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`
`Case No. 6:13-cv-419, 2016 WL 4265758, at *1 (E.D. Tex. March 17, 2016) (Schroeder, J.)
`
`(“Apple’s response that the technologies are dissimilar, by itself, does not demonstrate that the
`
`withheld [license] agreements are irrelevant, overly broad, unduly burdensome or oppressive,
`
`and thus should not be produced”). The Court should order Samsung to either produce all
`
`responsive license agreements, or provide a full and complete written response to this
`
`interrogatory which identifies those agreements.
`
`C. Interrogatory No. 10: Samsung has conceded relevance, and its objection is meritless.
`
`Interrogatory No. 10 asks Samsung to identify its products that would have been
`
`considered in a Hypothetical Negotiation. As discussed in CyWee’s motion to compel (Dkt.
`
`49), Samsung conceded the relevance of this question by identifying CyWee’s list of accused
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-RWS-RSP Document 52 Filed 12/20/17 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 1376
`
`products in its answer. But Samsung did not fully answer the question that was asked,
`
`which requests identification of products that should be included in a Hypothetical
`
`Negotiation.
`
`In its Response, Samsung reiterates its objection that Interrogatory No. 10 “prematurely
`
`sought expert discovery.” (Response at 6). The question, however, seeks Samsung’s opinions
`
`and contentions regarding the appropriate products for analysis, not an expert’s opinions. An
`
`adequate answer to this interrogatory does not require an expert opinion—it merely requires
`
`Samsung to articulate its own opinion. Thus, the interrogatory is well within the bounds of
`
`discovery, is not premature, and must be answered. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2); Mosaid
`
`Technologies Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc., Case No. 2:06-cv-302, 2008 WL 11344763, at *4
`
`(E.D. Tex. June 18, 2008) (Folsom, J.) (holding that “factual opinions or any other evidence
`
`of non-litigation-expert opinions . . . is discoverable”). The Court should order Samsung to
`
`fully respond to Interrogatory No. 10.
`
`D. Interrogatory No. 19: Samsung’s objections are meritless.
`
`Samsung also contends that CyWee’s Interrogatory No. 19 prematurely seeks expert
`
`opinions. (Response at 7). According to Samsung, because it purports to have conducted no
`
`conjoint studies of its own, it is not required to answer this interrogatory. But the interrogatory
`
`does not ask for the results of conjoint studies or the opinion of any expert witness—CyWee
`
`simply seeks information regarding the features of accused products that Samsung believes
`
`should be included in a conjoint study used to determine the value of the patented inventions.
`
`As discussed with regard to the previous interrogatory, Samsung’s opinions and contentions
`
`are relevant and discoverable, and Samsung may not avoid disclosing them by hiding behind
`
`an expert opinion objection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2); Mosaid, 2008 WL 11344763, at *4
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-RWS-RSP Document 52 Filed 12/20/17 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 1377
`
`(citing Cable & Computer Tech. v. Lockheed Sanders, Inc., 175 F.R.D. 646, 652 (C.D. Cal.
`
`1997)). Samsung’s reliance on the fact that the Discovery Order in this case allows damages
`
`calculations to be deferred pending expert discovery is similarly misplaced. (Response at 7).
`
`The interrogatory at issue does not ask for a computation of damages—rather, it seeks
`
`underlying factual information which CyWee’s experts will use in order to ultimately derive
`
`a reasonable royalty. The Court should order Samsung to fully respond to Interrogatory No.
`
`19.
`
`II. CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons set forth above and in CyWee’s motion to compel, CyWee respectfully
`
`requests the Court overrule Samsung’s objections to Interrogatory Nos. 7, 8, 10, and 19, and
`
`order Samsung to provide complete responses to those Interrogatories.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-RWS-RSP Document 52 Filed 12/20/17 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 1378
`
`Date: December 20, 2017
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Christopher Evans
`Michael W. Shore
`Texas State Bar No. 18294915
`mshore@shorechan.com
`Alfonso Garcia Chan
`Texas State Bar No. 24012408
`achan@shorechan.com
`Christopher L. Evans
`Texas State Bar No. 24058901
`cevans@shorechan.com
`Ari B. Rafilson
`Texas State Bar No. 24060456
`arafilson@shorechan.com
`William D. Ellerman
`Texas State Bar No. 24007151
`wellerman@shorechan.com
`Paul T. Beeler
`Texas State Bar No. 24095432
`pbeeler@shorechan.com
`
`SHORE CHAN DEPUMPO LLP
`901 Main Street, Suite 3300
`Dallas, Texas 75202
`Tel: (214) 593-9110
`Fax: (214) 593-9111
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`CyWee Group Ltd.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented
`
`to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s CM/ECF
`
`system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) on December 20, 2017.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Christopher Evans
`Christopher Evans
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`