Case 2:17-cv-00140-RWS-RSP Document 53 Filed 12/27/17 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 1379
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`CYWEE GROUP LTD.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`AND
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
` CASE NO. 2:17-cv-00140-RWS-RSP
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF CYWEE’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
`CYWEE’S MOTION TO COMPEL
`
`
`
`
`Samsung has made it abundantly clear that it will stop at nothing to avoid answering the
`
`interrogatories that are the subject of CyWee’s Motion to Compel (Dkt. 49). Its Motion to
`
`Strike (Dkt. 50) is further evidence of that. Samsung’s motion completely discounts and
`
`mischaracterizes CyWee’s efforts to confer in good faith to resolve this dispute. Samsung’s
`
`contention that CyWee “refused . . . to provide any basis for its position” (Dkt. 50 at 1)
`
`during the parties’ last conference is simply false—counsel for CyWee explained in detail
`
`the reasons for opposing Samsung’s motion, all of which are discussed herein. CyWee
`
`further suggested that the issues raised in Samsung’s motion could be more efficiently
`
`resolved with a call to the Court’s Discovery Hotline, a proposition that Samsung initially
`
`agreed with, but then inexplicably ignored. Samsung’s motion is a meritless and dilatory
`
`tactic, and should be denied.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-RWS-RSP Document 53 Filed 12/27/17 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 1380
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`Samsung’s Motion to Strike omits important facts, and misrepresents others.
`
`Accordingly, it is necessary for CyWee to present the following complete summary of the
`
`background underlying this discovery dispute:
`
`Samsung served its initial objections and responses to CyWee’s First Set of
`
`Interrogatories on September 11, 2017. (Dkt. 49-2). Because Samsung’s initial responses
`
`lacked any substantive answers to many of the interrogatories, on September 12, 2017,
`
`counsel for CyWee reached out to Samsung’s counsel to schedule a time to confer regarding
`
`the responses. (Dkt. 49-3 at 8). Counsel then held a conference on September 20, 2017, at
`
`which the parties discussed all of Samsung’s responses to CyWee’s interrogatories and
`
`reached certain agreements. (Dkt. 49-3 at 3-5). CyWee’s counsel followed up with Samsung
`
`again on September 29, 2017 to inquire whether Samsung would finally agree to supplement
`
`some of its interrogatory answers. (Dkt. 49-3 at 4). Samsung responded, stating that it would
`
`supplement its responses to 22 of the interrogatories, but that it would not budge on nine of
`
`the responses. (Dkt. 49-3 at 3). With respect to Interrogatory Nos. 7, 10, and 19 (which are
`
`at issue in CyWee’s Motion to Compel), Samsung articulated specific reasons why it refused
`
`to supplement those interrogatories—and it still maintains those same objections today, as
`
`illustrated by its response to CyWee’s Motion to Compel (Dkt. 51). On October 12, 2017,
`
`CyWee followed up again, asking Samsung when it would serve its supplemental responses.
`
`(Dkt. 49-3 at 2).
`
`Samsung served its supplemental interrogatory responses on October 13, 2017. (Dkt. 49-
`
`2). Consistent with its prior representations, Samsung did not provide any further responses
`
`to Interrogatory Nos. 7, 8, 10, or 19. Reasonably concluding that the parties had reached an
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-RWS-RSP Document 53 Filed 12/27/17 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 1381
`
`impasse on those interrogatories, and that further discussions would lead nowhere, CyWee
`
`notified Samsung of its intent to file a Motion to Compel. (Dkt. 50-4). CyWee filed its
`
`motion on November 30, 2017. (Dkt. 49).
`
`On December 12, 2017, Samsung informed CyWee that it intended to file a Motion to
`
`Strike CyWee’s Motion to Compel, based on the assertion that the motion exceeded the
`
`applicable page lengths by slightly over one page. (Ex. A, Ellerman Decl., at Ex. 1). Counsel
`
`for CyWee responded, disagreeing with Samsung’s position regarding the page length, and
`
`emphasizing that the motion’s length could be reduced or obviated entirely if Samsung
`
`would reconsider its position and respond to the interrogatories. Id. Counsel for CyWee
`
`further suggested that if Samsung believed that its Motion to Strike had any merit, a call to
`
`the Court’s Discovery Hotline was warranted. Samsung agreed to confer with CyWee the
`
`following day, and Samsung agreed that if the conference was unsuccessful, a Hotline call
`
`would be appropriate to resolve the matter. Id.
`
`On December 13, 2017, counsel for CyWee and Samsung held a telephone conference
`
`to discuss the matters presented in the Motion to Strike. During the conference, counsel for
`
`Samsung1 cited Judge Schroeder’s June 3, 2016 Standing Order Regarding “Meet and
`
`Confer” Obligations relating to Discovery Disputes for the proposition that CyWee’s
`
`motion to compel should have been limited to seven pages (the motion was slightly over
`
`eight pages). (Ex. 1 at p. 3). In response, counsel for CyWee explained in detail that CyWee
`
`did not believe that its Motion to Compel was subject to the page limitations asserted by
`
`Samsung because: (1) Samsung based its opinion on Judge Schroeder’s Standing Order,
`
`which contains the page limitations that Samsung believed were applicable; (2) On February
`
`
`1 Samsung’s local counsel was not involved in this conference.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-RWS-RSP Document 53 Filed 12/27/17 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 1382
`
`17, 2017, this case was transferred to Judge Payne’s court for all pre-trial matters, which
`
`includes the current discovery dispute; (3) Judge Payne’s Standing Orders do not contain
`
`page limitations on discovery motions, and, therefore, CyWee believed that the default
`
`fifteen page limit imposed by the Local Rules should apply; and (4) the Discovery Order in
`
`this case (Dkt. 35) contains no page limit restrictions on discovery motions. (Id. at ¶ 5).
`
`Counsel for CyWee stated that based on the foregoing, CyWee did not believe that its
`
`motion, which was well within the page limitations imposed by the Local Rules, should be
`
`withdrawn or struck. Id. Counsel for CyWee also stated that even if Judge Schroeder’s page
`
`limits could be deemed to apply, CyWee had exceeded them only slightly, and the length
`
`was necessitated by the sheer volume of objections Samsung had lodged to CyWee’s
`
`interrogatories. Id. Counsel for CyWee again urged that if Samsung intended to raise this
`
`issue with the Court, a call to the Discovery Hotline would be the most efficient way of
`
`resolving the dispute. Id.
`
`Samsung did not initiate a Hotline call, despite its earlier indication that it would do so.
`
`Instead, on December 14, 2017, it filed the Motion to Strike. In the motion, Samsung
`
`incorrectly states that “CyWee refused” to provide the legal bases for why it believed the
`
`page limitations in Judge Schroeder’s Standing Order did not apply. (Dkt. 50 at 2). As
`
`discussed above, CyWee provided plenty of reasons justifying its belief that the restrictions
`
`did not apply.
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`
`A. CyWee and Samsung adequately conferred before CyWee filed the Motion to
`Compel.
`
`CyWee has gone to extraordinary lengths to obtain answers to its interrogatories without
`
`seeking Court intervention. Samsung has evaded those efforts every step of the way, through
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-RWS-RSP Document 53 Filed 12/27/17 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 1383
`
`multiple communications and discovery conferences, through its opposition to CyWee’s
`
`motion, and now in its attempt to strike CyWee’s motion. Despite Samsung’s protest that
`
`CyWee failed to adequately confer before filing its Motion to Compel, Samsung does not
`
`explain how it believes further conferences would have resolved any issues before the
`
`Court.2 It has been apparent since before Samsung served its supplemental responses to
`
`CyWee’s interrogatories that it has no intention of ever complying absent a Court order.
`
`(Dkt. 49-3 at 3).
`
`The Local Rules require, at a minimum, a conference between counsel prior to filing an
`
`opposed motion. L.R. CV-7(h). Here, in addition to a personal conference at which all of
`
`the matters presented in CyWee’s Motion to Compel were discussed, the parties engaged in
`
`multiple email communications prior to Samsung serving its supplemental responses. (Dkt.
`
`49-3). Those emails made it abundantly clear that Samsung was standing on its objections to
`
`the interrogatories at issue, and that the parties had reached an impasse that would require
`
`Court resolution. For Samsung to now pretend that one more attempt to confer would have
`
`prompted it to change its position is disingenuous, especially given the fact that it has so
`
`vigorously opposed CyWee’s Motion to Compel. See Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v.
`
`Chung, 321 F.R.D. 250, 288 (N.D. Tex. 2017) (citations omitted) (stating that further
`
`conferences are unnecessary when it is clear that a motion is opposed and further efforts
`
`would be a waste of time). The Motion to Strike is meritless and should be denied.
`
`
`2 During counsel’s December 13, 2017 conference on the motion to strike, counsel for
`Samsung did not articulate the basis for its new assertion that CyWee failed to adequately
`confer before filing its motion to compel, nor did it state any belief that further conferences
`would be fruitful. (Ex. A at ¶ 6). Counsel for Samsung only raised the issue of page limitations
`(discussed below).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-RWS-RSP Document 53 Filed 12/27/17 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 1384
`
`B. CyWee’s Motion to Compel does not exceed the applicable page limits.
`
`Samsung contends that CyWee’s Motion to Compel is over one page too long. (Dkt. 50
`
`at 3). In support, CyWee cites Judge Schroeder’s Standing Order Regarding “Meet and
`
`Confer” Obligations relating to Discovery Disputes, which limits such motions to seven
`
`pages. Id. As CyWee explained to Samsung, however, this case has been transferred to
`
`Judge Payne for all pre-trial matters, including discovery disputes, and Judge Payne has no
`
`similar standing order. Thus, CyWee believes that the Local Rules apply, and that its
`
`motion to compel is well within the fifteen page limit imposed by those rules. L.R. CV-
`
`7(a)(2). Samsung also cites the Court’s Sample Discovery Order for Patent Cases as
`
`requiring discovery motions to be limited to seven pages. (Dkt. 50 at 3). However, the
`
`Discovery Order that was entered in this case differs from the Sample Order, insofar as it
`
`contains no such restriction. (Dkt. 35). This further indicates that the seven page limit does
`
`not apply in this case.
`
`Regardless of the foregoing, the Court should refuse to entertain Samsung’s arguments,
`
`because the length of CyWee’s motion was the result of Samsung’s own doing. Samsung
`
`lodged volumes of objections to CyWee’s interrogatories, and the motion could have been
`
`significantly shorter (or completely unnecessary) had Samsung simply been cooperative in
`
`responding to CyWee’s discovery. The Court should deny the Motion to Strike, and grant
`
`CyWee’s Motion to Compel in its entirety.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons set forth above, CyWee respectfully requests the Court deny Samsung’s
`
`Motion to Strike CyWee’s Motion to Compel.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-RWS-RSP Document 53 Filed 12/27/17 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 1385
`
`Date: December 27, 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 27, 2017.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Christopher Evans
`Christopher Evans
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`