`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`OF THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`§
`
`§§
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT
`LLC
`
`V.
`
`§
`§
`§
`HUAWEI DEVICE USA INC.,
`§
`HUAWEI DEVICE CO., LTD. AND
`HUAWEI DEVICE (DONGGUAN) CO., §
`LTD., HTC CORPORATION, LG
`§
`ELECTRONICS, INC., APPLE INC.,
`§
`ZTE CORPORATION, ZTE (USA),
`§
`INC., AND ZTE (TX), INC.
`§
`
`No. 2:17-CV-513-JRG
`(LEAD CASE)
`
`No. 2:17-CV-514-JRG
`No. 2:17-CV-515-JRG
`No. 2:17-CV-516-JRG
`No. 2:17-CV-517-JRG
`
`ORDER RE: “DISCOVERY HOTLINE” HEARING
`
`Participants: Alfred Fabricant – Counsel for Plaintiff Agis Software Development LLC
`
`Cosmin Maier – Counsel for Defendant Apple, Inc.
`
`This case is assigned to the docket of United States Chief District Judge Rodney Gilstrap.
`
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and the Local Rules for the United States District Court for the
`
`Eastern District of Texas, this matter came before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge
`
`for determination of an emergency discovery dispute. On October 23, 2018, the parties contacted the
`
`Court via the “Discovery Hotline” maintained by the United States District Court for the Eastern
`
`District of Texas.
`
`During the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Plaintiff regarding a litigation funding agreement,
`
`Defendant’s counsel asked the deponent questions regarding the agreement, some of which might
`
`affect Plaintiff’s standing and ownership of the patent. The parties contacted the discovery hotline
`
`following Plaintiff’s counsel’s instructing the witness not to answer. According to Plaintiff’s
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 212 Filed 10/24/18 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 11572
`
`counsel, Defendant has not shown a need for details regarding the funding agreement; Plaintiff
`
`would stipulate to certain facts that would establish standing (even though Defendant has never
`
`formally raised a standing defense in this case); and certain questions seek privileged work product.
`
`In response, Defendant’s counsel stated he was seeking facts, not privileged communications or
`
`attorney work product.
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(c)(2) provides a person may instruct a deponent not to
`
`answer only when necessary to preserve a privilege, to enforce a limitation ordered by the court, or
`
`to present a motion under Rule 30(d)(3). Having considered the parties’ arguments, the Court
`
`overruled Plaintiff’s counsel’s instructions not to answer questions regarding the date the agreement
`
`was signed and other non-monetary details of the agreement. However, in light of Plaintiff’s
`
`counsel’s representations that information regarding the monetary terms of the agreement go to the
`
`heart of attorney work product, the Court sustained Plaintiff’s counsel’s instructions not to answer
`
`questions concerning the monetary terms of the agreement. The Court also instructed Plaintiff’s
`
`counsel to prepare a stipulation regarding the standing/ownership interest issue addressed in the
`
`hearing.
`
`2
`
`
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
