`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Civil Action No. 2:17-CV-514-JRG
`(Lead Case)
`
`Civil Action No. 2:17-CV-515-JRG
`Civil Action No. 2:17-CV-517-JRG
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC, §
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`HTC CORPORATION,
`§
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`ZTE CORPORATION, ZTE (USA), INC., §
`AND ZTE (TX), INC.
`§
`§
`
`§§
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`ORDER
`
`Before the Court is Defendant LG Electronics, Inc.’s Opposed Motion to
`
`Supplement the Record in Support of Its Motion to Transfer Venue to the Northern District
`
`of California (the “Motion to Supplement”). (Dkt. No. 66.) Having considered the Motion
`
`to Supplement, the Court is of the opinion that it should be and hereby is GRANTED to the
`
`extent and for the reasons set forth herein.
`
`In its Motion to Supplement, LG Electronics, Inc. (“LG Korea”) submits that on
`
`August 23, 2018 and August 29, 2018, Plaintiff AGIS Software Development LLC ("AGIS")
`
`served subpoenas duces tecum on Google in both of the consolidated cases against Android
`
`Defendants, AGIS Software Development LLC v. Huawei Device USA Inc., et al., No. 2:17-
`
`cv-513 (E.D. Tex.) and AGIS Software Development LLC v. HTC Corp., No.2:17-cv-514
`
`(E.D. Tex.) (Id. at 3.) These subpoenas were served on Google in the Northern District of
`
`California. They sought testimony and documents about Google's confidential source code
`
`for Google Maps and Find My Device as well as other related technical documents. (Id. at 3-
`
`4.) LG Korea argues that these subpoenas "will advance the Court's consideration of the
`
`transfer venue motion by, inter alia, demonstrating that the relative ease of access to sources
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 75 Filed 09/26/18 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 3320
`
`of proof and convenience for witnesses factors favor transfer, and confirming that AGIS's
`
`arguments downplaying the relevance of Google's documents and witnesses was an argument
`
`of convenience during transfer briefing that AGIS has abandoned now that it actually must
`litigate the merits of its claims." (Id. at 5.)
`
`In opposition, AGIS argues that LG Korea’s Motion to Supplement should be denied
`
`because “AGIS’s subpoena to Google contributes nothing to the quantum of proof before the
`
`Court on the merits of the underlying motion to transfer venue,” and “LG [Korea] has not
`
`demonstrated that this would materially affect the outcome of the decision as to transfer
`
`venue.” (Dkt. 73 at 4.) Moreover, AGIS argues that it has never stated “that it would not
`
`seek the discovery of Google with respect to any proprietary Google application material,”
`
`despite LG Korea’s arguments to the contrary. (Id. at 6.) AGIS submits that LG Korea has
`
`refused to produce relevant discovery to AGIS, and thus AGIS was forced to seek discovery
`
`from Google. (Id. at 2.)
`
`On balance, the Court finds that the subpoena notices served on Google will assist the
`
`Court’s consideration of LG Korea’s pending Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal
`
`Jurisdiction or, in the Alternative, to Transfer Venue to the Northern District of California.
`
`(2:17-cv-513, Dkt. No. 46.) Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS LG Korea’s Motion to
`
`Supplement and it is ORDERED that the Google Subpoenas attached as Exhibits A and B to
`the Motion to Supplement, (2:17-cv-514, Dkt. No. 66-1; 66-2), be forthwith FILED by the
`
`Clerk as part of the record in this case.
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
