Case 2:17-cv-00517-JRG Document 51-2 Filed 01/19/18 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 619
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IIIIN THE N THE UUUUNITED NITED SSSSTATES TATES DDDDISTRICT ISTRICT CCCCOURTOURT
`
`N THE N THE
`
`NITED NITED
`
`TATES TATES
`
`ISTRICT ISTRICT
`OURTOURT
`
`
`
`
`FFFFOR THE OR THE EEEEASTERN ASTERN DDDDISTRICT OF ISTRICT OF TTTTEXASEXAS
`
`OR THE OR THE
`
`ASTERN ASTERN
`
`ISTRICT OF ISTRICT OF
`EXASEXAS
`
`
`MMMMARSHALL ARSHALL DDDDIVISIONIVISION
`
`ARSHALL ARSHALL
`
`IVISIONIVISION
`
`
`AGIS Software Development, LLC,
`Plaintiff
`
`v.
`
`ZTE Corporation et al.,
`Defendants
`
`
`Case No. 2:17-cv-517
`
`
`
`
`AAAAFFIDAVIT OF FFIDAVIT OF JJJJAMES AMES RRRRAY AY AY AY WWWWOODOODOODOOD
`
`FFIDAVIT OF FFIDAVIT OF
`
`AMES AMES
`
`
`I, James Ray Wood, declare under penalty of perjury as follows:
`
`
`1. I am over the age of eighteen years and competent to make this declaration.
`
`2. The facts stated in this Declaration are true and correct to the best of my
`
`knowledge and belief.
`
`3. I am employed in the role of in-house counsel of ZTE (USA) Inc. (“ZTA”).
`
`4. I understand that, in the opposition brief filed by AGIS Software
`
`Development, LLC (“AGIS) (dkt. #46), AGIS asserts that “ZTA maintains a
`
`regular and established place of business in Plano, Texas.” This is not true.
`
`Indeed, ZTA does not maintain a regular and established place of business in
`
`Plano, Texas. Further, ZTA does not own, lease, rent, operate, or control any
`
`place of business in Plano, Texas, including the iQor local call center.
`
`5. I understand that AGIS also asserts that “ZTA established a local customer
`
`service center with iQor in Plano, Texas,” but this is not fully explained by
`
`AGIS. To accurately explain, in 2015, ZTA decided to subcontract its U.S.-
`
`customer support service activities to a third-party provider, to iQor. Thus,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IIIIN THE N THE UUUUNITED NITED SSSSTATES TATES DDDDISTRICT ISTRICT CCCCOURTOURT
`
`N THE N THE
`
`NITED NITED
`
`TATES TATES
`
`ISTRICT ISTRICT
`OURTOURT
`
`
`
`
`FFFFOR THE OR THE EEEEASTERN ASTERN DDDDISTRICT OF ISTRICT OF TTTTEXASEXAS
`
`OR THE OR THE
`
`ASTERN ASTERN
`
`ISTRICT OF ISTRICT OF
`EXASEXAS
`
`
`MMMMARSHALL ARSHALL DDDDIVISIONIVISION
`
`ARSHALL ARSHALL
`
`IVISIONIVISION
`
`
`AGIS Software Development, LLC,
`Plaintiff
`
`v.
`
`ZTE Corporation et al.,
`Defendants
`
`
`Case No. 2:17-cv-517
`
`
`
`
`AAAAFFIDAVIT OF FFIDAVIT OF JJJJAMES AMES RRRRAY AY AY AY WWWWOODOODOODOOD
`
`FFIDAVIT OF FFIDAVIT OF
`
`AMES AMES
`
`
`I, James Ray Wood, declare under penalty of perjury as follows:
`
`
`1. I am over the age of eighteen years and competent to make this declaration.
`
`2. The facts stated in this Declaration are true and correct to the best of my
`
`knowledge and belief.
`
`3. I am employed in the role of in-house counsel of ZTE (USA) Inc. (“ZTA”).
`
`4. I understand that, in the opposition brief filed by AGIS Software
`
`Development, LLC (“AGIS) (dkt. #46), AGIS asserts that “ZTA maintains a
`
`regular and established place of business in Plano, Texas.” This is not true.
`
`Indeed, ZTA does not maintain a regular and established place of business in
`
`Plano, Texas. Further, ZTA does not own, lease, rent, operate, or control any
`
`place of business in Plano, Texas, including the iQor local call center.
`
`5. I understand that AGIS also asserts that “ZTA established a local customer
`
`service center with iQor in Plano, Texas,” but this is not fully explained by
`
`AGIS. To accurately explain, in 2015, ZTA decided to subcontract its U.S.-
`
`customer support service activities to a third-party provider, to iQor. Thus,
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00517-JRG Document 51-2 Filed 01/19/18 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 620
`
`ZTA established a vendor business relationship with third party company,
`
`iQor, to provide customer support services for ZTA. ZTA established a
`
`business relationship with a third-party company, iQor, to provide customer
`
`support services via a call center, but iQor is a separate business from ZTA.
`
`ZTA is not a part of iQor, and iQor is not a part of ZTE – both are entirely
`
`separate businesses.
`
`6. Additionally, I further understand that AGIS claims that the alleged “ZTA
`
`local customer service center has more than sixty dedicated ZTA customer
`
`service representatives whose objective is to ‘build brand loyalty with
`
`exceptional customer service,” and AGIS alleges that ZTA “employees visit
`
`the local customer service center regularly to work with iQor
`
`representatives,” and AGIS alleges that “ZTA has at least two full-time
`
`employees on site at the local customer service center,” and and AGIS alleges
`
`that “ZTA’s customer-facing website seamlessly integrates with customer
`
`support provided by the local customer service center, including links to call
`
`and live chat with representatives at the local customer call service center.” I
`
`do not understand the basis of these allegations. Indeed, the facts are that:
`
`a. ZTA does not have dedicated representatives at any iQor call center;
`
`b. ZTA does not have full time employees on site at the iQor call centers;
`
`c. ZTA does not have control over the call center agents’ apparel; and
`
`d. ZTA does not maintain direct control over the call center agents,
`
`representatives, or the call center itself.
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00517-JRG Document 51-2 Filed 01/19/18 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 621
`
`7. In my November 20, 2017 declaration for this case, I stated that “ZTA has
`
`employee(s) who live in the Eastern District of Texas, and one or more of
`
`those employee(s) may work from home.” (Emphasis added.) However, on
`
`further investigation, I have confirmed that no ZTA employee formally
`
`“works from home” in the Eastern District of Texas. In fact, the ZTA
`
`Employee Handbook (Revised September 2015), specifically prohibits
`
`“working from home,” i.e. telecommuting, without approval of Human
`
`Resources. And, after confirming with ZTA’s Human Resources Department,
`
`I confirmed that, while it is correct that ZTA has employee(s) who live in the
`
`Eastern District of Texas, in fact, none of those employees has ZTA-approved
`
`home offices; and all of the ZTA employees, who live in the Eastern District of
`
`Texas, are required to work at the Richardson, Texas office, and none has
`
`approval to “work at home,” as an approved alternative.
`
`8. In this case, I also understand that AGIS alleges, “[u]pon information and
`
`belief,” that “ZTA’s Eastern District employees possess ZTE USA-issued
`
`permanent workstations and equipment for carrying out their duties within
`
`the scope of their employment from ‘ZTA’s employee home offices’; ZTA
`
`reimburses these employees for certain costs associated with working from
`
`‘ZTA’s employee home offices’ which include the cost of devices, equipment,
`
`furniture, travel, and/or utility costs; that these employees are subject to
`
`ZTA’s rules and/or procedures for using ZTA computers/equipment and for
`
`working from ‘ZTA’s employee home offices’; ZTA sets forth standards for
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00517-JRG Document 51-2 Filed 01/19/18 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 622
`
`conducting work from the ‘ZTA’s employee home offices’ and ensures
`
`compliance with all relevant federal, state, and local laws for such home
`
`offices; ZTA creates job descriptions and identifies tasks eligible for ‘ZTA’s
`
`employee home offices;’ ZTA reserves the right to discontinue and/or make
`
`changes to the arrangements, at its discretion, for ‘ZTA’s employee home
`
`offices’; ZTA implements procedures and policies for ongoing reviews, pilot
`
`programs, test periods with defined end dates, benchmarks for success of its
`
`employees and their performance at the ‘ZTA’s employee home offices’; ZTA
`
`implements procedures and policies for restricting an employee’s schedule at
`
`or ability to work from the ‘ZTA’s employee home offices,’ including exercising
`
`control over the employee to work at particular sites other than the ‘ZTA’s
`
`employee home offices’ for specific business reasons; ZTA affords the worker’s
`
`compensation benefits for injuries or disabilities arising out of and in the
`
`course and/or scope of employment at the ‘ZTA’s employee home offices’; ZTA
`
`maintains records for hours worked by its employees, proactively monitors
`
`timekeeping to ensure timekeeping accuracy, and sets forth policies for what
`
`constitutes hours worked for work performed at the ‘ZTA’s employee home
`
`offices’; ZTA implements technology maintenance and data security policies,
`
`regardless of whether it provides certain computers/equipment or a ‘bring
`
`your own device’ policy for work at ‘ZTA’s employee home offices.’ However,
`
`after extensive research, I cannot find any truth in these allegations. Indeed,
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00517-JRG Document 51-2 Filed 01/19/18 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 623
`
`these statements do not accurately reflect any of ZTA’s policies; and, indeed,
`
`none of ZTA’s employees work from home in the Eastern District of Texas.
`
` I
`
`
`
`Date
`
`
`
`
`
` declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed
`on:
`
`
`
`
`
`By: James Ray Wood
` In House Counsel, ZTE (USA) Inc.
`
`
`
`18 Jan 2018
`
`
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
