`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`Case No. 2:17-CV-00517-JRG
`
`)))))))))))
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT,
`LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ZTE CORPORATION, ZTE (USA) INC.,
`AND ZTE (TX), INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`ORDER
`Before the Court is Defendants ZTE (USA) Inc. and ZTE (TX), Inc. (“ZTA” and
`
`“ZTX,” respectively and collectively, “ZTE”)1 opposed Motion to Supplement the Record in
`
`Support of their Pending Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue or, in the Alternative,
`
`Motion to Transfer to the Northern District of California (the “Motion to Supplement”).
`
`(Dkt. No. 81.) 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, ZTE 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 3-4.)
`
`These subpoenas were served on Google in the Northern District of California. They sought
`
`1 Defendant ZTE Corporation has not yet been served or appeared, and thus the Motion to Dismiss for Improper
`Venue or in the Alternative to Transfer is on behalf of ZTX and ZTA only.
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00517-JRG Document 84 Filed 09/26/18 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 1244
`
`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 4-5.) ZTE 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 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 ZTE’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 “ZTE has not
`
`demonstrated that this would materially affect the outcome of the decision as to transfer
`
`venue.” (Dkt. 83 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 ZTE’s arguments to the contrary. (Id. at 6.) AGIS submits that ZTE 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 ZTE’s pending Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue, or in the
`
`Alternative, to Transfer. (Dkt. No. 38.) Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS ZTE’s
`
`Motion to Supplement and it is ORDERED that the Google Subpoenas attached as Exhibit A
`
`to the Motion to Supplement, (Dkt. No. 81-1), be FILED by the Clerk as part of the record
`
`for this case.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00517-JRG Document 84 Filed 09/26/18 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 1245
`
`
`
`