Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 207 Filed 11/05/21 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 7361
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`T-MOBILE USA, INC. and T-MOBILE US,
`INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`§
`
`§
`Case No. 2:21-cv-00072-JRG
`(LEAD CASE)
`§
`§
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`§
`§
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`PLAINTIFF AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC’S OPPOSED
`MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`D/B/A UBER TO PROVIDE DISCOVERY
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-00026-JRG
`(MEMBER CASE)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., d/b/a
`UBER,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`T-MOBILE USA, INC. and T-MOBILE US,
`INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`§
`
`§
`Case No. 2:21-cv-00072-JRG
`(LEAD CASE)
`§
`§
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`§
`§
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`PLAINTIFF AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC’S OPPOSED
`MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`D/B/A UBER TO PROVIDE DISCOVERY
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-00026-JRG
`(MEMBER CASE)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., d/b/a
`UBER,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 207 Filed 11/05/21 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 7362
`
`
`
`Plaintiff AGIS Software Development LLC (“AGIS” or “Plaintiff”), by and through its
`
`undersigned counsel, respectfully requests that the Court compel Defendant Uber Technologies,
`
`Inc., d/b/a Uber’s (“Defendant” or “Uber”) to produce relevant discovery.
`
`AGIS has asserted server system claims and server method claims of U.S. Patent No.
`
`10,341,838 (the “’838 patent”). On October 13, 2021, Uber’s corporate representative,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`On the same date, AGIS requested that Uber provide documents and information regarding
`
`foreign rides routed and processed through Uber’s U.S. data centers and servers, including
`
`financial data and usage metrics relevant to damages. Uber ignored AGIS’s request until after the
`
`scheduled date for Uber’s financial witness, and AGIS followed up to indicate its intention to file
`
`this motion. On October 26, 2021, Uber confirmed its refusal to produce the requested
`
`information. AGIS requests that Uber (1) supplement its responses to Interrogatory No. 3 to
`
`include financial information sought related to foreign rides routed through and processed through
`
`Uber’s U.S. data centers and servers; and (2) produce documents and information related to foreign
`
`rides routed through and processed through Uber’s U.S. data centers and servers, including
`
`financial data and usage metrics. AGIS also requests the deposition of another Rule 30(b)(6)
`
`corporate representative designated to address the financial data and usage metrics topics related
`
`to this additional information.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 207 Filed 11/05/21 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 7363
`
`
`
`I.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`The Court’s Discovery Order requires, upon request, production or access to “all
`
`documents . . . in the possession, custody, or control of the party that are relevant to the pleaded
`
`claims or defenses involved in this action.” Dkt. 79 at 3. In the Eastern District of Texas, “[t]he
`
`rules of discovery are accorded a broad and liberal application to affect their purpose of adequately
`
`informing litigants in civil trials.” Edward D. Ioli Trust v. Avigilon Corp., No. 2:10-cv-605, 2012
`
`WL 5830711, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 16, 2012); Charles E. Hill & Assocs. v. ABT Elecs., Inc., 854
`
`F. Supp. 2d 427, 428 (E.D. Tex. 2012) (same language); see also STMicroelectronics, Inc. v.
`
`Motorola, Inc., 308 F. Supp. 2d 754, 756 (E.D. Tex. 2004) (“In any case the Court will not tolerate
`
`gamesmanship that attempts to conceal or delay the production of discoverable items.”).
`
`After a party attempts in good faith to obtain discovery without assistance from the court,
`
`the party may move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). The
`
`party resisting discovery carries the burden to demonstrate “specifically how each discovery
`
`request is not relevant or [is] otherwise objectionable.” See McKinney/Pearl Rest. Partners, L.P.
`
`v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., No. 3:14-cv-2498-B, 2016 WL 2997744, at *4 (N.D. Tex. May 25, 2016)
`
`(citing McLeod, Alexander, Powel & Apffel, P.C. v. Quarles, 894 F.2d 1482, 1485 (5th Cir. 1990)).
`
`Here, Uber does not contend that AGIS’s discovery requests seek irrelevant information.
`
`II.
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`Throughout this case, AGIS has attempted to avoid involving the Court in its attempts to
`
`convince Uber to provide responsive information. AGIS has diligently sought discovery from
`
`Uber throughout this case. Following extensive correspondence and meet-and-confers, AGIS has
`
`yet to receive the following relevant discovery.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 207 Filed 11/05/21 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 7364
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Uber Should Be Required to Provide a Complete Response to
`Interrogatory No. 3 and Accompanying Documents
`
`Uber has provided an incomplete response to Interrogatory No. 3 which requested that
`
`Uber identify “on a monthly basis from January 2015 to present: the gross revenue, net profits,
`
`profit margins, fixed and variable costs, average cost per unit (i.e., application, service, and server)
`
`and transfer pricing.” Ex. B, Uber’s Objs. and Resp. to AGIS’s First Set of Interrogatories,
`
`Interrogatory No. 3. In response,
`
`
`
`
`
`. Uber refuses to supplement its
`
`financial data and usage metrics for foreign rides that are routed through U.S. data centers and
`
`servers.
`
`who Uber designated as a corporate representative with respect to certain
`
`topics in the Notice of Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition testified regarding the rider app of the Uber
`
`applications.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 207 Filed 11/05/21 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 7365
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Based on
`
` testimony, AGIS requested that Uber produce documents and
`
`information related to domestic and foreign usage, requests, and transactions of Uber’s rider and
`
`driver applications that resulted in activities that infringe the server method and system claims of
`
`the Asserted Patents and occur on Uber’s servers located within the United States. AGIS
`
`maintained that Uber’s interrogatory responses and documents limiting its financial information
`
`to U.S. only was improper.
`
`Accordingly, Uber should be compelled to provide (1) supplemental responses to
`
`Interrogatory No. 3 to include the financial data and usage metrics sought related to foreign rides
`
`routed and processed through Uber’s U.S. data centers and servers; and (2) produce documents
`
`and information related to foreign rides routed and processed through Uber’s U.S. data centers and
`
`servers, including financial data and usage metrics. AGIS also requests the deposition of another
`
`Rule 30(b)(6) corporate representative designated to address the financial and usage metrics topics
`
`related to this additional information.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, AGIS respectfully requests that the Court compel Uber to
`
`provide the requested discovery.
`
`Dated: November 3, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Alfred R. Fabricant
`Alfred R. Fabricant
`NY Bar No. 2219392
`Email: ffabricant@fabricantllp.com
`Peter Lambrianakos
`NY Bar No. 2894392
`Email: plambrianakos@fabricantllp.com
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 207 Filed 11/05/21 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 7366
`
`
`
`Vincent J. Rubino, III
`NY Bar No. 4557435
`Email: vrubino@fabricantllp.com
`FABRICANT LLP
`411 Theodore Fremd Avenue,
` Suite 206 South
`Rye, New York 10580
`Telephone: (212) 257-5797
`Facsimile: (212) 257-5796
`
`Samuel F. Baxter
`State Bar No. 01938000
`Email: sbaxter@mckoolsmith.com
`Jennifer L. Truelove
`State Bar No. 24012906
`Email: jtruelove@mckoolsmith.com
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`104 E. Houston Street, Suite 300
`Marshall, Texas 75670
`Telephone: (903) 923-9000
`Facsimile: (903) 923-9099
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF AGIS
`SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 207 Filed 11/05/21 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 7367
`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 207 Filed 11/05/21 Page 7 of 9 PagelD#: 7367
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 207 Filed 11/05/21 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 7368
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
`
`Lead and local counsel for both parties held a meet-and-confer on November 1, 2021, in
`
`an attempt to resolve the issues brought in this motion. AGIS proceeded with this motion to
`
`compel in the hope that its pendency and a ruling will quickly resolve the issues in this motion.
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Alfred R. Fabricant
` Alfred R. Fabricant
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 207 Filed 11/05/21 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: 7369
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on November 3, 2021, a true and correct copy of the above and
`
`foregoing document has been served by email on all counsel of record.
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Alfred R. Fabricant
` Alfred R. Fabricant
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
