Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 208 Filed 11/05/21 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 7381
`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 208 Filed 11/05/21 Page 1of9PagelD#: 7381
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-00072-IRG
`(LEAD CASE)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-00024-JRG
`(MEMBERCASE)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`§ § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § §
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENTLLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Ve
`
`T-MOBILE USA, INC. and T-MOBILE US,
`INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`LYFTL. INC...
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`Defendant.
`
`PLAINTIFF AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC’S OPPOSED
`MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANTLYFT, INC. TO PROVIDE DISCOVERY
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 208 Filed 11/05/21 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 7382
`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 208 Filed 11/05/21 Page 2 of 9 PagelD #: 7382
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff AGIS Software Development LLC (“AGIS”or “Plaintiff’), by and through its
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`undersigned counsel, respectfully requests the Court to compel Defendant Lyft, Inc. (“Defendant”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`or “Lyft’’) to produce relevant discovery. Despite AGIS’s numerous requests, Lyft has failed to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`provide (1) a complete response to Interrogatory No. 3 and corresponding documents identifying
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`financial data for Lyft, including financial data for only the United States and thefixed and variable
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`costs for Lyft and its Accused Products; (2) a complete response to Interrogatory No. 8, which
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`requests an identification of downloads,distribution,installation, andstatistics related to the same,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and corresponding documents; and (3) a complete response to Interrogatory No. 9 and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`corresponding documents, regarding usage information and summaries sufficient to show user
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`engagement with the Lyft Accused Products. AGIS has followed up on each of these requests, as
`
`
`
`
`
`detailed below,to no avail.
`
`
`
`
`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 andliberal application to affect their purpose of adequately
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`informinglitigants in civil trials.” Edward D. Joli 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 movefor 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
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 208 Filed 11/05/21 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 7383
`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 208 Filed 11/05/21 Page 3 of 9 PagelD #: 7383
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`requestis not relevantor [is] otherwise objectionable.” See McKinney/Pear!lRest. 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 (Sth Cir. 1990)).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Here, Lyft does not contend that AGIS’s discovery requests seek irrelevant information.
`
`
`
`
`II.
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Throughoutthis case, AGIS has attempted to avoid involving the Court in its attempts to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`convince Lyft to provide responsive information. AGIS hasdiligently sought discovery from Lyft.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Following extensive correspondence and a meet-and-confer, AGIShasyetto receive the following
`
`
`
`
`relevant discovery.
`
`
`
`
`A,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Lyft Should Be Required to Provide a Complete Response to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Interrogatory No. 3 and Accompanying Documents!
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Lyft has provided an incomplete response to Interrogatory No. 3 which requested that Lyft
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 (1.e., application, service, and server) and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`transfer pricing.” In response, Lyft has identified documents pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d).
`
`
`
`
`
`See Ex. A.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`However, the documents producedandidentified by Lyft in response to Interrogatory No.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3 contain information for outside the United States and for Lyft products aside from its ride-sharing
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`products, and do not contain the fixed and variable costs for the Lyft Accused Products.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Accordingly, Lyft should be compelled to provide (1) a complete response to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Interrogatory No. 3 regarding the gross revenue,net profits, profit margins, fixed and variable
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`On the November 3, 2021 meet-and-confer, Lyft’s counsel represented that it was producing
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`some documents in response and would update its response to Interrogatory No. 3 to identify these
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`documents. AGIS agrees to withdraw its motion to compel with respect to Interrogatory No. 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and accompanying documents if Lyft provides a complete response and producesall relevant
`
`documents.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 208 Filed 11/05/21 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 7384
`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 208 Filed 11/05/21 Page 4 of 9 PagelD #: 7384
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`costs, average cost per unit (i.e., application, service, and server), and transfer pricing for only
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the United States and the Lyft ride-sharing products. In addition, Lyft should provide more
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`specific information regarding the fixed and variable costs for the Lyft Accused Products.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Lyft Should Be Required to Provide a Complete Response to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Interrogatory Nos. 8 and 9 and Accompanying Documents?
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Lyft has provided an incomplete response to Interrogatory No. 8 which seeks an
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`identification of (1) the number of instances each Lyft Accused Product was distributed,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`downloaded, and/orinstalled on a device; (2) the numberof unique devices that downloadedand/or
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`installed the Lyft Accused Products; (3) the numberof instances each Lyft Accused Product was
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`activated or turned on after distribution, download, and/or installation; (4) the number of unique
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`users or accounts for each Lyft Accused Product; (5) the daily active users or accounts for each
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Lyft Accused Product; (6) the number of instances in which an end-user authenticated and/or
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`signed in to each Lyft Accused Product with a Lyft account; (7) the total numberof transactions
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`for each Lyft Accused Product; (8) the total amount of fees owed for completed transactions on
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the Lyft Accused Products; and (9) the total amount of fees collected.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In response, Lyft fails to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`provide a substantive response and merely incorporates by reference its expert report. See Ex. B.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Lyft has failed to provide a complete response to Interrogatory No. 9 which requests usage
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`information and summaries sufficient to show user engagement with each Lyft Accused Product,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`including an identification of internal and external systems and/ortools used to obtain and analyze
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`such data including, but notlimited to, the system or tool nameandall metrics, data points, studies,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and/or surveysrelated to usage and engagementof the Lyft Accused Products.
`
`
`
`
`
`In response, Lyft
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`On the parties’ November 3, 2021, meet-and-confer teleconference, Lyft’s counsel represented
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`that they would produce documents responsive to this Request and that they would supplement
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Lyft’s responses to Interrogatory Nos. 8 and 9. AGIS will promptly review any anticipated
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`production and supplementation for completion, and inform the Court in the event that it
`is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`sufficient to withdraw its motion to compel.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 208 Filed 11/05/21 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 7385
`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 208 Filed 11/05/21 Page 5 of 9 PagelD#: 7385
`
`has failed to provide a substantive response andcites to its forthcoming expert report. See Ex. B.
`
`Lyft’s corporate representative designated on topics regarding download,installation, and
`
`usage statistics, the number of Lyft accounts and unique devices, activations, location requestion
`
`and location sharing, testifiedthats
`
`I:15102 25 10 the existence
`
`ofthese statistics, Lyft has failed to produce anymetrics orstatistics related to the Lyft Accused
`
`Products.
`
`Accordingly, Lyft should be compelled to (1) provide a complete responseto Interrogatory
`
`No. 8 regarding downloads, distribution, and installation related statistics for the Lyft Accused
`
`Products; (2) produce relevant documents and information responsive to Interrogatory No. 8; (3)
`
`provide a complete responseto Interrogatory No. 9 regarding metrics and usagestatistics; and (4)
`
`produce relevant documents and information responsive to Interrogatory No. 9.
`
`lil.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, AGIS respectfully requests that the Court compel Lyft to
`
`provide the requested discovery.
`
`Dated: November3, 2021
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/s/ Alfred R. Fabricant
`Alfred R. Fabricant
`NY BarNo. 2219392
`Email: ffabricant@fabricantllp.com
`Peter Lambrianakos
`NY Bar No. 2894392
`Email: plambrianakos@fabricantllp.com
`Vincent J. Rubino,III
`NY Bar No. 4557435
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 208 Filed 11/05/21 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 7386
`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 208 Filed 11/05/21 Page 6 of 9 PagelD #: 7386
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`MCKOOLSMITH,P.C.
`
`
`
`
`
`104 E. Houston Street, Suite 300
`
`
`
`Marshall, Texas 75670
`
`
`Telephone: (903) 923-9000
`
`
`
`Facsimile: (903) 923-9099
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ATTORNEYSFOR PLAINTIFF AGIS
`
`SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENTLLC
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 208 Filed 11/05/21 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 7387
`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 208 Filed 11/05/21 Page 7 of 9 PagelD #: 7387
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 208 Filed 11/05/21 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 7388
`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 208 Filed 11/05/21 Page 8 of 9 PagelD #: 7388
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Lead and local counsel for both parties held a meet-and-confer on November3, 2021, in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`an attempt to resolve the issues brought in this motion. AGIS proceeded with this motion to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`compelin the hope that its pendency anda ruling will quickly resolve the issues in this motion.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Alfred R. Fabricant
`
`
`
`Alfred R. Fabricant
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 208 Filed 11/05/21 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: 7389
`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 208 Filed 11/05/21 Page 9 of 9 PagelD #: 7389
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that on November 3, 2021, a true and correct copy of the above and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`foregoing documenthas been served by email on all counsel of record.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Alfred R. Fabricant
`
`
`
`Alfred R. Fabricant
`
`
`
`