Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 361 Filed 02/16/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 23182
`
`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
`
`CASE NO. 2:21-cv-00024-JRG
`(Member Case)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`§§
`
`§
`§
`§
`
`§§§
`
`§§
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC
`
`v.
`
`T-MOBILE USA, INC., and T-MOBILE
`US, INC.
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC
`
`v.
`
`LYFT, INC.
`
`DEFENDANT LYFT, INC.’S OPPOSED MOTION FOR FURTHER EXTENSION
`OF TIME TO FILE BILL OF COSTS AND MOTION FOR FEES
`
`Pursuant to LR-CV54(b)(2), and Judge Gilstrap’s Standing Order Regarding Bill of Costs
`
`stating that “if there are any areas of disagreement, the parties shall meet, confer, and be prepared
`
`to compromise, making every effort to submit an ‘agreed’ bill of costs to the Court”, Defendant
`
`Lyft, Inc. (“Lyft”) respectfully requests a further 30-day extension for Lyft to file a motion for
`
`costs and/or fees to allow the Parties additional time to meet and confer on the timing and substance
`
`of any motion for costs and/or fees. This motion for extension supersedes and moots Lyft’s
`
`previous motion for extension (Dkt. 356). The Parties are currently meeting and conferring to
`
`determine whether an agreement can be reached to delay the filing of any motions for fees or costs
`
`in this case until after the N.D. Cal. case (5:21-cv-04653-BLF)1 is resolved. If an agreement can
`
`1 AGIS incorrectly states in a previous filing (Dkt. 360) that “Under Lyft’s interpretation of
`‘prevailing party,’ AGIS may now request costs and fees” for the N.D. Cal. case because that Court
`dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. Dkt. 360 at 1-2. Contrary to AGIS’s narrative,
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 361 Filed 02/16/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 23183
`
`be reached, it would avoid an immediate need for this Court to provide a decision on the merits of
`
`this issue and perhaps avoid the issue entirely. In addition to the timing of any such motion, the
`
`Parties are continuing to meet and confer to identify any disputes on the amount of costs incurred
`
`by Lyft in this case, which would further narrow any issues needed to be decided by this Court, in
`
`the event a bill of costs is filed.
`
`An additional 30-day extension would allow the Parties to further meet and confer on these
`
`issues with the goal of narrowing, and possibly eliminating, issues needed to be decided by this
`
`Court. Although the Parties currently dispute whether Lyft is the prevailing party in this action,
`
`this issue has not yet been substantively briefed, and the need for a decision on this issue may be
`
`avoided entirely if further time is allowed for the Parties to meet and confer.
`
`Counsel for Lyft twice attempted to confer with counsel for Plaintiff regarding whether
`
`Plaintiff opposes this motion, but as of the filing of this motion, Plaintiff did not provide its
`
`position.
`
`Date: February 16, 2022
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Jeremy Taylor
`
`Jeremy J. Taylor
`Arya Moshiri (Pro Hac Vice)
`Baker Botts L.L.P.
`
`the N.D. Cal. Court provided leave for Lyft to amend and refile its complaint to include additional
`information learned through discovery in the present case, which would have already been pled
`but for AGIS’s refusal to allow Lyft to use the information learned through discovery in this case
`in the N.D. Cal. case. See Joint Case Management Conference Statement, Lyft, Inc. v. AGIS
`Software Development LLC, No. 5:21-cv-04653-BLF (N.D. Cal. Jan 20, 2022), Dkt. 51 at § 5
`(explaining that Lyft prepared an Amended Complaint that it did not file due to AGIS’s objections
`to using information learned through discovery in this case). The N.D. Cal. Court did not overlook
`AGIS’s obstructionist role when inviting Lyft to conduct jurisdictional discovery and file an
`amended complaint in the same Order AGIS cites. See Order Granting Motion to Dismiss for
`Lack of Personal Jurisdiction with Leave to Amend; Granting Jurisdictional Discovery, Lyft, Inc.
`v. AGIS Software Development LLC, No. 5:21-cv-04653-BLF (N.D. Cal. Jan 28, 2022), Dkt. 61.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 361 Filed 02/16/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 23184
`
`jeremy.taylor@bakerbotts.com
`arya.moshiri@bakerbotts.com
`101 California St., Suite 3600
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: (415) 291-6200
`Facsimile: (415) 291-6300
`
`Danny David
`Baker Botts L.L.P.
`danny.david@bakerbotts.com
`910 Louisiana Street
`Houston, TX 77002
`Telephone: (713) 229-1234
`Facsimile: (713) 229-1522
`
`Kurt Pankratz
`Bethany R. Salpietra
`Megan LaDriere White
`Baker Botts L.L.P.
`kurt.pankratz@bakerbotts.com
`bethany.salpietra@bakerbotts.com
`megan.ladriere@bakerbotts.com
`2001 Ross Ave., Ste. 900
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Telephone: (214) 953-6500
`Facsimile: (214) 953-6503
`
`Brianna Potter (Pro Hac Vice)
`Baker Botts L.L.P.
`brianna.potter@bakerbotts.com
`1001 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Telephone: (650) 739-7556
`Facsimile: (650) 739-7656
`
`Deron R. Dacus
`The Dacus Firm, P.C.
`ddacus@dacusfirm.com
`821 ESE Loop 323, Suite 430
`Tyler, Texas 75701
`Telephone: (903) 705-1117
`Facsimile: (903) 581-2543
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Lyft, Inc.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 361 Filed 02/16/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 23185
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that counsel of record who are deemed to have consented
`
`to electronic services are being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s CM/ECF
`
`system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) on this the 16th day of February, 2022.
`
`/s/ Jeremy J. Taylor
`Jeremy J. Taylor
`
`4
`
`