Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 373-4 Filed 03/29/22 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:
`23404
`
`Exhibit 4
`
`
`23404
`
`Exhibit 4
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 373-4 Filed 03/29/22 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:
`1
`23405
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO.
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT, LLC, )(
`2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP
`
`)(
`
`(Lead Case)
`PLAINTIFF(S),
`)(
`
`)(
`MARSHALL, TEXAS
`versus
`)(
`)( SEPTEMBER 29, 2021
`T-MOBILE USA, INC., and
`)(
`)(
`T-MOBILE US, INC.,
`)(
`DEFENDANT(S).
`)(
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO.
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT, LLC, )(
`2:21-cv-00024-JRG-RSP
`
`)(
` (Member Case)
`PLAINTIFF(S),
`)(
`
`)(
`
`versus
`)(
`)(
`LYFT, INC.
`)(
`________________________________________________________
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT, LLC, )(
`CIVIL ACTION NO.
`
`)(
`2:21-cv-00026-JRG-RSP
`PLAINTIFF(S),
`)(
` (Member Case)
`
`)(
`versus
`)(
`
`)(
`UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`)(
`)(
`d/b/a UBER,
`_______________________________________________________
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT, LLC, )(
`CIVIL ACTION NO.
`)(
`2:21-cv-00029-JRG-RSP
`
`PLAINTIFF(S),
`)(
` (Member Case)
`
`)(
`versus
`)(
`
`)(
`WHATSAPP, INC.
`)(
`_______________________________________________________
`TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE ROY S. PAYNE
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 373-4 Filed 03/29/22 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:
`41
`23406
`Does Lyft have locations elsewhere in Texas?
`Q
`Elsewhere in Texas. Sorry. Yes, we do. We have four
`A
`offices. One in Irving. One in Houston. One in Austin. And
`one in San Antonio.
`Q
`And just to reiterate, none of those locations are in
`the Eastern District of Texas; correct?
`A
`That's correct.
`Q
`And all of the information that you gave about Lyft,
`presence or lack thereof in the Eastern District of Texas,
`that's true of today; is that correct?
`A
`That's correct.
`Q
`Is it true from January 2021 through today?
`A
`It is. We had another site earlier this year in Euless,
`Texas, which is not in the Eastern District.
`Q
`There's been a lot of talk, you are heard us talking
`about an Express Drive location in Plano, Texas; specifically,
`at 928 West Spring Creek Parkway. Are you familiar with this
`location?
`A
`I am.
`Q
`Is that location -- or is that address, rather, in the
`Eastern District of Texas?
`A
`It is.
`Q
`And at that address is the location of a Pep Boys store;
`is that correct?
`A
`That's correct.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`02:02PM
`
`02:02PM
`
`02:02PM
`
`02:03PM
`
`02:03PM
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 373-4 Filed 03/29/22 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:
`42
`23407
`And at some point in the past Lyft operated an Express
`Q
`Drive location inside that Pep Boys store; correct?
`A
`That's correct.
`Q
`What did Lyft use the Express Drive location for in
`Plano?
`That location was used to facilitate the rental program
`A
`with Hertz primarily.
`Q
`And there were Lyft employees there to facility the
`rental program with Hertz; correct?
`A
`That's correct. One to two employees.
`Q
`Is that Plano Express Drive location currently
`operating?
`A
`No, it is not.
`Q
`And, roughly, when did the Plano Express Drive location
`cease operations?
`A
`In August of 2019.
`Q
`And we heard some discussion earlier about the exact
`day. It's fair to say you don't known exactly which day in
`August it closed, but you know it closed in August; correct?
`A
`That's correct. It would have been around that
`timeframe, that's correct.
`Q
`Why did it close?
`A
`I do not know the specific reason for that exact site.
`But I know, generally, these type of sites come and go for
`various reasons. Some of these reasons could be just overall
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`02:03PM
`
`02:03PM
`
`02:03PM
`
`02:04PM
`
`02:04PM
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 373-4 Filed 03/29/22 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:
`43
`23408
`relations with the company at a nation level. Some,
`operationally, constraints could develop. So for, you know,
`example, it just doesn't make sense operationally. There are
`better sites or just less visitors. There's various reasons
`that could cause a site to open or close.
`Q
`Stepping back and looking at all of the Eastern District
`of Texas, does Lyft have any Express Drive locations currently
`in the Eastern District of Texas?
`A
`No, we do not.
`Q
`Again, from January 2021, when this lawsuit was filed
`until today, has Lyft had any Express Drive locations in the
`Eastern District of Texas?
`A
`We have not.
`Q
`In fact, as you testified earlier, Lyft doesn't have any
`offices or locations in the Eastern District of Texas; is that
`correct?
`A
`That's correct.
`MR. RUBINO: Objection. Leading.
`BY MR. TAYLOR:
`Does Lyft have users in the Eastern District of Texas?
`Q
`Yes. If you refer to users, for example, riders on the
`A
`platform, yes.
`Q
`Riders and drivers; right? Both can use Lyft's
`application; correct?
`A
`That's correct.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`02:04PM
`
`02:04PM
`
`02:05PM
`
`02:05PM
`
`02:05PM
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 373-4 Filed 03/29/22 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:
`88
`23409
`THE COURT: No. I just did not want to use the wrong
`term without knowing it.
`MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Your Honor.
`THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Mr. Taylor.
`Well, I appreciate the arguments and the evidence. They
`have been helpful. You have given me a lot to consider, and I
`will try to get a ruling out on this motion promptly.
`So, with that, we're adjourned. Thank you.
`[PROCEEDINGS IN RECESS]
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`03:11PM
`
`OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
`
`I (we) certify that the foregoing is a correct
`transcript of proceedings in the above-entitled matter.
`
`/S/ Susan A. Zielie, RMR, FCRR
`Susan A. Zielie, RMR, FCRR
`October 26, 2021
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
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
