Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 215 Filed 09/22/22 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 10228
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`JAWBONE INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., ET AL.
`
`Defendants.
`
`NO. 2:21-CV-0186-JRG-RSP
`
`DEFENDANTS SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. AND
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.’S MOTION TO COMPEL
`FURTHER DEPOSITION TESTIMONY OF GREGORY BURNETT
`
`172607255 v5
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 215 Filed 09/22/22 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: 10229
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 3
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 3
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 6
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 215 Filed 09/22/22 Page 3 of 10 PageID #: 10230
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Drexel Chem. Co. v. Fluorchemika Corp., LLC,
`2013 WL 12253042 (W.D. Tenn. May 6, 2013) .......................................................................2
`
`Kleppinger v. Texas Dep’t of Transp.,
`283 F.R.D. 330 (S.D. Tex. 2012) ...............................................................................................1
`
`O’Connor v. Cory,
`2018 WL 5016291 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 16, 2018) ...........................................................................1
`
`Off. Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of Exeter Holdings, Ltd. v. Haltman,
`2016 WL 1180194 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2016) ...........................................................................2
`
`United States ex rel Woodard v. Davita, Inc.,
`No. 1:05-CV-227, 2011 WL 13199233 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 26, 2011) ..........................................1
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(A)(ii) .........................................................................................................1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 215 Filed 09/22/22 Page 4 of 10 PageID #: 10231
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Defendants (“Samsung”) request an order compelling three (3) additional hours of
`
`deposition testimony of witness Gregory Burnett. Dr. Burnett provided testimony on September
`
`7 and, in his individual capacity as an inventor of the Asserted Patents and in his capacity as
`
`Plaintiff’s 30(b)(6) designee for twenty two (22) topics. During the first day of Dr. Burnett’s
`
`deposition, it became clear that he had not performed a reasonable search for documents
`
`responsive to his subpoena, and after that day, Defendants requested he do so, and bring such
`
`documents to his second day of his deposition. Defendants’ request, however, was ignored, and
`
`additional responsive documents were not produced until after his deposition was complete.
`
`Although the parties met and conferred on this issue on September 16, Plaintiff has refused to
`
`make Dr. Burnett available for any additional deposition time. Samsung therefore seeks an order
`
`compelling Plaintiff to provide additional deposition time as outlined below.
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A natural person may be deposed again with leave of court. Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`30(a)(2)(A)(ii). While the party seeking to depose a witness who has already been deposed must
`
`seek leave of court, the “court must grant such leave unless it would be unreasonable to do so.”
`
`United States ex rel Woodard v. Davita, Inc., No. 1:05-CV-227, 2011 WL 13199233, at *2 (E.D.
`
`Tex. Sept. 26, 2011). Courts use the “good cause” standard to determine whether to reopen or
`
`retake a deposition. See O’Connor v. Cory, 2018 WL 5016291, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 16, 2018);
`
`Kleppinger v. Texas Dep’t of Transp., 283 F.R.D. 330, 335-36 & n.7 (S.D. Tex. 2012). Courts
`
`have allowed parties to reopen depositions for good cause when “new information comes to light
`
`that creates the need for further questioning.” O’Connor, 2018 WL 5016291, at *2 (citation
`
`omitted). “New information can include. . . the production of new documents.” Id. (citation
`
`omitted); see also Kleppinger, 283 F.R.D. at 334-35 (ordering reopening of deposition where a
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 215 Filed 09/22/22 Page 5 of 10 PageID #: 10232
`
`relevant document was produced after the deposition); Off. Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of
`
`Exeter Holdings, Ltd. v. Haltman, 2016 WL 1180194, at *3-*4 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2016)
`
`(permitting additional deposition time to address documents produced after the witness’s original
`
`deposition); Drexel Chem. Co. v. Fluorchemika Corp., LLC, 2013 WL 12253042, at *2 (W.D.
`
`Tenn. May 6, 2013) (ordering deposition reopened where relevant documents were produced
`
`after initial deposition, even though documents were not intentionally withheld).
`
`Here, Plaintiff and Dr. Burnett produced additional documents responsive to Samsung’s
`
`subpoena after the deposition concluded. Indeed, the day after Samsung completed Dr. Burnett’s
`
`deposition, Plaintiff produced
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`During the parties’ meet and confer, Plaintiff argued additional deposition time was not
`
`warranted because Samsung had the opportunity to question Dr. Burnett about the substance of
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 215 Filed 09/22/22 Page 6 of 10 PageID #: 10233
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Samsung is entitled to fully explore those terms with Dr.
`
`Burnett during deposition.
`
`Furthermore, on September 17 - more than one week after the conclusion of Dr. Burnett’s
`
`deposition - Dr. Burnett produced three additional documents bearing Bates page ranges
`
`. Among these documents
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Samsung was deprived of an opportunity to question Dr. Burnett about
`
`.
`
`Indeed, during his deposition, Dr. Burnett testified
`
`,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`shows that Samsung could not effectively question Dr. Burnett about this document without the
`
`document itself.
`
`
`
`
`
` are responsive to, at a minimum, Subpoena Request No. 63, which calls for “All
`
`Documents and Things Related to products that practice the claimed invention of the Asserted
`
`Patents.” However, Dr. Burnett did not produce
`
` before the deposition, and did not
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 215 Filed 09/22/22 Page 7 of 10 PageID #: 10234
`
`bring them to the second day of deposition.
`
`. Subsequently,
`
`during the parties’ meet and confer, Plaintiff’s counsel offered to make
`
` available
`
`for inspection by Samsung. Again, Plaintiff’s failure to timely produce or make these items
`
`available for inspection prior to Dr. Burnett’s deposition deprived Samsung the opportunity to
`
`effectively question Dr. Burnett about them.
`
`For each of the above-referenced documents and tangible things, Dr. Burnett and Plaintiff
`
`could have - but did not - disclosed them prior to Dr. Burnett’s deposition. Indeed, Plaintiff was
`
`obligated to have already disclosed responsive documents in its possession because fact
`
`discovery closed on September 5, two days prior to Dr. Burnett’s deposition on September 7.
`
`Dkt. No. 178.1 Notwithstanding this obligation, Dr. Burnett testified
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Samsung even requested that Dr. Burnett search for and bring responsive
`
`documents and tangible things to his second day of deposition. Plaintiff and Dr. Burnett could
`
`have done so, and avoided this dispute and the need for additional deposition time altogether.
`
`Instead, Plaintiff’s counsel chose to ignore this request, forcing Samsung to bring this dispute
`
`before the Court.
`
` Plaintiff’s counsel’s inexcusable delay
`
`deprived Samsung the opportunity to inquire about these documents at Dr. Burnett’s deposition.
`
`More time is needed to explore this evidence with the witness.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Samsung respectfully requests an order from the Court
`
`
`1 This Court granted leave to take Dr. Burnett’s deposition after the close of fact discovery. Dkt. No. 167
`(Motion to Amend Docket Control Order); Dkt. No. 178 (Third Amended Docket Control Order).
`2 Fabricant, LLP, which is also counsel of record for Plaintiff.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 215 Filed 09/22/22 Page 8 of 10 PageID #: 10235
`
`compelling Dr. Burnett to sit for an additional three (3) hours of deposition testimony, for the
`
`limited purpose of exploring the documents responsive to his subpoena that were not timely
`
`produced.
`
`Dated: September 20, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Daniel S. Shimell
`
`Jin-Suk Park
`jin.park@arnoldporter.com
`Paul Margulies
`paul.margulies@arnoldporter.com
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`601 Massachusetts Ave., NW
`Washington, DC 20001-3743
`Telephone: (202) 942-5000
`Facsimile: (202) 942-5555
`
`Patrick C. Reidy
`patrick.reidy@arnoldporter.com
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`70 West Madison Street, Suite 4200
`Chicago, IL 60602
`Telephone: (312) 583-2424
`Facsimile: (312) 583-2360
`
`Ryan M. Nishimoto
`ryan.nishimoto@arnoldporter.com
`Daniel S. Shimell
`daniel.shimell@arnoldporter.com
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`777 South Figueroa Street, 44th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90017
`Telephone: (213) 243-4000
`Facsimile: (213) 243-4199
`
`-and-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 215 Filed 09/22/22 Page 9 of 10 PageID #: 10236
`
`Melissa Smith
`melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com
`GILLAM & SMITH LLP
`303 South Washington Avenue
`Marshall, TX 75670
`Telephone: (903) 934-8450
`Facsimile: (903) 934-9257
`
`Attorneys for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
`
`On September 16, 2022, lead and local counsel for Samsung met and conferred regarding
`
`the late-produced documents and Samsung’s request for additional deposition time for Dr. Burnett
`
`with lead counsel for Plaintiff, Alfred Fabricant. Plaintiff’s counsel confirmed during the meet and
`
`confer that Dr. Burnett would not be made available for additional deposition testimony.
`
`Accordingly, the parties are at an impasse regarding the issues discussed above.
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Melissa R. Smith
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on September 20, 2022, I caused a copy of the
`
`foregoing DEFENDANTS SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. AND SAMSUNG
`
`ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DEPOSITION
`
`TESTIMONY OF GREGORY BURNETT using the ECF System which will send notification
`
`to the registered participants of the ECF System as listed on the Court’s Notice of Electronic
`
`Filing.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Melissa R. Smith
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 215 Filed 09/22/22 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:
`10237
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Melissa R. Smith
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`