Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 102-3 Filed 08/11/23 Page 1 of 37 PageID #:
`7836
`
`EXHIBIT 2
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 102-3 Filed 08/11/23 Page 2 of 37 PageID #:
`7837
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:22-cv-263-JRG-RSP
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`NON-PARTY GOOGLE LLC’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
`THIRD-PARTY DEPOSITION SUBPOENA
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 102-3 Filed 08/11/23 Page 3 of 37 PageID #:
`7838
`
`Pursuant to Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the applicable Local Civil
`
`Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, non-party Google LLC
`
`(“Google”) hereby objects as follows to the deposition subpoena dated July 7, 2023 issued by
`
`Plaintiff AGIS Software Development LLC (“AGIS”).
`
`Google’s responses and objections do not constitute an admission that any questions posed
`
`at deposition pursuant to AGIS’s subpoena, or the answers thereto, are relevant or admissible as
`
`evidence in any hearing, trial, or other proceeding. Google specifically reserves the right to object
`
`on any grounds to the questions posed at the deposition and to the admission of any question, any
`
`response, or document produced at any hearing, trial, or other proceeding.
`
`Google’s agreement to designate one or more witnesses to testify in response to a specific
`
`Topic is not a representation that information responsive to that Topic exists or is known or
`
`reasonably available to Google, that such Topic is relevant to any issue in the case, or that Google
`
`has in its possession, custody, or control information responsive to that deposition Topic. Google
`
`also does not waive any objection, nor any claim of privilege, by agreeing to designate one or more
`
`witnesses in response to any deposition Topic.
`
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS AND
`INSTRUCTIONS
`
`The following General Objections form a part of, and are hereby incorporated into, the
`
`response to each and every Topic set forth below. Nothing in the Specific Objections should be
`
`construed as a waiver of any of these General Objections.
`
`1.
`
`Google objects to each Topic because Google’s Find My Device (“FMD”) is not
`
`currently at issue in this case or part of AGIS’s current infringement contentions and thus any
`
`discovery on FMD is not relevant to the claims and defenses in this action and not proportional to
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 102-3 Filed 08/11/23 Page 4 of 37 PageID #:
`7839
`
`the needs of the case.1
`
`2.
`
`Google objects to the noticed deposition date of August 4, 2023, which fails to
`
`allow Google a reasonable time to comply. Google is willing to meet and confer with AGIS to
`
`discuss a reasonable date and time for any deposition.
`
`3.
`
`Google objects to the noticed place of deposition at Regus – Downtown, 800 W El
`
`Camino Real #180, Mountain View, CA 94040. Google is willing to meet and confer with AGIS
`
`to discuss a reasonable location for any deposition.
`
`4.
`
`Google objects to each definition and Topic to the extent that it seeks testimony
`
`regarding information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the common interest privilege,
`
`work product doctrine, or any other privilege, immunity, or protection from discovery afforded by
`
`law. Google claims such privileges and protections to the extent implicated by each Topic and
`
`will exclude privileged and protected information from its responses to the Topics. Any
`
`inadvertent disclosure of privileged information or work product shall not constitute a waiver of
`
`any privilege or protection.
`
`5.
`
`Google objects to each definition and Topic to the extent that it calls for testimony
`
`regarding private, confidential, secret, trade secret, proprietary, and/or sensitive business
`
`information of Google, its employees and/or third parties (hereinafter referred to as “Confidential
`
`Information”). Such information is not relevant to any claim or defense in this action, and
`
`Google’s interest in maintaining its confidentiality outweighs any relevancy. The Confidential
`
`Information as to which Google will not provide testimony, unless noted otherwise below,
`
`includes, but is not limited to, Google’s source code; confidential patent applications; the
`
`
`1 Google understands that AGIS has filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Its Disclosure Of Asserted
`Claims and Infringement Contentions (Dkt. 72, hereinafter “Motion for Leave”) to add allegations
`against FMD, and that the motion is opposed by Samsung and currently pending.
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 102-3 Filed 08/11/23 Page 5 of 37 PageID #:
`7840
`
`configuration of Google’s information technology systems; personal information about Google’s
`
`employees; sales and budget forecasts; and trade secret information. Insofar as AGIS is entitled
`
`to testimony regarding Confidential Information, Google will only provide such testimony
`
`pursuant to the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas,
`
`the Protective Order governing this action, and any further protections that Google may seek given
`
`that it is a third party to this action.
`
`6.
`
`Google objects to each definition and Topic to the extent that they seek information
`
`which Google is required by law or contract to maintain in confidence, including but not limited
`
`to information subject to non-disclosure agreements between Google and one or more third parties.
`
`7.
`
`Google objects to each definition and Topic to the extent that it seeks testimony
`
`regarding information that is already in the possession, custody, or control of AGIS; that is in the
`
`public domain and are of no greater burden for AGIS to obtain than Google; or that is otherwise
`
`obtainable from another source, including a party to this lawsuit, that is more convenient, less
`
`burdensome, or less expensive.
`
`8.
`
`Google objects to each definition and Topic to the extent that it seeks testimony
`
`regarding information that is not within Google’s possession, custody or control. Google will use
`
`reasonable diligence to provide testimony regarding information within its possession, custody, or
`
`control, based on a reasonable investigation.
`
`9.
`
`Google objects to each definition and Topic to the extent that they are vague,
`
`ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, or harassing.
`
`10.
`
`Google objects to each definition and Topic to the extent that they invade any right
`
`to privacy under any applicable state or federal law, or constitutional provision.
`
`11.
`
`Google objects to each definition and Topic to the extent that they seek testimony
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 102-3 Filed 08/11/23 Page 6 of 37 PageID #:
`7841
`
`that is not relevant to the claims and defenses in this action or disproportionate to the needs of the
`
`case.
`
`12.
`
`Google objects to each definition and Topic to the extent that they attempt to
`
`impose any duties on Google beyond those required by the Court, the Local Rules of the United
`
`States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or any
`
`other applicable rules or orders.
`
`13.
`
`Google objects to each definition and Topic because they do not contain reasonable
`
`limitations on the time period covered.
`
`14.
`
`Google objects to AGIS’s definitions of “You,” “Your,” and “Google” as overly
`
`broad to the extent they refer to Google’s “predecessors-in-interest, successors-in-interest, parents,
`
`subsidiaries, affiliates, and its officers, directors, members, principals, employees, agents,
`
`representatives, affiliates, or others acting on Google’s behalf.” Information in the possession,
`
`custody, or control of these entities and/or individuals is not necessarily in the possession, custody,
`
`or control of Google, and Google will construe the Topics as not requiring Google to provide
`
`testimony regarding information that is not in the possession, custody, or control of Google.
`
`15.
`
`Google objects to AGIS’s definition of “Samsung” as overly broad to the extent it
`
`refers to Samsung’s “predecessors-in-interest, successors-in-interest, parents, subsidiaries,
`
`affiliates, and its officers, directors, members, principals, employees, agents, representatives,
`
`affiliates, or others acting on Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America,
`
`Inc.’s behalf.” In responding to these Topics, Google will respond on the basis that “Samsung”
`
`refers only to Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`16.
`
`Google objects to AGIS’s definition of “Accused Products.” First, the definition
`
`includes “Find My Device applications, products, and solutions,” but as noted, FMD is not
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 102-3 Filed 08/11/23 Page 7 of 37 PageID #:
`7842
`
`currently at issue in this case or part of AGIS’s current infringement contentions and thus any
`
`discovery on FMD is not relevant to the claims and defenses in this action and not proportional to
`
`the needs of the case. Second, the definition purports to include other software products (e.g.,
`
`“Samsung Tactical, TAK, ATAK, and CivTAK, Samsung Knox”) and Samsung-branded mobile
`
`products and Google is not the appropriate entity from whom discovery should be sought for those
`
`products.
`
`17.
`
`Google objects to AGIS’s definitions of “relate to,” “reflecting,” “relating to” and
`
`“concerning” and variations thereof to the extent they seek information unrelated to the subject
`
`matter of this litigation and that is not relevant to this litigation or reasonably calculated to lead to
`
`the discovery of admissible evidence. Google further objects to these definitions as vague,
`
`overbroad, and unduly burdensome as they purport to impose obligations on Google beyond those
`
`imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local Rules.
`
`18.
`
`Google reserves the right to seek from AGIS the costs of any testimony provided
`
`in connection with AGIS’s subpoena.
`
`19.
`
`Google’s responses are made based on its present knowledge, information, and
`
`belief. Google reserves the right to supplement or amend its responses and objections to the Topics
`
`in this subpoena.
`
`20.
`
`The foregoing General Objections shall be applicable to and included in Google’s
`
`objections to each and every one of the Topics, whether or not specifically raised below. The
`
`objections set forth below are not a waiver, in whole or in part, of any of the foregoing General
`
`Objections.
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 102-3 Filed 08/11/23 Page 8 of 37 PageID #:
`7843
`
`SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES
`
`TOPIC NO. 1:
`
`Any Google Find My Device software and/or firmware in Your possession, custody, or
`
`control or provided by You to Samsung. AGIS Software Development LLC expects this Topic to
`
`cover at least the software and/or firmware of Google Find My Device applications, products, and
`
`solutions in the Samsung Accused Products.
`
`RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 1:
`
`Google incorporates its General Objections as though fully set forth herein. Google further
`
`objects to this Topic because FMD is not at issue in this case or part of AGIS’s current infringement
`
`contentions and thus any discovery on FMD is not relevant to the claims or defenses in this action
`
`and not proportional to the needs of the case. Google further objects to this Topic as irrelevant to
`
`any party’s claims or defenses. Google further objects to this Topic as overly broad, unduly
`
`burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case, including as to “[a]ny Google Find My
`
`Device software and/or firmware . . . provided by You to Samsung.” Google further objects to
`
`this Topic as not being appropriately limited in time to the applicable time period for this action.
`
`Google further objects to this Topic as vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, including as to the term
`
`or phrase “provided by You to Samsung” and “Google Find My Device applications, products,
`
`and solutions in the Samsung Accused Products.” Google further objects to this Topic to the extent
`
`that it seeks information that, if disclosed, would result in the violation of any legal or contractual
`
`obligation to third parties, including confidentiality obligations. Google further objects to this
`
`Topic to the extent it seeks information protected by attorney-client privilege, the work product
`
`doctrine, the common interest privilege or any other applicable privilege or immunity doctrines.
`
`Subject to and without waiving its General and Specific Objections, Google responds as
`
`follows: To the extent AGIS’s Motion for Leave (Dkt. 72) is granted, Google will designate a
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 102-3 Filed 08/11/23 Page 9 of 37 PageID #:
`7844
`
`witness to testify about the functionality of FMD for the version for which Google produces source
`
`code, and other versions that fall within the scope of AGIS’s infringement allegations and the
`
`applicable damages period.
`
`TOPIC NO. 2:
`
`Your role in providing Samsung with any components (including hardware, software
`
`and/or firmware components) related to the implementation of Google Find My Device on the
`
`Samsung Accused Products, including any agreements, statements of work, presentations, project
`
`planning documentation, and any other documents exchanged between You and Samsung related
`
`to the design and operation of Google Find My Device.
`
`RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 2:
`
`Google incorporates its General Objections as though fully set forth herein. Google further
`
`objects to this Topic because FMD is not at issue in this case or part of AGIS’s current infringement
`
`contentions and thus any discovery on FMD is not relevant to the claims or defenses in this action
`
`and not proportional to the needs of the case. Google further objects to this Topic as irrelevant to
`
`any party’s claims or defenses. Google further objects to this Topic as overly broad, unduly
`
`burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case, including as to “Your role in providing
`
`Samsung with any components . . . related to the implementation of Google Find My Device on
`
`the Samsung Accused Products.” Google further objects to this Topic as not being appropriately
`
`limited in time to the applicable time period for this action. Google further objects to this Topic
`
`as vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, including as to the term or phrase “providing Samsung,”
`
`“any components” and “implementation of Google Find My Device.” Google further objects to
`
`this Topic to the extent that it seeks information that, if disclosed, would result in the violation of
`
`any legal or contractual obligation to third parties, including confidentiality obligations. Google
`
`further objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks information protected by attorney-client privilege,
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 102-3 Filed 08/11/23 Page 10 of 37 PageID #:
`7845
`
`the work product doctrine, the common interest privilege or any other applicable privilege or
`
`immunity doctrines.
`
`Subject to and without waiving its General and Specific Objections, Google responds as
`
`follows: To the extent AGIS’s Motion for Leave (Dkt. 72) is granted, Google is willing to meet
`
`and confer regarding the scope of this Topic.
`
`TOPIC NO. 3:
`
`Source code for any Google Find My Device software and/or firmware on the Samsung
`
`Accused Products, including but not limited to any software and/or firmware running on Google
`
`Find My Device on the Accused Products.
`
`RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 3:
`
`Google incorporates its General Objections as though fully set forth herein. Google further
`
`objects to this Topic because FMD is not at issue in this case or part of AGIS’s current infringement
`
`contentions and thus any discovery on FMD is not relevant to the claims or defenses in this action
`
`and not proportional to the needs of the case. Google further objects to this Topic as irrelevant to
`
`any party’s claims or defenses. Google further objects to this Topic as overly broad, unduly
`
`burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case, including as to “[s]ource code for any
`
`Google Find My Device software and/or firmware on the Samsung Accused Products.” Google
`
`further objects to this Topic as not being appropriately limited in time to the applicable time period
`
`for this action. Google further objects to this Topic as vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, including
`
`as to the term or phrase “software and/or firmware running on Google Find My Device on the
`
`Accused Products.” Google further objects to this Topic to the extent that it seeks information
`
`that, if disclosed, would result in the violation of any legal or contractual obligation to third parties,
`
`including confidentiality obligations. Google further objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 102-3 Filed 08/11/23 Page 11 of 37 PageID #:
`7846
`
`information protected by attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, the common interest
`
`privilege or any other applicable privilege or immunity doctrines.
`
`Subject to and without waiving its General and Specific Objections, Google responds as
`
`follows: To the extent AGIS’s Motion for Leave (Dkt. 72) is granted, Google will designate a
`
`witness to testify about the functionality of FMD for the version for which Google produces source
`
`code, and other versions that fall within the scope of AGIS’s infringement allegations and the
`
`applicable damages period.
`
`TOPIC NO. 4:
`
`The contents of any instruction and/or reference material such as reference manuals, tuning
`
`guides, configuration guides, user guides, datasheets, presentations, customer support materials,
`
`and API specifications sufficient to show the operation of Google Find My Device (including
`
`hardware and software and/or firmware components).
`
`RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 4:
`
`Google incorporates its General Objections as though fully set forth herein. Google further
`
`objects to this Topic because FMD is not at issue in this case or part of AGIS’s current infringement
`
`contentions and thus any discovery on FMD is not relevant to the claims or defenses in this action
`
`and not proportional to the needs of the case. Google further objects to this Topic as irrelevant to
`
`any party’s claims or defenses. Google further objects to this Topic as overly broad, unduly
`
`burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case, including as to “any instruction and/or
`
`reference material . . . sufficient to show the operation of Google Find My Device (including
`
`hardware and software and/or firmware components).” Google further objects to this Topic as not
`
`being appropriately limited in time to the applicable time period for this action. Google further
`
`objects to this Topic as vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, including as to the term or phrase
`
`“contents of any instruction and/or reference material” and “operation of Google Find My Device.”
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 102-3 Filed 08/11/23 Page 12 of 37 PageID #:
`7847
`
`Google further objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks information protected by attorney-client
`
`privilege, the work product doctrine, the common interest privilege or any other applicable
`
`privilege or immunity doctrines.
`
`Subject to and without waiving its General and Specific Objections, Google responds as
`
`follows: To the extent AGIS’s Motion for Leave (Dkt. 72) is granted, Google will designate a
`
`witness to testify about the functionality of FMD for the version for which Google produces source
`
`code, and other versions that fall within the scope of AGIS’s infringement allegations and the
`
`applicable damages period.
`
`TOPIC NO. 5:
`
`The contents of any specifications such as software specifications, design specifications,
`
`functional specifications, and requirements specifications sufficient to show the operation of
`
`Google Find My Device (including hardware and software and/or firmware components).
`
`RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 5:
`
`Google incorporates its General Objections as though fully set forth herein. Google further
`
`objects to this Topic because FMD is not at issue in this case or part of AGIS’s current infringement
`
`contentions and thus any discovery on FMD is not relevant to the claims or defenses in this action
`
`and not proportional to the needs of the case. Google further objects to this Topic as irrelevant to
`
`any party’s claims or defenses. Google further objects to this Topic as overly broad, unduly
`
`burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case, including as to “[s]pecifications . . .
`
`sufficient to show the operation of Google Find My Device (including hardware and software
`
`and/or firmware components).” Google further objects to this Topic as not being appropriately
`
`limited in time to the applicable time period for this action. Google further objects to this Topic
`
`as vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, including as to the term or phrase “contents of any
`
`specifications” and “operation of Google Find My Device.” Google further objects to this Topic
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 102-3 Filed 08/11/23 Page 13 of 37 PageID #:
`7848
`
`to the extent it seeks information protected by attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine,
`
`the common interest privilege or any other applicable privilege or immunity doctrines.
`
`Subject to and without waiving its General and Specific Objections, Google responds as
`
`follows: To the extent AGIS’s Motion for Leave (Dkt. 72) is granted, Google will designate a
`
`witness to testify about the functionality of FMD for the version for which Google produces source
`
`code, and other versions that fall within the scope of AGIS’s infringement allegations and the
`
`applicable damages period.
`
`TOPIC NO. 6:
`
`All individuals with whom You have had contact with at Samsung regarding design and
`
`implementation of Google Find My Device (including hardware and software and/or firmware
`
`components) used in the Samsung Accused Products.
`
`RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 6:
`
`Google incorporates its General Objections as though fully set forth herein. Google further
`
`objects to this Topic because FMD is not at issue in this case or part of AGIS’s current infringement
`
`contentions and thus any discovery on FMD is not relevant to the claims or defenses in this action
`
`and not proportional to the needs of the case. Google further objects to this Topic as irrelevant to
`
`any party’s claims or defenses. Google further objects to this Topic as overly broad, unduly
`
`burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case, including as to “[a]ll individuals with
`
`whom You have had contact with at Samsung regarding design and implementation of Google
`
`Find My Device . . . used in the Samsung Accused Products.” Google further objects to this Topic
`
`as not being appropriately limited in time to the applicable time period for this action. Google
`
`further objects to this Topic as vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, including as to the term or phrase
`
`“have had contact” and “design and implementation of Google Find My Device … used in the
`
`Samsung Accused Products.” Google further objects to this Topic to the extent that it seeks
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 102-3 Filed 08/11/23 Page 14 of 37 PageID #:
`7849
`
`information that, if disclosed, would result in the violation of any legal or contractual obligation
`
`to third parties, including confidentiality obligations. Google further objects to this Topic to the
`
`extent it seeks information protected by attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, the
`
`common interest privilege or any other applicable privilege or immunity doctrines.
`
`Subject to and without waiving its General and Specific Objections, Google responds as
`
`follows: To the extent AGIS’s Motion for Leave (Dkt. 72) is granted, based on these objections,
`
`Google will not designate a witness on this Topic.
`
`TOPIC NO. 7:
`
`All discovery related to Google Find My Device which was produced by Google in the
`
`International Trade Commission Investigation, Certain Location-Sharing Systems, Related
`
`Software, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1347, including
`
`but not limited to document productions, source code, interrogatory responses, and deposition
`
`transcripts. This includes but is not limited to the deposition transcript of Sorin Dinu, the corporate
`
`witness for Google in the ITC Investigation identified above. For the abundance of caution,
`
`regarding source code, this request comprises all documents, source code, and other materials
`
`designated and produced as “GOOGLE CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION –
`
`SOURCE CODE” in Certain Location-Sharing Systems, Related Software, Components Thereof,
`
`and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1347, which further comprises “technical
`
`documentation that constitutes, contains, includes, or substantially disclosures nonpublic Source
`
`Code” and “[d]ocuments that contain confidential business information that defines or otherwise
`
`describes in detail the algorithms or structure of software or hardware designs, including
`
`insubstantial excerpts of source code, formulas, engineering specifications, or schematics that
`
`define or otherwise describe in detail the algorithms or structure of software or hardware designs
`
`. . .”
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 102-3 Filed 08/11/23 Page 15 of 37 PageID #:
`7850
`
`RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 7:
`
`Google incorporates its General Objections as though fully set forth herein. Google further
`
`objects to this Topic because FMD is not at issue in this case or part of AGIS’s current infringement
`
`contentions and thus any discovery on FMD is not relevant to the claims or defenses in this action
`
`and not proportional to the needs of the case. Google further objects to this Topic as irrelevant to
`
`any party’s claims or defenses. Google further objects to this Topic as overly broad, unduly
`
`burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case, including as to “[a]ll discovery related
`
`to Google Find My Device which was produced by Google in the International Trade Commission
`
`Investigation.” Google further objects to this Topic as not being appropriately limited in time to
`
`the applicable time period for this action. Google further objects to this Topic to the extent that it
`
`seeks information that, if disclosed, would result in the violation of any legal or contractual
`
`obligation to third parties, including confidentiality obligations. Google further objects to this
`
`Topic to the extent it seeks information protected by attorney-client privilege, the work product
`
`doctrine, the common interest privilege or any other applicable privilege or immunity doctrines.
`
`Google further objects to this Topic as not being a deposition topic, but instead a request for the
`
`production of documents.
`
`Subject to and without waiving its General and Specific Objections, Google responds as
`
`follows: To the extent AGIS’s Motion for Leave (Dkt. 72) is granted, Google is willing to meet
`
`and confer regarding the scope of this Topic.
`
`TOPIC NO. 8:
`
`The name, location, title, and role of each and every member of the Google Find My Device
`
`team located in London, England.
`
`-14-
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 102-3 Filed 08/11/23 Page 16 of 37 PageID #:
`7851
`
`RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 8:
`
`Google incorporates its General Objections as though fully set forth herein. Google further
`
`objects to this Topic because FMD is not at issue in this case or part of AGIS’s current infringement
`
`contentions and thus any discovery on FMD is not relevant to the claims or defenses in this action
`
`and not proportional to the needs of the case. Google further objects to this Topic as irrelevant to
`
`any party’s claims or defenses. Google further objects to this Topic as overly broad, unduly
`
`burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case, including as to “[t]he name, location,
`
`title, and role of each and every member of the Google Find My Device team located in London,
`
`England.” Google further objects to this Topic as not being appropriately limited in time to the
`
`applicable time period for this action. Google further objects to this Topic as vague, ambiguous,
`
`and overbroad, including as to the term or phrase “member of the Google Find My Device team.”
`
`Google further objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks information protected by attorney-client
`
`privilege, the work product doctrine, the common interest privilege or any other applicable
`
`privilege or immunity doctrines.
`
`Subject to and without waiving its General and Specific Objections, Google responds as
`
`follows: To the extent AGIS’s Motion for Leave (Dkt. 72) is granted, based on these objections,
`
`Google will designate a witness to identify the names, locations, and roles of Google employees
`
`who work on FMD, subject to a meet and confer to regarding the appropriate time period for this
`
`topic.
`
`
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 102-3 Filed 08/11/23 Page 17 of 37 PageID #:
`7852
`
`Dated: July 21, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Mark Liang
`Melissa R. Smith
`Texas State Bar No. 24001351
`melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com
`GILLAM & SMITH, LLP
`303 South Washington Avenue
`Marshall, Texas 75670
`Phone: (903) 934-8450
`Fax: (903) 934-9257
`
`Gregory Blake Thompson
`Texas State Bar No. 24042033
`MANN | TINDEL | THOMPSON
`112 E. Line Street, Suite 304
`Tyler, Texas 75702
`(903) 657-8540
`(903) 657-6003 (fax)
`
`Darin W. Snyder (pro hac vice)
`dsnyder@omm.com
`Mark Liang (pro hac vice)
`mliang@omm.com
`Bill Trac
`btrac@omm.com
`Sorin Zaharia
`szaharia@omm.com
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: (415) 984-8700
`Facsimile: (415) 984-8701
`
`Stacy Yae (pro hac vice)
`syae@omm.com
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`400 South Hope Street, 18th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: (213) 430-6000
`Facsimile: (213) 430-6407
`
`Grant Gibson
`Texas State Bar No. 24117859
`ggibson@omm.com
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`2501 North Harwood Street, Suite 1700
`
`-16-
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 102-3 Filed 08/11/23 Page 18 of 37 PageID #:
`7853
`
`Dallas, TX 75201-1663
`Telephone: (972) 360-1900
`Facsimile: (972) 360-1901
`
`Neil P. Sirota
`neil.sirota@bakerbotts.com
`Margaret M. Welsh
`margaret.welsh@bakerbotts.com
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`30 Rockefeller Plaza
`New York, NY 10112-4498
`Phone: (212) 408-2500
`Fax: (212) 408-2501
`
`Melissa R. Smith
`Texas State Bar No. 24001351
`melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com
`GILLAM & SMITH, LLP
`303 South Washington Avenue
`Marshall, Texas 75670
`Phone: (903) 934-8450
`Fax: (903) 934-9257
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC.
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic
`
`service are being served with a copy of this document via electronic delivery on July 21, 2023
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Michael O’Donnell
` Michael O’Donnell
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 102-3 Filed 08/11/23 Page 19 of 37 PageID #:
`7854
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:22-cv-263-JRG-RSP
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`NON-PARTY GOOGLE LLC’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
`THIRD-PARTY DOCUMENT SUBPOENA
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 102-3 Filed 08/11/23 Page 20 of 37 PageID #:
`7855
`
`Pursuant to Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the applicable Local Civil
`
`Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, non-party Google LLC
`
`(“Google”) hereby objects as follows to the document subpoena dated July 7, 2023 issued by
`
`Plaintiff AGIS Software Development LLC (“AGIS”).
`
`Google’s responses and objections do not constitute an admission that any responses or
`
`documents produced pursuant to AGIS’s subpoena are relevant or admissible as evidence in any
`
`hearing, trial, or other proceeding. Google specifically reser