Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 91 Filed 02/20/25 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 6460
`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document91_
`Filed 02/20/25
`Page 1of8 PagelD #: 6460
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
`SHERMAN DIVISION
`
`R2 Solutions LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Civil Action No. 4:23-cv-01147-ALM
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`Databricks, Ine. ms
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`PLAINTIFF R2 SOLUTIONS LLC’S MOTION TO COMPEL SUPPLEMENTAL
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORYNO. 33 FROM DEFENDANT DATABRICKS, INC.LL
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 91 Filed 02/20/25 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 6461
`
`Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, Plaintiff R2 Solutions LLC (“R2”) moves to compel
`
`Defendant Databricks, Inc. (“Databricks”) to provide a narrow response to Interrogatory No. 33.
`
`Specifically, R2 requests that the Court order Databricks to provide the total number of Databricks
`
`Units (“DBUs”) consumed for each of its DBR SKUs (SKUs with Runtime) by year from fiscal
`
`year 2019 through fiscal year 2025, for only the Amazon Web Services (“AWS”) and Google
`
`Cloud (“GCP”) platforms. The requested information is relevant, at least, to R2’s calculation of a
`
`reasonable royalty rate, Databricks has not previously offered any substantive response the subject
`
`interrogatory, and Databricks’ burden to comply is minimal because Databricks maintains this
`
`information. There is, thus, no reason for Databricks to not provide it.
`
`R2 brings this motion without first seeking a conference with the Court as required by the
`
`Court’s scheduling order. R2 requests that the Court waive the requirement in this instance. The
`
`deadline to file motions to compel is today, February 13, 2025. R2 only discovered that Databricks
`
`could provide this information during the deposition of Databricks’ Rule 30(b)(6) financial
`
`witness, John Winkenbach, yesterday. R2 immediately sought confirmation that Databricks would
`
`provide the responsive information; yet, after correspondence back-and-forth, Databricks refused
`
`to commit to providing it. R2 is filing this motion to ensure it meets the deadline to file such
`
`motions.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`R2 served its Fourth Set of Interrogatories, including Interrogatory No. 33, on December
`
`20, 2024. See generally Ex. A. Interrogatory No. 33 asks Databricks to describe in detail, for each
`
`Databricks SKU, its “revenue and profits attributable to, and the DBUs consumed by, such SKU
`
`on a monthly, quarterly, and yearly basis since 2017.” A “DBU” is a “unit of processing power”
`
`that
`
`Databricks
`
`uses
`
`“for
`
`measurement
`
`and
`
`pricing
`
`purposes.”
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 91 Filed 02/20/25 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 6462
`
`https://www.databricks.com/product/pricing. In other words, it is the metric by which Databricks
`
`gauges the amount a customer has used its services so that Databricks can accurately bill them. In
`
`its original response to Interrogatory No. 33, Databricks stated that it was “willing to meet and
`
`confer to understand the relevance of the information R2 requests and the appropriate scope of
`
`such information.” Ex. B at 25.
`
`R2 deposed John Winkenbach, Databricks’ 30(b)(6) representative on various financial
`
`topics, on February 12, 2025, the day before the deadline to file motions to compel. During that
`
`deposition, R2 asked Mr. Winkenbach about certain revenue information produced by Databricks
`
`and whether Databricks could provide the number of DBUs that went into calculating the revenue
`
`information provided. See Ex. C at 54:13-56:25. Mr. Winkenbach testified that while he personally
`
`could not provide that information, he thought that the “
`
`,” and that Databricks has “
`
`Id. at 56:23-25, 57:15-16.
`
`
`
`”
`
`Immediately after Mr. Winkenbach’s deposition, R2 requested that Databricks supplement
`
`its response. See Ex. D at 4-5. As relevant here, R2 narrowed its request and asked Databricks to
`
`“provide the total number of DBUs consumed for each of the DBR SKUs (SKUs with Runtime)
`
`by year from FY 2019 – FY 2025 (AWS and GCP cloud platforms only).” Id. Databricks first
`
`asked R2 to explain the relevance, which it did, and Databricks later replied that it disagreed that
`
`the requested information is relevant and that it is still investigating “the feasibility of gathering
`
`the requested information.” Id. at 1-3.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any
`
`party’s claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Evidence is considered relevant if it has “any
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 91 Filed 02/20/25 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 6463
`
`tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action
`
`more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 401.
`
`“Relevancy is broadly construed, and a request for discovery should be considered relevant if there
`
`is ‘any possibility’ that the information sought may be relevant to the claim or defense of any
`
`party.” Maxell Ltd. v. Apple Inc., No. 5:19-CV-00036-RWS, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 227278, at
`
`*2 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 13, 2019) (quoting Merrill v. Waffle House, Inc., 227 F.R.D. 467, 470 (N.D.
`
`Tex. 2005)). This District’s Local Rules provide, in relevant part, that information is “relevant to
`
`any party’s claim or defense” if “it is information that is likely to have an influence on or affect
`
`the outcome of a claim or defense; it is information that deserves to be considered in the
`
`preparation, evaluation, or trial of a claim or defense; and it is information that reasonable and
`
`competent counsel would consider reasonably necessary to prepare, evaluate, or try a claim or
`
`defense.” Local Rule CV-26(d). Further, “[d]iscovery need not even be admissible at trial to be
`
`obtained under the Federal Rules.” Pers. Audio, LLC v. Apple, Inc., No. 9:09-CV-111, 2010 U.S.
`
`Dist. LEXIS 144281, at *4 (E.D. Tex. June 1, 2010).
`
`A party may timely and specifically object to an interrogatory, but it must otherwise be
`
`answered fully. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3)-(4). Evasive or incomplete answers may be treated as a
`
`failure to answer. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). The requesting party can file a motion to compel if
`
`interrogatories are not answered, or if the answers are evasive or incomplete. Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`37(a)(3)(B)(iii), (4).
`
`III. THE REQUESTED INFORMATION IS RELEVANT AT LEAST TO DAMAGES.
`
`The Court should compel Databricks to provide the total number of DBUs consumed for
`
`each of the DBR SKUs (SKUs with Runtime) by year from FY 2019 – FY 2025 (AWS and GCP
`
`cloud platforms only) in response to Interrogatory No. 33. This narrowed set of information is
`
`relevant to damages, and discovery of this information is proportional to the needs of the case.
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 91 Filed 02/20/25 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 6464
`
`During his deposition, Mr. Winkenbach confirmed that
`
`
`
`. See Ex. C
`
`at 54:21-55:9. R2’s request centers on those figures: the total number of DBUs consumed for each
`
`of its DBR SKUs (a specific line of products and/or services). Although Databricks has produced
`
`documents detailing its revenues for these SKUs, those documents do not fully demonstrate the
`
`total, or extent of, usage of its products. As Mr. Winkenbach explained,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Id. at 56: 12-13; see also Ex. D. Thus, for R2 to know how much each SKU was
`
`actually used, R2 must get that information from Databricks.
`
`The amount that Databricks’ products are actually used by customers is relevant at least to
`
`Georgia-Pacific factors 8 and 11, which are factors calculating a reasonable royalty. Georgia-
`
`Pacific Factor 8 relates to “[t]he established profitability of the product made under the patent; its
`
`commercial success; and its current popularity.” Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood
`
`Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116, 1120 (S.D.N.Y. 1970) (emphasis added). This factor boils down to one
`
`common theme: usage. While revenue can be indicative of a product’s commercial success or
`
`current popularity, it does not tell the full story. Databricks may make $100,000 from one of its
`
`products, but that says nothing about how often that product is used (e.g., its popularity). The
`
`requested information would close this knowledge gap and influence R2’s ultimate calculation of
`
`a reasonable royalty rate.
`
`Similarly, Georgia-Pacific Factor 11 relates to “[t]he extent to which the infringer has
`
`made use of the invention; and any evidence probative of the value of that use.” Id. The requested
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 91 Filed 02/20/25 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 6465
`
`information’s relevance to this factor is clear: the total number of DBUs consumed is the extent to
`
`which the infringer has made use of the invention. As above with respect to Factor 8, the requested
`
`information would inform R2 on the appropriate reasonable royalty rate.
`
`The information should not be difficult for Databricks to provide. Databricks has confirmed
`
`that
`
`.
`
`
`
`. Moreover, R2’s narrowing of
`
`the request lessens any perceived burden on Databricks. See Maxell Ltd., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`
`227278, at *3 (“The party resisting discovery bears the burden to clarify and explain its objections
`
`and to provide support for those objections.”). For instance, Databricks objected that the initial
`
`request was “not limited to the relevant time period or geographic region.” R2 therefore narrowed
`
`its request for responsive information to 2019-2025. And Databricks objected that the request was
`
`“overly broad” because it asked for information regarding “each Databricks SKU.” R2 again
`
`narrowed its request to only “SKUs with Runtime” for only “AWS and GCP platforms,” which
`
`are the SKUs and platforms relevant to this case. Thus, Databricks cannot legitimately claim that
`
`R2’s request is unduly burdensome.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`Accordingly, for at least the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant R2’s motion to
`
`compel and order Databricks to respond to Interrogatory No. 33.
`
`Dated: February 13, 2025
`
`
`
`
`
` Respectfully Submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Edward R. Nelson III
`EDWARD R. NELSON III
`STATE BAR NO. 00797142
`CHRISTOPHER G. GRANAGHAN
`STATE BAR NO. 24078585
`JOHN P. MURPHY
`STATE BAR NO. 24056024
`CARDER W. BROOKS
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 91 Filed 02/20/25 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 6466
`
`STATE BAR NO. 24105536
`NELSON BUMGARDNER CONROY PC
`3131 West 7th Street, Suite 300
`Fort Worth, Texas 76107
`817.377.9111
`ed@nelbum.com
`chris@nelbum.com
`murphy@nelbum.com
`carder@nelbum.com
`
`COUNSEL FOR
`PLAINTIFF R2 SOLUTIONS LLC
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on February 13, 2025, I electronically filed the foregoing instrument
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing
`
`to all counsel of record.
`
`/s/ Edward R. Nelson III
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
`
`I certify that, on February 12, 2025, I requested the information sought in this motion from
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant’s counsel via email. On February 13, 2025, counsel for Defendant informed me that
`
`Defendant would not provide the requested information. Given the February 13, 2025 deadline to
`
`file motions to compel, the parties have not yet held a telephonic meet and confer, but they did, in
`
`fact, exchange substantive communications to the point of impasse.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Edward R. Nelson III
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 91 Filed 02/20/25 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 6467
`
`CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION
`
`I hereby certify that under L.R. CV-5(a)(7), the foregoing document is filed under seal
`
`pursuant to the Court’s Protective Order entered in this matter.
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Edward R. Nelson III
`
`
`
`7
`
`