Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 201 Filed 03/21/23 Page 1 of 4
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`TOUCHSTREAM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-569-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE INSTANTER SURREPLY
`IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT GOOGLE LLC’S DAUBERT MOTION TO
`EXCLUDE CERTAIN OPINIONS OF DAMAGES EXPERT MARK J. CHANDLER
`
`Plaintiff Touchstream Technologies, Inc. (“Touchstream”) respectfully moves for leave to
`
`file the surreply attached as Exhibit 1, in opposition to Defendant Google LLC’s (“Google’s”)
`
`Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions of Damages Expert Mark J. Chandler (Dkt. No. 129)
`
`(“Motion”). In support of this motion, Touchstream states as follows:
`
`1.
`
`On December 29, 2022, Google filed the Motion. Touchstream responded on
`
`January 12, 2023. (Dkt. No. 155.) Google replied on January 19, 2023. (Dkt. No. 175.)
`
`2.
`
`On January 9, 2023, Google produced 733 documents, consisting of 3,741 pages—
`
`well after the close of fact discovery on October 27, 2022, and expert discovery on December 16,
`
`2022.
`
`3.
`
`Mr. Chandler reviewed Google’s newly produced documents and, as a result,
`
`published a 39-page Second Supplemental Expert Report on March 3, 2023.
`
`4.
`
`This report and the late-produced Google information it is based on provide
`
`additional reasons to deny Google’s motion to exclude Mr. Chandler’s opinions. See Exhibit 1.
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`TOUCHSTREAM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-569-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE INSTANTER SURREPLY
`IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT GOOGLE LLC’S DAUBERT MOTION TO
`EXCLUDE CERTAIN OPINIONS OF DAMAGES EXPERT MARK J. CHANDLER
`
`Plaintiff Touchstream Technologies, Inc. (“Touchstream”) respectfully moves for leave to
`
`file the surreply attached as Exhibit 1, in opposition to Defendant Google LLC’s (“Google’s”)
`
`Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions of Damages Expert Mark J. Chandler (Dkt. No. 129)
`
`(“Motion”). In support of this motion, Touchstream states as follows:
`
`1.
`
`On December 29, 2022, Google filed the Motion. Touchstream responded on
`
`January 12, 2023. (Dkt. No. 155.) Google replied on January 19, 2023. (Dkt. No. 175.)
`
`2.
`
`On January 9, 2023, Google produced 733 documents, consisting of 3,741 pages—
`
`well after the close of fact discovery on October 27, 2022, and expert discovery on December 16,
`
`2022.
`
`3.
`
`Mr. Chandler reviewed Google’s newly produced documents and, as a result,
`
`published a 39-page Second Supplemental Expert Report on March 3, 2023.
`
`4.
`
`This report and the late-produced Google information it is based on provide
`
`additional reasons to deny Google’s motion to exclude Mr. Chandler’s opinions. See Exhibit 1.
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 201 Filed 03/21/23 Page 2 of 4
`
`
`5.
`
`Google’s late production and Touchstream’s lack of opportunity to address it before
`
`responding to Google’s Motion constitute circumstances warranting leave to file the attached
`
`surreply. See, e.g., Lumintec, LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC, 21-CV-00402-ADA, ECF #49 at 2
`
`(W.D. Tex. May 10, 2022) (“[A] motion for Leave to File a Surreply may be granted if the party
`
`requesting leave demonstrates exceptional or extraordinary circumstances.”) (Albright, J.)
`
`(citation omitted); Homeland Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Clinical Pathology Lab’ys, Inc., No. 1-20-CV-
`
`783-RP, 2022 WL 17255798, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 28, 2022) (granting motion to file surreply
`
`upon showing of “good cause”); Crosby v. City of Gastonia, Case No. 3:07-cv-492-RJC-DSC,
`
`2009 WL 3336044, at *1 (W.D. N.C. Oct. 14, 2009) (granting leave to file surreply “in order to
`
`have the clearest factual picture upon which to evaluate the parties’ arguments” noting “that the
`
`factual clarification it purports to provide is potentially material and pertinent.”); Hix-Hernandez
`
`v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. 1:20-CV-00029-RP, 2022 WL 2919351, at *1 (W.D. Tex.
`
`July 25, 2022) (granting leave to file surreply to Defendant’s motion to exclude Plaintiff’s expert’s
`
`testimony); Mission Toxicology, LLC v. Unitedhealthcare Ins. Co., 499 F. Supp. 3d 350, 360
`
`(W.D. Tex. 2020) (granting leave to file surreply where surreply “does not rehash arguments
`
`already presented in the response.”).
`
`Counsel for Touchstream has conferred with counsel for Google, and Google does oppose
`
`this request. Pursuant to Local Rule CV-7(b) and CV-7(e)(1), Touchstream respectfully requests
`
`that the Court grant its motion for leave to file a surreply and direct the clerk of this Court to file
`
`the attached surreply.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 201 Filed 03/21/23 Page 3 of 4
`
`
`Date: March 21, 2023
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`TOUCHSTREAM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`
`By:
`
` /s/ Justin R. Donoho
`One of Its Attorneys
`
`
`
`Ryan D. Dykal, pro hac vice
`B. Trent Webb, pro hac vice
`Jordan T. Bergsten, pro hac vice
`SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
`2555 Grand Boulevard
`Kansas City, MO 64108
`(816) 474-6550
`Fax: (816) 421-5547
`Email: rdykal@shb.com
`Email: bwebb@shb.com
`Email: jbergsten@shb.com
`
`
`
`
`Michael W. Gray (TX Bar No. 24094385)
`Fiona A. Bell (TX Bar No. 24052288)
`Andrew M. Long (TX Bar No. 24123079)
`SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
`600 Travis Street, Suite 3400
`Houston, TX 77002
`(713) 227-2008
`Fax: 713-227-9508
`Email: mgray@shb.com
`Email: fbell@shb.com
`Email: amlong@shb.com
`
`Gary M. Miller, pro hac vice
`Justin R. Donoho, pro hac vice
`Samuel G. Bernstein, pro hac vice
`SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
`111 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 4700
`Chicago, IL 60606
`(312) 704-7700
`Fax: 312-558-1195
`Email: gmiller@shb.com
`Email: jdonoho@shb.com
`
`
`
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 201 Filed 03/21/23 Page 4 of 4
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules for the Western
`
`District of Texas, I hereby certify that on the 21st day of March, 2023, I caused the foregoing to be
`
`served on the following counsel of record via the e-mail addresses shown below:
`
`Michael E. Jones
`Patrick C. Clutter
`Shaun William Hassett
`Potter Minton PC
`110 N College, Suite 500
`Tyler, TX 75702
`Tel: 903-597-8311
`Email: mikejones@potterminton.com
`Email: patrickclutter@potterminton.com
`Email: shaunhassett@potterminton.com
`
`Evan M. McLean, pro hac vice
`Michael C. Hendershot, pro hac vice
`Tharan Gregory Lanier, pro hac vice
`Jones Day
`1755 Embarcadero Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94303
`Tel: (650) 739-3939
`Email: emclean@jonesday.com
`Email: mhendershot@jonesday.com
`Email: tglanier@jonesday.com
`
`Edwin O. Garcia, pro hac vice
`Jones Day
`51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20001
`Tel: (202) 879-3695
`Email: edwingarcia@jonesday.com
`
` /s/ Justin R. Donoho
`Attorney for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
