Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 39 Filed 03/03/22 Page 1 of 4
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`TOUCHSTREAM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-569-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`ORDER REGARDING VENUE DISCOVERY DISPUTE
`
`On December 23, 2021, Defendant Google LLC (“Google”) filed a Motion to Transfer
`
`
`
`
`
`Venue (Dkt. No. 26) in the above-captioned case. Plaintiff Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
`
`(“Touchstream”) served Venue-Related Requests for Production on January 14, 2022, and Venue-
`
`Related Interrogatories on January 18, 2022.
`
`
`
`After Google served its objections and responses thereto, the parties held a meet-and-
`
`confer, wherein Touchstream agreed to narrow the scope of its discovery requests. However,
`
`disputes between the parties remained. On February 17, 2022, the parties presented a summary of
`
`these disputes to the Court via email. On February 22, 2022, the Court held a remote hearing via
`
`Zoom.
`
`This Court, having considered the issues raised by Touchstream regarding Google’s
`
`responses to its Venue-Related Requests for Production and Venue-Related Interrogatories, hereby
`
`ORDERS the following:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 39 Filed 03/03/22 Page 2 of 4
`
`
`
`Discovery Request
`
`
`Request for Production No. 1
`
`For the Applicable Google Individuals, produce documents
`showing their responsibilities, duties, projects, and other
`objects of employment, including performance reviews,
`evaluations, Objectives and Key Results, self-assessments,
`employment agreements, contracts, organizational charts, and
`personnel files.
`
`Request for Production Nos. 1, 2, 4
`
`For the Applicable Google Individuals, produce documents
`showing their responsibilities, duties, projects, and other
`objects of employment, including performance reviews,
`evaluations, Objectives and Key Results, self-assessments,
`employment agreements, contracts, organizational charts, and
`personnel files.
`
`Documents, such as organizational charts, showing the
`individuals involved in the conception, development,
`manufacture, marketing, and sale of the Relevant Devices or
`Accused Chromecast Functionalities, and their relationships
`(e.g., who reports to them and who they report to).
`
`Documents showing the identities of all groups and
`individuals involved in YouTube Remote and Google TV,
`such as organizational charts, group listings, project
`summaries, and project assignments.
`
`Request for Production No. 6
`
`Documents and Things sufficient to identify all of Your
`business operations in the Western District of Texas,
`including offices and data centers, and further including for
`any business operation the physical address, the number of
`people employed there (as employees or independent
`contractors or in any other payment-for-services capacity),
`and the business activities performed there.
`
`Request for Production Nos. 1, 7
`
`For the Applicable Google Individuals, produce documents
`showing their responsibilities, duties, projects, and other
`objects of employment, including performance reviews,
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`Court’s ORDER
`
`The Court ORDERS Google to
`produce documents evidencing
`Chromecast work by Google’s
`10 California witnesses and the
`Texas witnesses Touchstream
`identified (through performance
`reviews, Objectives and Key
`Results, etc.).
`
`The Court ORDERS Google to
`produce a group listing of the
`organizational structure of
`Chromecast, YouTube Remote,
`and Google TV.
`
`The Court ORDERS Google to
`provide a declaration that
`identifies the core areas that
`Google’s Austin employees
`work in.
`
`The Court ORDERS Google to
`produce the 20 most recent
`documents containing
`“Chromecast” AND (“Texas”
`OR “Austin” OR “Waco”) from
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 39 Filed 03/03/22 Page 3 of 4
`
`
`
`evaluations, Objectives and Key Results, self-assessments,
`employment agreements, contracts, organizational charts, and
`personnel files.
`
`Documents in Your possession referencing Chromecast and
`locations in Texas, including but not limited to documents
`returned from a keyword search across Your systems of
`“Chromecast” and “Texas,” “Chromecast” and “Austin,”
`“Chromecast” and “Dallas,” “Chromecast” and “El Paso,”
`“Chromecast” and “Houston,” “Chromecast” and “Irving,”
`“Chromecast” and “Midlothian,” “Chromecast” and
`“Pflugerville,” “Chromecast” and “Plano,” “Chromecast” and
`“San Antonio,” and “Chromecast” and “Waco.”
`
`Request for Production No. 5
`
`Un-redacted versions of all venue-related briefing and Orders,
`along with exhibits thereto, as well as all non-privileged
`Venue-Related deposition transcripts, Responses to Venue-
`Related Interrogatories, Responses to Venue-Related
`Requests for Production, and Documents and Things which
`you produced in response to any Venue-Related Request for
`Production, as well as any other jurisdictional discovery not
`captured in the preceding categories of information, in any of
`the following cases filed in the United States District Courts
`in the state of Texas:
`a. Sonos, Inc. v Google, Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-00881-
`ADA (WDTX);
`b. Express Mobile Inc. v. Google, Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-
`00804-ADA (WDTX);
`c. Ecofactor v. Google, Civil Action No. 6-20-cv-00075
`(WDTX);
`d. The State of Texas, et. al. v. Google LLC, 4:20-cv-00957
`(EDTX);
`e. SEVEN Networks, LLC v. Google LLC, 2:17-cv-00442-
`JRG (EDTX);
`f. Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Google LLC, 2-16-cv-00566
`(EDTX);
`g. Personal Audio LLC v. Google Inc., 1-15-cv-00350
`(EDTX);
`h. Rockstar Consortium US LP et al v. Google Inc., 2-13-cv-
`00893 (EDTX).
`
`Interrogatory No. 1
`
`Describe Your storage systems relating to Chromecast. A
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`Google’s 10 witnesses and non-
`custodial Chromecast folders.
`
`The Court ORDERS Google to
`produce the sealed briefs and
`declarations under a protective
`order, with any confidential
`third-party information
`redacted.
`
`
`Counsel for Google is
`ORDERED to promptly
`investigate and report back to
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 39 Filed 03/03/22 Page 4 of 4
`
`Touchstream’s counsel whether
`the information discussed at the
`hearing (i.e. whether there are
`project folders where source
`code and PowerPoints are
`stored) exists.
`
`
`The Court ORDERS Google to
`identify employees who have
`transferred to Texas from
`California or Washington since
`2020.
`
`complete answer will include storage locations (both physical
`and logical) used by individuals working on Chromecast,
`redundancies for storage (e.g., whether multiple datacenters
`store copies of documents, and where they are located),
`retention policies (length of storage, archive policies,
`including how backups may be restored), whether these
`locations are indexed or otherwise searchable (including what
`documents and locations are indexed for searching, who has
`the ability to conduct searches at particular locations, the
`effort required to conduct a keyword search, and who may
`perform system-wide searches), and how Your employees
`search, save, and retrieve documents.
`
`Interrogatory No. 2
`
`Identify the Google employees who have transferred or have
`expressed an interest in transferring their workplace, on a
`permanent or temporary basis, to Texas since 2020. See e.g.
`Kara Carlson, “Google’s ‘future is really bright’ in Austin,
`company executive says,” August 13, 2021, Austin
`American-Statesman (available at
`https://www.statesman.com/story/business/2021/08/13/austin-
`google-exec-companys-future-really-bright-in-city-
`tx/5488231001/) (last accessed January 17, 2022) (“Just
`anecdotally I’m hearing that there are existing employees that
`are really interested in transferring to Austin and so we expect
`that Austin will continue to grow as a site.”).
`
`Google is directed to provide the information above in response to Touchstream’s
`
`discovery requests with 14 days of this Order.
`
`Signed this 3rd day of March, 2022
`
`___________________________
`
`ALAN D ALBRIGHT
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`4
`
`