Case 6:21-cv-01296-ADA-DTG Document 30 Filed 05/05/22 Page 1 of 10
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IOENGINE, LLC,
`
` Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant,
`v.
`
`ROKU, INC.,
`
` Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff.
`
`
`
`Civil Action No.: 6:21-cv-1296-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT ROKU’S OPPOSED MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
`TO QUASH THE MAY 24, 2022 DEPOSITION NOTICE OF MR. SCOTT DE HAAS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`{ROKUIN/00009/00609614}
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01296-ADA-DTG Document 30 Filed 05/05/22 Page 2 of 10
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 1
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ......................................................................................................... 2
`
`THE COURT SHOULD ISSUE A PROTECTIVE ORDER QUASHING THE
`DEPOSITION NOTICE OF MR. DE HAAS ..................................................................... 3
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`{ROKUIN/00009/00609614}
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01296-ADA-DTG Document 30 Filed 05/05/22 Page 3 of 10
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Buchholz v. Crestbrook Ins. Co.,
`2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150586 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 11, 2021) ...................................................... 3
`
`La Terminals, Inc. v. United Nat’l Ins. Co.,
`2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29771 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2022) ........................................................... 3
`
`Langley v. IBM,
`No. 1:18-cv-443, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160581 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 20, 2019).................. 2, 3, 4
`
`Oyekwe v. Research Now Grp., Inc.,
`No. 3:19-cv-1085-S-BN, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37799 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 4, 2020) .............. 2, 5
`
`Sanchez v. Swift Transp. Co. of Ariz., L.L.C.,
`No. 4:15-cv-15, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193905 (W.D. Tex. 2016) ...................................... 2, 3
`
`Schmidt v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.,
`2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28130 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 3, 2003) ......................................................... 2, 3
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 ................................................................................................................... passim
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 ............................................................................................................................ 3
`
`
`
`
`{ROKUIN/00009/00609614}
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01296-ADA-DTG Document 30 Filed 05/05/22 Page 4 of 10
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Defendant Roku, Inc. (“Roku”) moves for an order protecting it from the improper apex
`
`deposition of its Senior Vice President of Product Engineering and Operations, Mr. Scott de
`
`Haas. Mr. de Haas has no unique personal knowledge relating to IOENGINE’s infringement
`
`allegations in this case or to the venue issue presently in dispute. And IOENGINE argues
`
`nothing to the contrary, simply pointing to Mr. de Haas’s status as leader of the Austin office as
`
`necessitating a need to depose him—but Roku’s general presence in Austin is not in dispute. Mr.
`
`de Haas’s deposition would not only present an undue burden under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), but it
`
`would also be duplicative of the already scheduled deposition of Roku’s transfer declarant, Mr.
`
`Prateek Tandon, and should be quashed by the Court. The parties have conferred in a good-faith
`
`attempt to resolve this matter, but have been unable to reach an agreement.
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`On December 14, 2021, Plaintiff IOENGINE filed a Complaint against Roku alleging
`
`infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,447,819 and 10,972,584. Roku has moved to transfer the
`
`case to the Northern District of California because that forum is clearly more convenient. See
`
`Dkt. No. 27. In response, IOENGINE has begun conducting venue discovery pursuant to the
`
`Court’s Standing Order Governing Proceedings (Dkt. No. 28), including serving interrogatories,
`
`document requests, and a deposition notice of Mr. Prateek Tandon, Roku’s declarant in support
`
`of its motion to transfer. In addition, IOENGINE served a deposition notice1 for May 24, 2022,
`
`of Mr. de Haas—an apex Roku employee with no unique personal knowledge of the venue issues
`
`in dispute.
`
`Mr. de Haas is Roku’s Senior Vice President of Product Engineering and Operations. See
`
`https://www.roku.com/investor/management (cited in IOENGINE’s Complaint, Dkt. No. 1, ¶
`
`1 Attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`{ROKUIN/00009/00609614}
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01296-ADA-DTG Document 30 Filed 05/05/22 Page 5 of 10
`
`13). While Mr. de Haas is based in Austin and generally oversees product engineering and
`
`operations for the company, he does not specifically work on any allegedly-infringing aspect of
`
`the accused products or functionalities (or supervise those who do), and he has no relevant and
`
`unique personal knowledge regarding IOENGINE’s allegations and the present venue dispute.
`
`All of the information that IOENGINE is requesting regarding the venue dispute can be obtained
`
`from Mr. Tandon and/or through IOENGINE’s written discovery requests.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Rule 26(b)(2)(C) provides that a court “must limit the frequency or extent of discovery
`
`otherwise allowed by these rules” if “(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or
`
`duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less
`
`burdensome, or less expensive; [or] (ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to
`
`obtain the information by discovery in the action . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). In addition,
`
`“[t]he court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance,
`
`embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1).
`
`Courts regularly prevent depositions of high-level or “apex” executives who are not
`
`personally involved in the facts giving rise to the dispute. “[‘]A district court has authority to
`
`prevent or alter apex depositions under the Federal Rules to avoid duplication, harassment, and
`
`burdensomeness.’” Langley v. IBM, No. 1:18-cv-443, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160581, at *12
`
`(W.D. Tex. Sept. 20, 2019) (quoting Schmidt v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 2003 U.S. Dist.
`
`LEXIS 28130, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 3, 2003)); accord Sanchez v. Swift Transp. Co. of Ariz.,
`
`L.L.C., No. 4:15-cv-15, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193905, at *7 (W.D. Tex. 2016). “‘One long-
`
`established factor considered by courts in determining whether an apex deposition should be
`
`taken is whether the individual has unique personal knowledge of the matter in the case.’”
`
`Langley, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160581, at *12 (quoting Schmidt, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`{ROKUIN/00009/00609614}
`2
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01296-ADA-DTG Document 30 Filed 05/05/22 Page 6 of 10
`
`28130, at *2). “So, unless the executive possesses unique personal knowledge about the
`
`controversy, the court should regulate the discovery process to avoid oppression, inconvenience,
`
`and burden to the executive and the corporation.” Oyekwe v. Research Now Grp., Inc., No. 3:19-
`
`cv-1085-S-BN, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37799, at *4 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 4, 2020) (cleaned up).
`
`“Such regulation may be imposed through a protective order under Rule 26(c).” Id.
`
`IV. THE COURT SHOULD ISSUE A PROTECTIVE ORDER QUASHING THE
`DEPOSITION NOTICE OF MR. DE HAAS
`
`The Court should quash Mr. de Haas’s deposition notice because he is an apex executive
`
`with no unique personal knowledge of facts relevant to IOENGINE’s allegations and the venue
`
`issues in dispute.
`
`“An apex deposition is a deposition of a person in the upper level management of
`
`corporations.” Schmidt v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28130, at *2
`
`(E.D. Tex. Jan. 3, 2003). This includes Senior Vice Presidents such as Mr. de Haas. See, e.g.,
`
`La Terminals, Inc. v. United Nat’l Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29771, at *5-6, 19 (C.D. Cal.
`
`Jan. 28, 2022) (finding that the Senior Vice President of Claims for Global Indemnity Group
`
`Services, LLC qualified as an “apex” employee entitled to the protections of the apex deposition
`
`doctrine). Accordingly, Mr. de Haas is subject to the apex deposition doctrine. His deposition
`
`should not be allowed to proceed because he has no unique personal knowledge of any venue
`
`facts in dispute. See, e.g., Langley, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160581, at *12; Schmidt, 2003 U.S.
`
`Dist. LEXIS 28130, at *2; Sanchez, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193905, at *7.
`
`Similar to the present situation, in Buchholz v. Crestbrook Ins. Co., 2021 U.S. Dist.
`
`LEXIS 150586, at *7 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 11, 2021), this Court recently granted a motion for a
`
`protective order to protect the defendant’s President from being deposed in the case, under the
`
`apex doctrine: “The Court finds that Crestbrook has shown good cause why VanDenBosch
`
`{ROKUIN/00009/00609614}
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01296-ADA-DTG Document 30 Filed 05/05/22 Page 7 of 10
`
`should not be deposed. Plaintiffs have not shown that VanDenBosch was personally involved in
`
`the claims decisions, including any decisions to deny or delay payment, which is the basis of
`
`their bad faith claim. Rather, the two instances in which VanDenBosch received information
`
`about the claims came well after the decisions were made. Nor have Plaintiffs shown that
`
`VanDenBosch has unique personal knowledge of any facts in this case. Therefore, his
`
`deposition would present an undue burden under Rules 26(c)(1) and 45(d)(3)(A)(iv).”
`
`Similarly, in Langley, the court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel depositions of IBM’s
`
`high-level executives: “[T]he Court does not believe Langley has met his burden in
`
`demonstrating an entitlement to these depositions. Not only does it not yet appear that the CEO,
`
`CFO or former CFO have ‘unique’ information relevant to his claims, it also appears that
`
`Langley can obtain
`
`the same
`
`information
`
`these witnesses may have
`
`from other
`
`sources.” Langley, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160581, at *12.
`
`As explained above in the Background section, Mr. de Haas does not specifically work
`
`on or supervise any allegedly-infringing aspect of the accused products or functionalities and has
`
`no unique personal knowledge relevant to the present venue dispute. He has nothing relevant or
`
`unique to add regarding any of the venue convenience factors. Cf. Langley, 2019 U.S. Dist.
`
`LEXIS 160581, at *12 (denying depositions where apex employees had no unique personal
`
`knowledge relevant to the dispute, and any information they could provide could also be
`
`obtained from other sources). In particular, Roku’s declarant, Mr. Tandon, can provide any
`
`relevant information that Plaintiff would have been able to obtain from Mr. de Haas—and much
`
`more given Mr. Tandon’s connection to the Roku products and functionalities implicated by
`
`IOENGINE’s Complaint. That is, Mr. Tandon was chosen as Roku’s declarant as he either
`
`works on or supervises aspects of the accused Roku products implicated by IOENGINE’s
`
`{ROKUIN/00009/00609614}
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01296-ADA-DTG Document 30 Filed 05/05/22 Page 8 of 10
`
`infringement allegations. See Roku Motion to Transfer (Dkt. No. 27) and the accompanying
`
`Tandon Declaration (Ex. 1 to Roku Motion to Transfer).
`
`IOENGINE alleges that because Mr. de Haas “started the Austin office and still leads it”
`
`(see Exhibit B at 3-4), that he somehow has information relevant to Roku’s motion to transfer,
`
`but the fact that Roku opened an Austin office in 2014, led by Mr. de Haas, is not in dispute.
`
`Similarly, IOENGINE points to prior testimony from Mr. de Haas’s where he stated that from
`
`2011 to 2014 he oversaw Roku’s product development (see Exhibit B at 3-4), but this was not
`
`only years prior to the asserted patents issuing in 2019 and 2021, these statements also stem from
`
`a separate trial involving a different plaintiff, different patents, and different accused technology.
`
`And because Mr. de Haas does not specifically work on any aspect of the accused
`
`products or functionalities, his testimony would do no more than corroborate Roku’s general
`
`presence in Austin, which is again not in dispute and ultimately irrelevant to Roku’s transfer
`
`motion. Accordingly, any information that could be obtained from Mr. de Haas, assuming even
`
`relevant, can instead be obtained from other, better sources, such as Roku’s discovery responses
`
`and the deposition of Mr. Tandon—thus “avoid[ing] oppression, inconvenience, and burden to
`
`the executive and the corporation.” See Oyekwe, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37799, at *4. Under
`
`these circumstances, the Court should issue a protective order quashing the deposition notice of
`
`Roku’s apex employee Mr. de Haas.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant the instant motion and issue a
`
`protective order quashing the deposition notice of Mr. de Haas.
`
`
`
`{ROKUIN/00009/00609614}
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01296-ADA-DTG Document 30 Filed 05/05/22 Page 9 of 10
`
`Date: May 5, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/Tia D. Fenton
`
`Tia D. Fenton (pro hac vice)
`Christopher Ricciuti (pro hac vice)
`Elissa L. Sanford (pro hac vice)
`Alec M. Royka (pro hac vice)
`OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER
` & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.,
`1940 Duke Street
`Alexandria, Virginia 22314
`Telephone: (703) 413-3000
`Facsimile: (703) 413-2220
`tfenton@oblon.com
`cricciuti@oblon.com
`
`David N. Deaconson
`State Bar No. 05673400
`PAKIS, GIOTES, PAGE
`& BURLESON, P.C.
`400 Austin Avenue
`Waco, TX 76701
`(254) 297-7300
`deaconson@pakislaw.com
`
`
`COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT
`ROKU, INC.
`
`{ROKUIN/00009/00609614}
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01296-ADA-DTG Document 30 Filed 05/05/22 Page 10 of 10
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on May 5, 2022, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of
`
`the Court for the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division,
`
`via the CM/ECF system, which will send a notice of filing to all counsel of record who have
`
`consented to service by electronic means.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Tia D. Fenton
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`{ROKUIN/00009/00609614}
`
`
`7
`
`