1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

INFOGATION CORPORATION, 

 Plaintiff

-vsGOOGLE LLC,

 Defendant

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

6:20-CV-00366-ADA

ORDER GRANTING GOOGLE’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)

Before the Court is Defendant Google LLC’s (“Google” or “Defendant”) Motion to 

Transfer Venue to the Southern District of California (“SDCA”) (the “Motion to Transfer”) 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). ECF No. 30. The Motion was filed on August 12, 2020. Id.

Plaintiff, InfoGation Corporation (“InfoGation”) filed its response on August 28, 2020. ECF No. 

34. Google filed its reply on September 8, 2020. ECF No. 38. After considering all related 

pleadings and the relevant law, the Court is of the opinion that Google’s Motion should be 

GRANTED.

I. Factual Background 

On May 5, 2020, Plaintiff InfoGation filed this suit in this Court (No. 6:20-CV-00366) 

(“the -366 action”) alleging that Google infringes on U.S. Patent No. 6,292,743 (“the ’743 Patent”) 

based on the Google Maps Application Programming Interface (“API”) Product. ECF No. 1. The 

‘743 Patent, is titled “Mobile Navigation System.” ECF No. 1 ¶ 7. According to InfoGation, the 

‘743 Patent “is directed to a mobile navigation system wherein the client navigation computer 

wirelessly connects to a navigation server, receives optimal route information from that navigation 

server that is formatted using a non-proprietary, natural language description, reconstructs the 

optimal route from that non-proprietary, natural language description using a mapping database 

Case 6:20-cv-00366-ADA Document 65 Filed 04/29/21 Page 1 of 13
2

coupled to the navigation computer, and displays the optimal route on a display screen using that 

mapping database.” Id. at ¶ 11. InfoGation alleges that “Google has made, used, sold, offered for 

sale, and/or imported one or more products or services incorporating the technology of the Google 

Maps API, and thereby directly infringed, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, one or 

more claims of the '743 Patent.” Id. at ¶ 36. 

In its Motion to Transfer, Google asserts that two claim constructions for critical terms 

regarding the ‘743 Patent and this litigation were determined in 2016 when InfoGation brought

suit in the SDCA against three of Google’s OEMs: ZTE Corporation (“ZTE”), HTC Corporation

and HTC America, Inc. (collectively, “HTC”), and Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. and Huawei

Device USA, Inc. (collectively, “Huawei”). Google also indicates that, “During the SDCA cases,

[the California Actions] which were before Judge Marilyn L. Huff, InfoGation continuously relied

on its connection to San Diego to defeat defendants’ jurisdictional motions.” ECF No. 30 at 4. In

response, InfoGation contends that “the infringement allegations in the ZTE/HTC case are not

relevant here, as the defendants in that case were device makers rather than service providers like

Google is here.” ECF. No 34 at 3.

II. Standard of Review 

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) provides that, for the convenience of parties and witnesses, a district 

court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been 

brought or to any district or division to which all parties have consented. The moving party must 

then show that the transferee district is the more convenient forum. In Re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 

545 F.3d 315 (5th Cir. 2008) (“Volkswagen II”). In the Fifth Circuit, “[t]he determination of 

‘convenience’ turns on a number of public and private interest factors, none of which can be said 

Case 6:20-cv-00366-ADA Document 65 Filed 04/29/21 Page 2 of 13
3

to be of dispositive weight.” Action Indus., Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 358 F.3d 337, 340 (5th 

Cir. 2004). The private factors include: (1) the relative ease of access to sources of proof; (2) the 

availability of compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses; (3) the cost of attendance 

for willing witnesses; and (4) all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious 

and inexpensive. In re Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d 201, 203 (5th Cir. 2004) (“Volkswagen I”). The 

public factors include: (1) the administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion; (2) the 

local interest in having localized interests decided at home; (3) the familiarity of the forum with 

the law that will govern the case; and (4) the avoidance of unnecessary problems of conflict of 

laws or in the application of foreign law. Id. 

III. Discussion

There is no dispute as to whether this case could have been properly brought in the SDCA.

1

It clearly could have been. Google has, however, shown that the SDCA is “clearly more 

convenient” than the WDTX, by weighing Volkswagen public and private factors.

A. The Private Volkswagen factors favor transferring the case to the SDCA.

In considering private factors, the Court necessarily engages in a comparison between the 

hardships the defendant would suffer through the retention of jurisdiction and the hardships the 

plaintiff would suffer from transferring the action to the transferee venue. Cf. Iragorri v. United 

Technologies Corp., 274 F.3d 65, 74 (2d Cir. 2001) (stating courts engage in such a comparison 

for forum non conveniens analyses). The Court will assess each of these factors in turn.

1 Because neither party argues that Google cannot satisfy this threshold issue, the Court will simply state the 

threshold issue has been satisfied.

Case 6:20-cv-00366-ADA Document 65 Filed 04/29/21 Page 3 of 13
4

i. The “relative ease of access to sources of proof” is neutral.

In considering the relative ease of access to proof, a court looks to where documentary 

evidence, such as documents and physical evidence, is stored. Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 316. “To 

properly consider this factor, parties must “describe with specificity the evidence they would not 

be able to obtain if trial were held in the [alternate forum].” Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 

235, 258 (1981). Additionally, the Court recognizes that this factor typically turns on where 

physical documentary evidence is located. See, e.g., Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 316. See, e.g., In 

re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“In patent infringement cases, the bulk 

of the relevant evidence usually comes from the accused infringer.”)

Given that Google is the accused infringer, it will likely have the bulk of the relevant 

documents in this case. Google is headquartered in Mountain View, CA within the Northern 

District of California. But it has sizeable offices in both Los Angeles 2within the SDCA, and 

Austin3

, which is within the WDTX. Thus, the relative ease of access to documentary evidence 

would seem roughly equal in the two districts.

4 In other words, Google’s significant presence in

2 See Roger Vincent, Google, Amazon, Netflix and their tech pals storm L.A.'s office market, Los Angeles Times, 

Jul. 18, 2019, https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-office-leasing-tech-20190717-story.html. (Last accessed Apr. 

23, 2021)

3

See Shonda Novak, Google says it plans ‘significant’ expansion in Austin, 

https://www.statesman.com/news/20190614/google-says-it-plans-significant-expansion-in-austin. (Last accessed 

Apr. 23 2021)

4 Further, InfoGation has failed to specify any evidence that they would not be able to obtain in San Diego that they 

will have access to here in Waco.

Case 6:20-cv-00366-ADA Document 65 Filed 04/29/21 Page 4 of 13
5

both the SDCA and the WDTX (and the high likelihood of relevant documents existing in both 

districts) makes this factor neutral.

5

ii. The “compulsory process” factor is neutral.

“In this factor, the Court considers the availability of compulsory process to secure the 

attendance of witnesses, particularly non-party witnesses whose attendance may need to be secured 

by a court order.” Fintiv, 2019 WL 4743678, at *5 (citing Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 316); Uniloc,

2020 WL 3415880, at *10. This factor also “weigh[s] heavily in favor of transfer when more thirdparty witnesses reside within the transferee venue than reside in the transferor venue.” In re Apple, 

Inc., 581 F.App’x. 886, 889 (Fed. Cir. 2014). A court may subpoena a witness to attend trial only 

(a) “within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in 

person,”; or (b) “within the state where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts 

business in person, if the person . . . is commanded to attend a trial and would not incur substantial 

expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1)(A), (B)(ii); Gemalto S.A. v. CPI Card Grp. Inc., No. 15-CA0910, 2015 WL 10818740, at *4 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 16, 2015). As party witnesses almost invariably 

5 Although the Court wishes to make clear that it has followed Fifth Circuit precedent regarding this factor, the 

Court believes that the factor itself is at odds with the realities of modern patent litigation. In patent disputes like the 

one now before the Court, relevant documents are typically located on a server, which may or may not be in the 

transferee district (or given the use of cloud-based storage, may be located on multiple servers in multiple districts, 

or even multiple countries) and are equally accessible from both the transferee and transferor districts. Therefore, in 

this Court's view, there is no difference in the relative ease of access to sources of proof from the transferor district 

as compared to the transferee district when the vast bulk of documents are electronic. District courts — particularly 

those with patent-heavy dockets that have very significant document productions — have recently begun to 

acknowledge this reality. Uniloc USA Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Am., No. 2:16-cv-00642-JRG, ECF No. 216 at 8-9 

(E.D. Tex. Apr. 19, 2017) ("Despite the absence of newer cases acknowledging that in today's digital world 

computer stored documents are readily moveable to almost anywhere at the click of a mouse, the Court finds it odd 

to ignore this reality in favor of a fictional analysis that has more to do with early Xerox machines than modem 

server forms."). The Court emphasizes that this factor was meant to be one of convenience, developed in a now 

antiquated world where hauling hundreds of boxes of physical documents across the country was most impractical. 

Indeed, it seems odd that, despite the likely relative ease of access to all kinds of relevant documents in today’s 

digital world, a party (and a technologically savvy one at that) can automatically tilt a private factor in this analysis 

in its favor and away from a plaintiff’s selected forum simply by raising its hand and acknowledging its status as the 

alleged infringer. However, under current Fifth Circuit precedent, the physical location of electronic documents 

affects this factor’s outcome. See, e.g., Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 316. Even though it would not have changed the 

outcome of this motion, this Court expresses its hope that the Fifth Circuit will consider addressing and amending its 

precedent to explicitly give district courts the discretion to fully consider the ease of accessing electronic documents.

Case 6:20-cv-00366-ADA Document 65 Filed 04/29/21 Page 5 of 13
6

attend trial willingly, “[w]hen no party has alleged or shown any witness’s unwillingness, a court 

should not attach much weight to the compulsory process factor.” Duha v. Agrium, Inc., 448 F.3d 

867, 877 (6th Cir. 2006); CloudofChange, LLC v. NCR Corp., No. 6:19-cv-00513, 2020 WL 

6439178, at *4 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 17, 2020). 

Here, neither Google nor InfoGation has identified any unwilling witnesses. Absent any 

showing of unwillingness, the Court will not attach much weight to this factor. Consequently, the

Court finds this factor neutral. 

iii. The “cost of attendance” factor weighs in favor of transfer.

Courts properly give more weight to the convenience of non-party witnesses. See ADS Sec. L.P. v. 

Advanced Detection Sec. Servs., No. A-09-CA-773 LY, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27903, at *11 

(W.D. Tex. Mar. 23, 2010); Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc. v. Medallion Foods, Inc., 867 F. Supp. 2d 859, 

870–71 (E.D. Tex. 2012). Although more weight is given to the convenience of non-party 

witnesses, “the convenience of the party witnesses is still a part of the analysis.’ Zoltar Satellite 

Sys., Inc. v. LG Elecs. Mobile Commc'ns Co., 402 F. Supp. 2d 731 (E.D. Tex. 2005) To assist in 

analyzing this factor, the Fifth Circuit adopted a “100-mile rule.” Volkswagen I, 371 F.3d at 204–

205; see also Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 317. “When the distance between an existing venue for 

trial of a matter and a proposed venue under § 1404(a) is more than 100 miles, the factor of 

inconvenience to witnesses increases in direct relationship to the additional distance to be 

traveled.” Volkswagen I, 371 F.3d at 204–05.

This Court notes however, that “the ‘100-mile’ rule should not be rigidly applied” where 

“witnesses . . . will be required to travel a significant distance no matter where they testify.” 566 

F.3d at 1344. Genentech specifically held that witnesses traveling from Europe, Iowa, and the East

Coast would be only “slightly more inconvenienced by having to travel to California” than to 

Case 6:20-cv-00366-ADA Document 65 Filed 04/29/21 Page 6 of 13
7

Texas. Id. at 1348. Additionally, witnesses will be required to travel significant distance, will likely 

incur meal and lodging expenses, and will likely incur time away from home. See id. at 1344. “[I]t 

is an ‘obvious conclusion’ that it is more convenient for witnesses to testify at home.” Volkswagen 

II, 545 F.3d at 317. Importantly, the venue need not be convenient for all witnesses. Genentech, 

Inc., 566 F.3d at 1345. If a substantial number of witnesses reside in one venue and no witnesses 

reside in another, the factor will weigh in favor of the venue where witnesses reside. See id.

Google asserts, “InfoGation does not dispute that Google’s witnesses are closer to the 

[SDCA]. And it concedes that InfoGation itself and its witnesses, including CEO Kent Pu, are in 

the SDCA.” ECF No. 38 at 2. According to Google, “the SDCA is only a short flight of one-hour 

and forty minutes from Northern California, where [Google’s witnesses] Mr. Fidler, Mr. Zhang, 

and other engineers who work on the accused features of Google Maps API are located, or two 

hours and forty minutes from Seattle where Dr. Hightower is located. ECF No. 30 at 9. While the 

parties disagree on the location of witnesses, InfoGation has indeed recognized that some of its 

witnesses reside within the SDCA stating that “Mr. Pu is willing to travel to Waco, Mr. Beuerle 

and Dr. Li likely will not be asked to appear at trial, and Mr. Lee will need to travel from South 

Korea to the U.S. regardless of where trial occurs.” ECF No. 34 at 6. The Court is of the opinion 

that InfoGation’s witness Mr. Lee, located in South Korea, will be only slightly more

inconvenienced traveling to Waco than he will San Diego as he will need to travel by air, secure 

lodging, and be away from his home in order to be present at trial in either location, and thus, does 

not carry much weight regarding transfer. The remaining InfoGation witnesses located within the 

SDCA however, do support transfer. 

Google’s witnesses located in Seattle, Washington will likely also need to travel by air, 

secure lodging, and be away from their homes in order to attend trial in either district. However, 

Case 6:20-cv-00366-ADA Document 65 Filed 04/29/21 Page 7 of 13
8

traveling from Seattle to San Diego will clearly be more convenient and less expensive than

traveling from Seattle to Waco. InfoGation acknowledges that “InfoGation's CEO, Qing Kent Pu, 

resides in the San Diego area” but notes that “Mr. Pu chose to file the case here and will travel to 

this District for trial.” ECF No. 34 at 6. The Court finds that the willingness of Mr. Pu to travel to 

Waco carries little weight, since he still resides within the SDCA, the district to which transfer is 

sought. 

InfoGation also argues that, “Mr. Mouser, on the other hand, would likely prefer to travel 

to Waco instead of California.” ECF No. 34 at 6. Yet, while Mr. Mouser does seem to reside Texas, 

he appears to be the only one. Neither of the parties have identified any other witnesses located 

within this state, much less this district. Despite disagreement between parties on where key 

witnesses reside, the Court finds that the SDCA would be closer than the WDTX for the majority 

of witnesses. The Court takes InfoGation’s point that “the case is in its infancy and . . . it is not yet 

clear which specific aspects of Google Maps API will be relevant to this case, let alone which 

individuals will be the most knowledgeable about them.” Id. at 4. The Court, however, also 

recognizes that “given typical time limits at trial, the Court does not assume that all of the party 

and third-party witnesses listed in 1404(a) briefing will testify at trial.” Fintiv, Inc., 2019 WL 

4743678, at *6. Indeed, the Court assumes only a few party witnesses and even fewer non-party 

witnesses (if any) will testify at trial. Id. Consequently, long lists of potential party and non-party 

witnesses do not affect the Court's analysis for this factor. Id.

The majority of both party and non-party witnesses will be located either within the SDCA 

or in the state of California and the cost of attendance for these witnesses will be less if the case is 

tried in the SDCA than if it were tried in WDTX. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of 

transfer. 

Case 6:20-cv-00366-ADA Document 65 Filed 04/29/21 Page 8 of 13
9

iv. The “all other practical problems” factor favors transfer to the SDCA.

In considering a transfer motion, the court considers “all other practical problems that make 

trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive.” Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 315. As Google 

points out regarding the California Actions, InfoGation itself “argued that the SDCA had already

learned everything about the dispute and, thus, transfer would be wasteful” and that “[t]his Court

[Judge Huff in the SDCA] has invested a great deal of time and energy learning the facts relevant

to these proceedings.” ECF No. 30 at 15. Google asserts that “SDCA Local Civil Rule 40.1(f) 

requires parties to file a notice of related cases, including an explanation of “why assignment to a 

single district judge is or is not likely to effect a saving of judicial effort.” ECF No. 38 at 6. Google 

also indicates that, if transferred, it “would file a notice identifying InfoGation’s prior cases before 

Judge Huff and explaining why it would be efficient to litigate before her again, which would 

likely lead to assignment to her.” Id. Judge Huff reviewed tutorials on the technology at issue, 

conducted a claim construction proceeding, and issued a claim construction order, all leading to 

InfoGation’s voluntary dismissal of the case. See generally ECF No. 30. 

On the one hand, the Court is skeptical that the parties will agree to skip any further claim 

construction proceedings and simply adopt all constructions already made. ECF No 1. But while

this case differs from the California Actions in that “the defendants in that case were device makers 

rather than service providers like Google is here,” the Court also recognizes the significant factual 

overlap between this case and the California Actions regarding the ‘743 Patent. ECF No.34 at 3.

This overlap means that much of the work already performed by Judge Huff would likely need to 

be duplicated by this Court, which would unnecessarily consume judicial resources. ECF No. 34 

at 3. 

Case 6:20-cv-00366-ADA Document 65 Filed 04/29/21 Page 9 of 13
10

The Court understands that Judge Huff would likely need to re-familiarize herself with the 

details of this case but does not agree with InfoGation that “transferring the case now would require 

just as much relearning by the court in San Diego as would be necessary here.” ECF No. 34 at 7.

The Court is of the opinion that Judge Huff’s history with these parties and this patent would likely 

allow for an easier, more expeditious, and less expensive resolution of the dispute. Pursuant to 

SDCA Local Civil Rule 40.1(f), Judge Huff is likely to be assigned to the case, if transferred. 

Consequently, the Court finds this factor weighs slightly in favor of transfer. 

B. The Public Volkswagen factors are neutral.

The relevant public-interest factors are neutral. As previously noted, these factors include: 

(1) the administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion; (2) the local interest in having 

localized interests decided at home; (3) the familiarity of the forum with the law governing the 

case; and (4) the avoidance of unnecessary problems of conflict of laws or the application of 

foreign law. Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 315. The Court will also consider each of these factors in 

turn.

i. The “administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion” factor favors 

transfer to the SDCA.

The relevant inquiry under this factor is “[t]he speed with which a case can come to trial 

and be resolved[.] In re Genentech, Inc., 556 F.3d 1338, 1437 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Administrative 

difficulties manifest when litigation accumulates in congested centers instead of being handled at 

its origin. Gulf Oil, 330 U.S. at 508. This factor concerns “whether there is an appreciable 

difference in docket congestion between the two forums.” Parsons v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co., 

375 U.S. 71, 73 (1963); Koehring Co. v. Hyde Constr. Co., 324 F.2d 295, 296 (5th Cir. 1963). 

InfoGation points out that this Court has a faster time to trial than courts in the SDCA. This Court 

does not disagree. But as discussed above, in cases that involve claim construction decisions 

Case 6:20-cv-00366-ADA Document 65 Filed 04/29/21 Page 10 of 13
11

previously litigated in other jurisdictions, judicial economy often favors transfer to a court that is 

already familiar with issues involved in the case. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 

F.3d 1559, 1565 (Fed. Cir.1997). 

The potential for the SDCA to have some familiarity with the technology and the patents

in suit in addition to the claim construction issues already ruled on counterbalance the expediency 

of this court’s docket. Therefore, judicial economy considerations favor transferring this case to 

the SDCA. 

ii. The “localized interest” factor slightly favor transfer.

There is “a local interest in having localized controversies decided at home.” Gulf Oil, 330 

U.S. at 511; Piper Aircraft, 454 U.S. at 260. This Court has already established that "Google is 

'local' in WDTX." Parus Holdings Inc. v. LG Elecs. Inc., 2020 WL 4905809, at *7 (W.D. Tex. 

Aug. 20, 2020). This Court thus disagrees with InfoGation that, “the issues in this case are local 

neither to San Diego nor to Waco” and that “neither court has significant interest in the outcome 

of this litigation compared to the other.” ECF No. 34 at 12. This Court also disagrees with Google’s 

assertion that the WDTX “has no connection with the events and parties relevant to this action” 

since infringing products serviced by Google are sold to both residents of the WDTX and the 

SDCA and that potential acts of infringement affect the residents of both states. ECF No. 30 at 16. 

That said, the Court cannot help but notice that InfoGation is a San Diego company and 

that it initially brought suit against Google in the Southern District of California seemingly for that 

very reason. Indeed, the Court notes that InfoGation, has consistently sought to avoid transfer out 

of the SDCA and emphasized that it “filed [the California Actions] in InfoGation’s home district,

where InfoGation has always been located, rather than forum shopping.” ECF No. 30 at 9.

Case 6:20-cv-00366-ADA Document 65 Filed 04/29/21 Page 11 of 13
12

The Court understands that InfoGation feels its company is in a different place for a 

“myriad of reasons” including its assertion, “at the time [of the California actions] more evidence 

was present in San Diego than it is today.” ECF No 34 at 7. However, as discussed above, “in 

patent infringement cases, the bulk of the relevant evidence usually comes from the accused 

infringer,” and InfoGation’s assertion that there may not be as much evidence in San Diego as 

before is not relevant under this factor. 

InfoGation has provided no evidence suggesting that the WDTX would have greater 

interest in the resolution of this dispute than the SDCA, which InfoGation itself recognizes as its 

“home district.” Accordingly, the Court finds that this factor weighs in favor of transfer.

iii. Familiarity of the forum with the law that will govern the case” and “avoidance 

of unnecessary problems of conflict of laws or in the application of foreign law” 

factors are neutral. 

This Court's expertise in patent law is at least comparable to that of the SDCA and the 

parties agree that “this Court and the SDCA are equally capable of applying federal patent law.” 

ECF No. 34 at 12. The Court agrees with Google that, “the Southern District of California has 

more familiarity with the issues in this case” due to the California Actions; however, the Court 

feels that familiarity with the patent itself is not relevant in the context of this factor as it is 

discussed above. ECF No. 34 at 12. The law applied is the same in both the SDCA and the WDTX;

therefore, this factor is neutral. 

Case 6:20-cv-00366-ADA Document 65 Filed 04/29/21 Page 12 of 13
13

IV. Conclusion

Having considered the private and public interest factors, the Court’s conclusions for 

each factor is summarized as follows: 

Factor The Court’s Finding

Relative ease of access to sources of proof Neutral

Availability of compulsory process to secure the 

attendance of witnesses

Neutral

Cost of attendance for willing witnesses Weighs in favor of transfer

all other practical problems that make trial of a 

case easy, expeditious and inexpensive 

Weighs in favor of transfer

Administrative difficulties flowing from court 

congestion 

Weighs in favor of transfer

Local interest Weighs in favor of transfer

Familiarity of the forum with law that will govern 

case

Neutral 

Problems associated with conflict of law Neutral

Finding that four factors weigh in favor of transfer and none weigh against, the Court 

finds that Defendant Google’s Motion to Transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) should be and 

hereby is GRANTED. The Court thus orders the case be TRANSFERRED to the Southern 

District of California. 

SIGNED this ___ day of April 2021. 

ALAN D ALBRIGHT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

29th

Case 6:20-cv-00366-ADA Document 65 Filed 04/29/21 Page 13 of 13