EXHIBIT B

Case 6:20-cv-00487-ADA Document 108-2 Filed 08/18/21 Page 1 of 6
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION 

WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC D/B/A 

BRAZOS LICENSING AND 

DEVELOPMENT,

 Plaintiff,

v. 

ZTE CORPORATION, ZTE (USA) INC. 

AND ZTE (TX), INC.,

 Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

C.A. NO. 6:20-cv-00487-ADA

C.A. NO. 6:20-cv-00488-ADA

C.A. NO. 6:20-cv-00489-ADA

C.A. NO. 6:20-cv-00490-ADA

C.A. NO. 6:20-cv-00491-ADA

C.A. NO. 6:20-cv-00492-ADA

C.A. NO. 6:20-cv-00493-ADA

C.A. NO. 6:20-cv-00494-ADA

C.A. NO. 6:20-cv-00495-ADA

C.A. NO. 6:20-cv-00496-ADA

C.A. NO. 6:20-cv-00497-ADA

DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO WSOU’S FIRST SET OF 

REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

Pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Standing Order 

Regarding Venue and Jurisdictional Discovery Limits for Patent Cases, Defendants ZTE 

Corporation (“ZTC”), ZTE (USA) Inc. (“ZTA”), and ZTE (TX), Inc. (“ZTX”), (collectively, 

“ZTE” or “Defendants”), hereby provide the following objections and responses to Plaintiff 

WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development’s (“WSOU”) First Set of 

Requests for Production (each, a “Request,” collectively the “Requests”) as set forth below.

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

The following general objections are incorporated by reference into responses to each and 

every Request: 

1. Defendants’ responses and objections are based upon information currently known 

to it through reasonable investigation thus far, and are subject to amendment, supplementation, 

and/or other modification. Venue discovery in this matter is ongoing, and during the course of 

Case 6:20-cv-00487-ADA Document 108-2 Filed 08/18/21 Page 2 of 6
2

venue discovery, Defendants may become aware of additional information that may be responsive 

to the Requests. Defendants reserve the right to amend, supplement, or otherwise modify these 

responses and objections if additional information is discovered. By providing these responses 

and objections, Defendants do not, and do not intend to, waive their right to rely on evidence or 

information that is subsequently discovered through its continuing investigation and/or included 

in amended, supplemental, or otherwise modified responses. In addition, these responses and 

objections are made without prejudice to Defendants’ right to present additional evidence or 

contentions at any venue-related hearing based upon information hereafter obtained or developed.

2. Defendants object to each Request to the extent that it seeks or imposes 

requirements or obligations on Defendants that are inconsistent with those set forth in the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure, the Western District of Texas Civil Local Rules, or any other applicable 

rules or orders governing this case, including the scope of venue discovery agreed to by the parties, 

written or otherwise.

3. Defendants object to each Request to the extent it seeks information protected from 

disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege 

or protection from discovery. Nothing contained in these responses is intended to be, or in any way

constitutes, a waiver of any such privilege, immunity, or confidentiality obligation.

4. Defendants object to each Request with an open-ended time period and, unless 

specifically stated otherwise, Defendants will limit their responses to providing information from 

the relevant time period. The relevant time period for establishing whether venue is proper in the 

WDTX is the time the action was filed. These cases were filed on June 3, 2020. 

5. Defendants object to each Request that seeks information outside of the relevant 

district for venue discovery, and, unless specifically stated otherwise, Defendants will limit their 

Case 6:20-cv-00487-ADA Document 108-2 Filed 08/18/21 Page 3 of 6
3

responses to providing information from the relevant district. The relevant district in these cases 

is the WDTX, as the purpose of this venue discovery is to establish whether venue is proper in the 

WDTX.

6. Defendants object to each Request that seeks information related to parties not 

challenging in venue in these cases, and unless specifically stated otherwise, Defendants will limit 

their responses to providing information related to parties that challenged venue in these cases.

Only ZTA and ZTX challenged venue in these cases. ZTC did not challenge venue.

7. Defendants object to each Definition, Instruction, and Request to the extent the 

documents or information requested are not in Defendants’ possession, custody, and/or control. 

8. Defendants object to each Definition, Instruction, and Request to the extent it seeks 

information that contains confidential business information, trade secrets, and/or proprietary 

information of a party in this litigation or a third party.

9. Defendants object to each Definition, Instruction, and Request to the extent it seeks 

to impose obligations on Defendants that are inconsistent with and/or beyond the scope of those 

imposed or authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of this Court, or 

any governing case law.

10. Defendants object to each Definition, Instruction, and Request that uses any of the 

terms “Document(s),” “Information,” “Communication,” “Entity,” or “Entities” as vague, 

overbroad, ambiguous, unduly burdensome to the extent it seeks information that is not relevant 

to establishing venue, seeking information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client 

privilege, the attorney work product, or another applicable privilege and/or immunity, and seeking 

information that is not reasonably accessible to Defendants upon reasonable diligence.

Case 6:20-cv-00487-ADA Document 108-2 Filed 08/18/21 Page 4 of 6
56

may inquire with corporate representatives of ZTA and ZTX on issues at to the WDTX, but general 

documents and communications of this nature are too broad. 

Subject to the foregoing objections and without waiver or limitation thereof, and pursuant 

to Plaintiff’s Instruction No. 1, Defendants request clarification as to the relevance of this Request 

to establishing venue was proper in the WDTX as of June 3, 2020, the relevant time period for 

establishing venue (i.e. as of the time these actions were filed). Please also provide supporting case 

law, so ZTE can properly consider this Request.

As to any potential relevance to venue, Plaintiff may inquire with corporate representatives 

of ZTA and ZTX on issues as to the WDTX, but general documents and communications of this 

nature are too broad. Defendants are amenable to meeting and conferring on the scope of this 

Request.

Defendants’ investigation is ongoing. Defendants reserve the right to supplement and/or 

amend this response as further information becomes available, and/or after responsive, nonprivileged documents are otherwise produced.

DATED: January 18, 2021 Respectfully submitted,

/s/Lionel M. Lavenue 

Lionel M. Lavenue 

Virginia Bar No. 49,005

lionel.lavenue@finnegan.com 

FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, 

GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP

1875 Explorer Street, Suite 800

Reston, VA 20190

Phone: (571) 203-2700

Fax: (202) 408-4400

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS

Case 6:20-cv-00487-ADA Document 108-2 Filed 08/18/21 Page 5 of 6
57

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that all counsel of record, who are deemed to have consented to

electronic service, are being served on January 18, 2021 with a copy of this document via

email.

/s/Lionel M. Lavenue 

Lionel M. Lavenue 

Case 6:20-cv-00487-ADA Document 108-2 Filed 08/18/21 Page 6 of 6