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.

DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC., DELL 

INC., AND EMC CORPORATION,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-CV-00476-ADA

PATENT CASE

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

MOTION TO QUSH SUBPOENAS AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Pursuant to Federal Rules 26(c) and 45(d), non-party William J. Tucker and Plaintiff 

WSOU Investments, LLC (“WSOU”) herby move to quash the subpoena issued by Defendants 

Dell Technologies, Inc., Dell Inc., and EMC Corporation (collectively, “Defendants”) against Mr. 

Tucker. 

BACKGROUND

On May 27, 2021 Defendants issued 22 subpoenas in the above-referenced cases, seeking 

documents and depositions from 14 non-parties, including Mr. Tucker. On June 4, 2021, 

Defendants issued two additional subpoenas. Each of the 24 subpoenas purports to set a deposition 

for the same date and time – June 25, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. None of the subpoenas state the place 

where the deposition will occur, stating only “Place of Deposition to be determined.” Because the 

subpoenas do not state a place and do not include a time zone (stating only that the depositions 

will begin somewhere at 9:00 a.m.), the subpoenas fail to specify a time and place for compliance. 

Dell served the notices of subpoenas through ECF, filing 54 documents (including 33 
2

duplicates) to serve 24 notices of subpoena.1 After comparing the filed notices and removing 

duplicates, WSOU wrote to Dell on June 3, 2021, listing the subpoenas and asking that Dell 

confirm the list was accurate. Dell did not respond. In objections served by Mr. Tucker on June 

10, 2021, Mr. Tucker explained that he has no responsive documents other than: (1) privileged 

attorney-client communications; and (2) copies of documents obtained from the Public PAIR. 

Following service of the objections, Dell made no effort to reach out to Mr. Tucker’s counsel.

On June 14, 2021, WSOU followed up again, asking that Dell confirm that (1) the list of 

subpoenas in WSOU’s June 3, 2021 email was accurate and (2) to the extent any depositions go 

forward, it would cooperate on scheduling to ensure that all parties are able to attend each 

deposition. Dell did not respond. On June 22, 2021, counsel for WSOU and Mr. Tucker followed 

up with Dell again by phone and by email, requesting that Dell withdraw its subpoenas or extend 

the deadline to comply or move to quash. Dell finally responded and confirmed that it would not 

move forward with any depositions on June 25, but Dell refused to withdraw its subpoenas.

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES

Under Rule 45, a subpoena must command each person to whom it is directed to attend 

and testify “at a specified time and place.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 (a)(1)(A)(iii). A subpoena that 

commands a non-party to attend a deposition must state a place of compliance that is “within 100 

miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 45 (c)(iii). “On timely motion, the court for the district where compliance is required must 

quash or modify a subpoena that: (i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply; (ii) requires a 

person to comply beyond the geographical limits specified in Rule 45(c); (iii) requires disclosure 

of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies; or (iv) subjects a person 

to undue burden.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3).

1 Most of the subpoenas are issued in more than one of the cases captioned above. This, combined 

with Dell’s curious decision to serve the notices of subpoena by ECF rather than by email, resulted 

in the service of 33 duplicates. Because the documents filed by ECF did not contain the name of 

the non-party in the file, it was necessary to manually sift through Dell’s subpoenas to remove 

duplicates.
3

Here, all of Dell’s subpoenas fail to specify a time and place for the deposition. Each 

subpoena lists “Location of deposition to be determined” and states “06/25/2021 9:00 a.m.” as the 

date and time of the deposition. Further, because the subpoenas contain neither a location nor a 

time zone, it is impossible to determine from the face of the deposition where or when a witness 

should appear. Further, because the subpoenas do not specify a place, they fail to comply with 

Rule 45(c) by commanding attendance at a place within 100 miles of where the person resides, is 

employed, or regularly transacts business in person. 

These defects, alone, render Dells subpoenas unenforceable. Further, Dell’s subpoenas 

should be stricken or quashed because they are overly broad and unduly burdensome. For 

example, Mr. Tucker drafted the ‘435 patent as outside counsel for Alcatel eighteen years ago, in 

2003. He has no recollection of any information responsive to the topics in Dell’s subpoena and 

has no documents other than (1) privileged attorney-client communications; and (2) copies of 

documents obtained from the Public PAIR. He should not be burdened with a deposition, which 

will only waste his and the parties’ time.

For the foregoing reasons, WSOU and the William J. Tucker respectfully request that the 

subpoena against Mr. Tucker be stricken or quashed pursuant to Rules 26 and 45.
4

Dated: June 25, 2021 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Travis Richins

James L. Etheridge

Texas State Bar No. 24059147

Ryan S. Loveless

Texas State Bar No. 24036997

Brett A. Mangrum

Texas State Bar No. 24065671

Travis Lee Richins

Texas State Bar No. 24061296

ETHERIDGE LAW GROUP, PLLC

2600 E. Southlake Blvd., Suite 120 / 324

Southlake, Texas 76092

Telephone: (817) 470-7249

Facsimile: (817) 887-5950

Jim@EtheridgeLaw.com

Ryan@EtheridgeLaw.com

Brett@EtheridgeLaw.com

Travis@EtheridgeLaw.com

Mark D. Siegmund

State Bar No. 24117055

mark@waltfairpllc.com

Law Firm of Walt, Fair PLLC.

1508 North Valley Mills Drive

Waco, Texas 76710

Telephone: (254) 772-6400

Facsimile: (254) 772-6432

ATTORNEYS FOR WSOU AND NON-PARTY 

WILLIAM J. TUCKER

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on June 25, 2021 the foregoing document was served upon all counsel of 

record via the court’s electronic filing system in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure.

/s/ Travis Lee Richins

Tavis Richins
5

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I certify that counsel for WSOU and Mr. Tucker, conferred with WSOU by phone and 

email on June 22, 2021. Dell opposes the relief requested in this motion.

/s/ Travis Lee Richins

Tavis Richins