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,

Defendant.

Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-00487-ADA

Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-00488-ADA

Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-00489-ADA

Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-00490-ADA

Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-00491-ADA

Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-00492-ADA

Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-00493-ADA

Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-00494-ADA

Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-00495-ADA

Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-00496-ADA

Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-00497-ADA

ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY DISPUTES

This Court, having considered disputes raised by Plaintiff WSOU Investments, LLC d/b/a 

Brazos Licensing and Development (“Plaintiff”) against Defendant ZTE Corporation 

(“Defendant”) during the June 7, 2022, Discovery Hearing, hereby ORDERS the following:

1. Plaintiff’s request to compel Defendant’s production of source code files it deems 

unreadable identified in Plaintiff’s dispute chart submitted to the Court titled “May 31, 2022 

Dispute Chart” (the “Dispute Chart”) is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART without 

prejudice. The Court will not require Defendant to provide replacement files for the Accused 

Products identified at this time, however, Plaintiff shall provide a list of files that it believes are 

not readable or searchable for Defendant’s review. The parties shall then meet and confer to 

narrow disputes and determine whether the files should be produced. To the extent there is a 

disagreement, the parties are invited to contact the Court , which will promptly set an in-person 

hearing to resolve remaining disputes.

Case 6:20-cv-00487-ADA-DTG Document 232 Filed 07/05/22 Page 1 of 3
2

2. Plaintiff’s request to compel Defendant’s production of source code related to the 

’929, ’534, and ’839 Patents identified by Plaintiff in the Dispute Chart is GRANTED-IN-PART 

and DENIED-IN-PART without prejudice. The Court will not require Defendant to produce the 

source code related to Accused Products as identified, however, Plaintiff shall provide a list of 

files, and/or a list of Accused Product(s), that it believes are not readable, searchable, or are

deficient for Defendant’s review. The parties shall then meet and confer to narrow disputes,

determine whether Defendant shall produce the source code for the Accused Products, and if the 

parties continue to disagree, they are invited to contact the Court to resolve any remaining disputes.

3. Plaintiff’s request to compel production of source code relating to the Accused 

Products identified by Defendant as not sold in the United States in the Dispute Chart and listed 

by Plaintiff in Exhibit A of Plaintiff’s Dispute Chart is DENIED without prejudice. The Court is 

willing to reconsider if presented with evidence demonstrating that the Accused Products 

identified are in fact sold in the United States.

4. Plaintiff’s request to compel Defendant to supplement its source code production 

with regard to folders, files, and modules identified at Exhibits B and C of Plaintiff’s Dispute Chart 

is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART without prejudice. Defendant shall supplement 

its source code production in response to Plaintiff’s requests outlined in Exhibits B and C or serve 

a chart identifying on a file-by-file basis the reason for non-production, within fourteen (14) days

– no later than June 21, 2022. The Court notes that Plaintiff has not waived its right to raise source 

code deficiencies after close of fact discovery. 

5. The current June 17, 2022, deadline for the close of fact discovery is extended to

July 1, 2022. The subsequent date for opening expert reports is further extended from June 30, 

2022 to July 14, 2022. To the extent the parties require additional time for fact discovery, the 

Case 6:20-cv-00487-ADA-DTG Document 232 Filed 07/05/22 Page 2 of 3
3

parties shall submit a proposed Joint Scheduling Order with revised deadlines for close of fact 

discovery and opening expert reports submissions.

6. Plaintiff’s request to compel designations on all 30(b)(6) topics on which Defendant 

objected to provide testimony is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART. With respect to 

30(b)(6) topics, the parties shall meet and confer with regard to topics identified in Plaintiff’s 

Dispute Chart, notably] pertaining to Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood Corp.

factors. The Court holds that the parties are entitled to discovery in connection with the factors 

outlined in the Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood Corp. case, but the parties should 

further meet and confer to narrow topics tailored to those factors. To the extent the parties continue 

to disagree, the parties can contact the Court, and it will set a prompt in-person hearing to resolve 

the matter.

Signed this 5

th day of July, 2022.

____________________________________

DEREK GILLILAND

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 6:20-cv-00487-ADA-DTG Document 232 Filed 07/05/22 Page 3 of 3