IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

ACTIVE WIRELESS TECHNOLOGIES 

LLC,

Plaintiff,

v. 

T-MOBILE USA, INC., and T-MOBILE US, 

INC.

Defendants,

NOKIA OF AMERICA CORPORATION

and ERICSSON INC.

Intervenors.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-CV-00261-JRG

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court are (1) Defendants/Intervenors’ Motion for Leave to File Motion to 

Compel Deposition of Properly Prepared 30(b)(6) Designee (Dkt. No. 96, the “Motion for Leave”), 

and (2) Defendants/Intervenors’ Motion to Compel Deposition of Properly Prepared 30(b)(6) 

Designee (Dkt. No. 97, the “MTC”), both of which were filed by Defendants T-Mobile US, Inc. 

and T-Mobile USA, Inc. (“T-Mobile” or “Defendants”) and Intervenors Nokia of America 

Corporation and Ericsson Inc. (collectively, “Intervenors”). In the Motion for Leave, 

Defendants/Intervenors “seek leave to file a motion to compel Plaintiff to produce a properly 

prepared 30(b)(6) witness as to several topics.” (Dkt. No. 96 at 1.) In the MTC, 

Defendants/Intervenors “move to compel Plaintiff Active Wireless Technologies LLC (‘Plaintiff’

or ‘AWT’) to produce a properly prepared 30(b)(6) witness to testify about AWT’s knowledge 

and the factual basis for its positions and contentions.” (Dkt. No. 97 at 1.) For the following 

reasons, the Court finds that the Motion for Leave and the MTC should both be GRANTED.

Case 2:23-cv-00261-JRG Document 119 Filed 12/13/24 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 7866
2

I. INTRODUCTION

On May 31, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that Defendants infringe U.S. Patent 

Nos. 10,531,443, 11,019,557, 10,785,764, and 10,601,566. (Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 8–11.) The Court 

entered an amended Docket Control Order that set October 22, 2024 as the deadline to complete 

fact discovery and file motions to compel discovery. (Dkt. No. 80 at 4.)

On September 4, 2024, Defendants/Intervenors served a Rule 30(b)(6) Notice on Plaintiff 

seeking testimony on, inter alia, the following topics:

Topic 18: Any problem purportedly solved by the inventions of each Asserted 

Patent . . .;

Topic 27: The identification of any Accused Products . . . that anyone employed by 

or acting on behalf of AWT operated, analyzed, tested, or studied before filing the 

Complaints on May 31, 2023, the nature of the analyses, tests, or studies;

Topic 45: The factual basis and support for Your responses to any interrogatories 

and requests for admission served in the Actions;

Topic 49: AWT’s Infringement Contentions and infringement allegations . . .; and

Topic 52: AWT’s rational[e] and factual bases for alleging that the present case is 

an “exceptional” case . . . .

(Dkt. No. 97 at 2; Dkt. No. 99 at 1–2.) Plaintiff agreed to designate a witness for these topics to 

“testify regarding relevant, non-privileged, and non-immune information to the extent such 

information exists and is within AWT’s possession, custody, or control.” (Dkt. No. 97 at 2.) 

Specifically, Plaintiff designated Mr. Deepak Sharma, who Defendants/Intervenors deposed on 

October 22, 2024. (Id.) According to Plaintiff, Mr. Sharma is its “Managing Director and only 

witness.” (Dkt. No. 99 at 1.) 

During Mr. Sharma’s deposition, he repeatedly testified that he was “not the witness” to 

answer certain questions related to topics on which he was designated to testify. For example, Mr. 

Sharma offered the following testimony:

Case 2:23-cv-00261-JRG Document 119 Filed 12/13/24 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 7867
3

Q. Do you understand that in connection with Topic No. 49, Active Wireless agreed 

subject to and without waiving its objections, it was going to provide a witness to 

discuss this topic, and either confirm that the witness has responsive information or 

does not have responsive information.

. . . 

A. Again, as per -- as a plat [sic] towards this testimony, based on my attorneyclient privileged discussions with attorneys, I am not the witness for Topic No. 49. 

It needs to be discussed with the technical expert. And our infringement positions, 

contentions, have been clearly elucidated and shared with you guys, and I don’t 

have anything more to share or add with respect to 49. I am not the witness.

(Dkt. No. 98-1 at 396:9–397:6.) As another example, Mr. Sharma also offered the following 

testimony:

Q. Do you know whether Active Wireless has identified any evidence to support its 

contention that defendants NB-IoT cellular stations infringe the claims of the 443 

patent?

. . .

A. Again, I’m not the witness. You have to ask this question from the technical 

expert, please, who is the right expert to answer this question.

(Id. at 401:12–21.) In other instances, Mr. Sharma and Plaintiff’s counsel directed 

Defendants/Intervenors’ examining attorney to Plaintiff’s written contentions and interrogatories 

in response to questions. (Id. at 381:17–382:8, 386:3–387:20, 393:13–394:16, 397:8–399:12.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A party served with a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice must respond in one of two ways: 

(1) designate a person to testify at a deposition, or (2) move for a protective order. Ferko v. 

National Ass’n for Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc., 218 F.R.D. 125, 133 (E.D. Tex. 2003). If the 

deponent designates a person to testify, the deponent must designate someone with knowledge of 

the matters sought by the noticing party and prepare that person to answer the questions posed 

about the subject matter. Brazos River Authority v. GE Ionics, Inc., 469 F.3d 416, 433 (5th Cir. 

2006) (“The deponent must prepare the designee to the extent matters are reasonably available, 

whether from documents, past employees, or other sources.”); see also Bowoto v. ChevronTexaco 

Case 2:23-cv-00261-JRG Document 119 Filed 12/13/24 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 7868
4

Corp., No. C 99–02506 SI, 2006 WL 294799, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2006) (“The corporation 

has a duty to educate its witnesses so they are prepared to fully answer the questions posed at the 

deposition.”).

Absent a protective order, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not give a party the right 

to not respond to a Rule 30(b)(6) notice. La. Pac. Corp. v. Money Market 1 Institutional Inv. 

Dealer, 285 F.R.D. 481, 488 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (finding a party’s “prefer[ence] to provide answers 

to interrogatories than to prepare a witness for a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition” irrelevant). “If a 

corporation has knowledge or a position as to a set of alleged facts or an area of inquiry, [its 

designees] must present the position, give reasons for the position, and, more importantly, stand 

subject to cross-examination.” United States v. Taylor, 166 F.R.D. 356, 362 (M.D.N.C. 1996).

III. ANALYSIS

A. Motion for Leave (Dkt. No. 96)

The Court finds that the Motion for Leave should be granted. Defendants/Intervenors argue 

that 

[g]ood cause exists to allow the proposed motion to compel past the October 22, 

2024 deadline in the Docket Control Order because this issue did not become ripe 

for adjudication until the parties meet and confer on October 29, which followed 

the deposition taken on the very last day of discovery due to Mr. Sharma’s limited 

availability.

(Dkt. No. 96 at 1.) Plaintiff “does not oppose Defendants/Intervenors filing their Motion to Compel 

past the deadline to do so”; rather, Plaintiff only opposes the Motion for Leave on the basis that 

the MTC is “futile.” (Dkt. No. 100 at 1.)

Having considered the Motion for Leave, noting its unopposed nature, and finding good 

cause, the Court finds that the Motion for Leave should be and hereby is GRANTED. Accordingly, 

the Court will consider the late-filed MTC.

Case 2:23-cv-00261-JRG Document 119 Filed 12/13/24 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 7869
5

B. MTC (Dkt. No. 97)

After reviewing the sections of Mr. Sharma’s deposition provided to the Court, the Court 

finds that the MTC should be granted. The Court agrees with Defendants/Intervenors that Plaintiff 

cannot hide behind Mr. Sharma’s claimed ignorance. Mr. Sharma was designated as Plaintiff’s 

corporate witness on Topics 18, 27, 45, 49, and 52. Defendants/Intervenors are entitled to depose 

an educated, knowledgeable corporate witness to ask factual questions and get responsive answers,

within the scope of his designated topics. A corporate witness cannot avoid answering factual 

questions because those questions may also relate to an expert’s opinion—the corporate witness is 

obligated to testify for the organization. Moreover, Mr. Sharma’s and Plaintiff’s attempts to deflect 

and point to Plaintiff’s interrogatory responses and infringement contentions in response to 

questions are unavailing, as “the Rules don’t give [Plaintiff] the right to ignore a 30(b)(6) notice 

and instead rely on previously submitted interrogatory responses.” Raytheon Co. v. Cray, Inc., No. 

2:15-CV-01554-JRG-RSP, 2017 WL 2452740, at *3 (E.D. Tex. June 6, 2017).

Plaintiff “may take the position it has no knowledge on a topic, but it may not do so without 

a reasonable investigation about that topic.” Id. (citing Brazos River Authority v. GE Ionics, Inc., 

469 F.3d 416, 433 (5th Cir. 2006)). However, Mr. Sharma did not take the position that Plaintiff 

has no knowledge of these topics—for many questions, he either refused to answer or he seemed 

genuinely uneducated. While Plaintiff focuses on Mr. Sharma’s personal knowledge,1 Plaintiff 

seems to misunderstand the purpose of a 30(b)(6) witness. A 30(b)(6) witness does not testify 

simply to his or her personal knowledge. A 30(b)(6) witness testifies on behalf of an organization, 

1 “Mr. Sharma did provide Defendants with testimony regarding facts within his knowledge, such as backgrounds of 

the patents and the inventors, and the facts and circumstances surrounding his acquisition of the patents. Because Mr. 

Sharma was adequately prepared to testify as to facts within his knowledge, no further deposition is necessary.” (Dkt. 

No. 99 at 1 (emphasis added).)

Case 2:23-cv-00261-JRG Document 119 Filed 12/13/24 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 7870
6

and the witness “must testify about information known or reasonably available to the 

organization.” FED. R. CIV. PRO. 30(b)(6) (emphasis added).

To be clear, the Court does not find that Mr. Sharma was required to answer questions 

asking for an expert opinion. However, he was required to provide testimony regarding the 

Plaintiff’s contentions and the factual bases supporting those contentions. Mr. Sharma did not 

provide factual testimony known or reasonably available to Plaintiff for the Topics at issue in the 

MTC.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Defendants/Intervenors’ Motion for Leave 

to File Motion to Compel Deposition of Properly Prepared 30(b)(6) Designee (Dkt. No. 96) should 

be and hereby is GRANTED. The Court further finds that Defendants/Intervenors’ Motion to 

Compel Deposition of Properly Prepared 30(b)(6) Designee (Dkt. No. 97) should be and hereby is 

GRANTED. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff shall adequately educate and prepare a 

Rule 30(b)(6) witness for a two hour supplemental deposition limited to the aspects of Topic Nos. 

18, 27, 45, 49, and 52 at issue in the MTC. Such deposition shall occur within twenty (20) days of 

entry of this Order.

.

____________________________________

RODNEY GILSTRAP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE So ORDERED and SIGNED this 13th day of December, 2024.

Case 2:23-cv-00261-JRG Document 119 Filed 12/13/24 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 7871