1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

V.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, 

INC.; 

Defendants.

Case No. 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP 

PLAINTIFF’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF 

MOTION TO MODIFY PROTECTIVE ORDER

I. Plaintiff’s Reply to Samsung’s Opposition

Samsung’s opposition lays bare its true goal – to maintain and maximize discovery

inefficiency and asymmetry by preventing Cobblestone from using the discovery produced by 

Samsung in this case in the co-pending and related Carrier Actions.

Samsung’s opposition does not and cannot meaningfully address that this Court has 

recognized that “the typical factors assessed by a court when deciding whether to modify a 

protective order are therefore not as salient in a case as this, where it appears that the protected 

information will in fact remain protected.” Infernal Technology, LLC, v. Electronics Arts Inc., 

Case No. 2:15-cv-01523-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex. Jan. 24, 2017). Instead, Samsung contends that 

Infernal Technology is “readily distinguishable” and need not be heeded at all. Samsung is wrong. 

If anything, Samsung’s accurate description of Infernal Technology as granting modification of a 

protective order to “use certain material that has been designated confidential under the protective 

order in related inter partes review (IPR) proceedings” argues in favor of Cobblestone’s instant 

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 49 Filed 03/14/24 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 837
2

motion, because Cobblestone’s requested modification only permits the use of confidential 

information in the co-pending Carrier Actions before the same court and with substantially 

similar Protective Orders, not in a different jurisdiction with different rules and a different 

protective order, as was permitted by the Court in Infernal Technology.

Samsung next contends that Cobblestone’s requested modification was foreseeable on 

November 10, 2023, when the parties filed a joint motion stipulating to the existing Protective 

Order. Samsung Opp. at 6. Samsung is wrong. While it may be true Samsung’s outside counsel in 

this case was aware that Samsung did not intend to produce all of the information requested by 

Cobblestone’s subpoenas to Samsung in the Carrier Actions, Cobblestone’s counsel did not have 

that luxury or insight. To the contrary, as explained in Cobblestone’s motion, while Cobblestone 

and Samsung were negotiating and filing the joint motion setting for the Protective Order in this 

case, Cobblestone was separately and independently communicating with Samsung’s in-house 

counsel regarding Samsung’s compliance with the subpoenas in the First Carrier Actions. 

Specifically, Samsung’s in-house counsel represented that Samsung would make its document 

production in response to the document subpoena by September 13, 2023. Dkt. 43-3. But Samsung 

did not produce any documents in response to Cobblestone’s subpoenas until February 14, 2024, 

more than five months after Samsung had committed to do so and more than a week after

Cobblestone and Samsung met and conferred on the instant motion. In other words, while 

Cobblestone and Samsung were negotiating the stipulated Protective Order in this case, 

Cobblestone could not have known, and did not know, that Samsung would delay production of 

documents in response to Cobblestone’s subpoena for more than five months, and even then only 

produce a subset of the discovery it has produced and will produce in this case, despite the 

complete overlap of Asserted Patents and Samsung Products at issue. Indeed, it was not until after

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 49 Filed 03/14/24 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 838
3

the Protective Order issued in this Action that Samsung’s in-house counsel abruptly stopped 

communicating and first referred Cobblestone to Samsung’s outside counsel (who also represents 

Samsung in this action) on December 11, 2023. Dkt. 43-10.

Samsung also contends that “discovery is available from SEC only via the Hague 

Convention” and that “Cobblestone’s proposed change to the Protective Order would force SEC 

to incur the significant time and expense of complying with Korean law governing the export of 

technology.” Dkt. 46 at 10, 13. But Samsung’s repeated invocation of the Hague Convention and 

Korean law is a non sequitur. As Cobblestone explained in its motion, Cobblestone is not 

requesting this Court or any Court compel any Samsung entity to produce discovery in this or any 

other case. Rather, the instant motion simply seeks to narrowly modify the Protective Order (Dkt. 

No. 36) to permit Cobblestone to produce discovery already required to be provided to 

Cobblestone by Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics America, 

Inc. (collectively, “Samsung”) in this case in the pending and related Carrier Actions and subject 

to the same protections. As this Court has recognized, “protective orders should generally be 

modified to allow discovery in other actions.” Team Worldwide Corp. v. Walmart Inc., et al., No. 

2:17-cv-00235, (E.D. Tex Jan. 24, 2019) (quoting Stack v. Gamill, 796 F.2d 65, 68 (5th Cir. 1986)).

II. Plaintiff’s Reply to Third-Party Carriers’ Opposition

Third-parties T-Mobile USA Inc., AT&T Services Inc., AT&T Mobility LLC, AT&T 

Corp., and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless’s (collectively the “Carrier Third-Parties”) 

opposition fares no better in their attempt to maintain and maximize inefficient discovery by 

preventing Cobblestone from using discovery produced by Samsung in this case in the co-pending 

and related Carrier Actions. 

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 49 Filed 03/14/24 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 839
4

The Carrier Third-Parties contend that Cobblestone’s motion “asks the Court to bless its 

attempt to cherry-pick discovery conducted outside the Carrier [Third-Parties] presence.” Carrier 

Opposition at 1. The Carrier Third-Parties are wrong. As Cobblestone explained to the Carrier 

Third-Parties during meet and confer, if the Court grants the requested modification to the 

Protective Order, Cobblestone agrees to produce all such information in the Carrier Actions, so 

that all parties in the Carrier Actions will have access to the same discovery. There will be no 

“cherry picking.” In any event, to alleviate the Carrier Third-Parties’ grievance, Cobblestone is 

willing to change “may be produced” to “shall be produced” in its requested modification of the 

Protective Order, which would read as follows:

37. Documentary discovery and source code discovery produced or made available 

by Samsung in this case shall be produced by Cobblestone in Cobblestone Wireless, 

LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-00477-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.) (Lead 

Case) and Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon 

Wireless, Case No. 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.) (Lead Case) with the 

same Bates number and confidentiality designations. 

Next, the Carrier Third-Parties, like Samsung, also contend that Cobblestone’s motion 

“attempts to circumvent the rules of discovery” by not seeking “Hague discovery from Samsung 

in Korea.” Dkt. 46 at 4. Again, the Carrier Third-Parties are wrong, because Cobblestone’s motion 

seeks to narrowly modify the Protective Order (Dkt. No. 36) to permit Cobblestone to produce

discovery provided by Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics 

America, Inc. (collectively, “Samsung”) in this case in the pending and related Carrier Actions. 

Cobblestone is not requesting this Court or any Court compel any Samsung entity to produce 

discovery in this or any other case.

The Carrier Third-Parties also complain that Cobblestone “has not moved to compel either 

Samsung America or Samsung [Korea] to comply with any duly issued subpoena in any Carrier 

Action” and “has not filed motions for Hague discovery on Samsung in any of the Carrier Actions.”

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 49 Filed 03/14/24 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 840
5

Dkt. 46 at 3. While this is true, it misses the entire point of Cobblestone’s requested relief. 

Cobblestone’s instant motion seeks to avoid the need for serial motions to compel or other 

discovery-related motions in this case or any of the Carrier Actions. That the Carrier Third-Parties 

would prefer disputed discovery motions rather than a simple modification of the Protective Order 

in this case—in which the Carrier Third-Parties are not even parties—speaks volumes about the 

Carrier Third-Parties’ true aim in opposing Cobblestone’s requested relief.

The remainder of the Carrier Third-Parties’ opposition pertains to pending unrelated 

motions filed by them in their respective actions and unrelated to the relief requested herein by 

Cobblestone, and thus Cobblestone need not address them or burden the court with additional 

unrequested briefing on those unrelated issues.

III. Conclusion

As set forth above, and in the interests of justice, the Court should grant Cobblestone’s 

motion and modify the Protective Order to allow Cobblestone to produce materials produced by 

Samsung and designated confidential pursuant to this Court’s Protective Order in the co-pending 

and related Carrier Actions. Specifically, as set forth in the Proposed Order filed with 

Cobblestone’s motion, and as further modified herein, Cobblestone requests that the Protective 

Order be modified to include the following paragraph:

37. Documentary discovery and source code discovery produced or made available 

by Samsung in this case shall be produced by Cobblestone in Cobblestone Wireless, 

LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-00477-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.) (Lead 

Case) and Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon 

Wireless, Case No. 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.) (Lead Case) with the 

same Bates number and confidentiality designations. 

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 49 Filed 03/14/24 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 841
6

Dated: March 14, 2024 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Reza Mirzaie

CA State Bar No. 246953

Marc A. Fenster

CA State Bar No. 181067

Neil A. Rubin

CA State Bar No. 250761

Christian W. Conkle

CA State Bar No. 306374

Jonathan Ma

CA State Bar No. 312773

RUSS AUGUST & KABAT

12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90025

Telephone: 310-826-7474

Email: rmirzaie@raklaw.com

Email: mfenster@raklaw.com

Email: nrubin@raklaw.com

Email: cconkle@raklaw.com

Email: jma@raklaw.com

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF,

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 49 Filed 03/14/24 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 842
7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

service are being served this 14th day of March, 2024, with a copy of this document via the Court’s 

CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3). Any other counsel of record will be served by 

electronic mail on this same date.

/s/ Reza Mirzaie

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 49 Filed 03/14/24 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 843