IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION 

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC, 

Plaintiff, CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00382 

v. (Lead Case) 

 

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A 

VERIZON WIRELESS., 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

Defendants, 

 

NOKIA OF AMERICA CORPORATION, 

Intervenor, 

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC, 

Plaintiff, CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00380 

v. (Member Case) 

 

AT&T MOBILITY LLC, AT&T 

SERVICES, INC., AND AT&T CORP., 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

Defendants, 

 

NOKIA OF AMERICA CORPORATION, 

Intervenor, 

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC, 

Plaintiff, CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00381 

(Member Case) 

v. 

 

T-MOBILE USA, INC. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

 

Defendants. 

 

NOKIA OF AMERICA CORPORATION, 

Intervenor, 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 60 Filed 12/22/23 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 467
JOINT MOTION FOR PARTIALLY DISPUTED 

ENTRY OF DISCOVERY ORDER 

Plaintiff Cobblestone Wireless, LLC (“Cobblestone”) and Defendants T-Mobile 

USA, Inc., AT&T Services Inc., AT&T Mobility LLC, AT&T Corp., and Cellco 

Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (collectively, “Defendants”) (collectively, the 

“Parties”) file this Joint Motion for entry of the attached partially disputed Discovery 

Order. In accordance with the Court’s Order of November 3, 2023 (Dkt. No. 20), the Parties 

submit to the Court their competing proposals as Exhibit A and provide a summary of their 

disagreements below: 

Defendants’ Summary of Disagreement 

The dispute in the Discovery Order is tied to Defendants’ recently filed Motion to 

Consolidate and exemplifies why that Motion should be granted (Dkt. No. 49). In the 

disputed Discovery Order here, Plaintiff opposes Defendants’ reasonable proposal on fact 

deposition limits. Instead, Plaintiff apparently wants to conduct double the amount of 

discovery between this single-patent case (referred to as Cobblestone 2.0 in the Motion to 

Consolidate) and the four-patent case that Plaintiff filed against the same Defendants and 

the same Accused Products a few months prior (referred to as Cobblestone 1.0 in the 

Motion to Consolidate). This is a waste of the parties’ resources because the same parties, 

the same Accused Products, and overlapping fact witnesses will be involved in both cases. 

In the disputed provision, Plaintiff is requesting an additional 49 hours of 

depositions of each Defendant Group (e.g., nearly 150 hours across all three Defendants) 

for this single-patent case. This number of hours is inappropriate given the single patent 

involved, but even more so, Plaintiff requests these additional hours on top of the 49 hours 

per Defendant Group already allotted in the Cobblestone 1.0 Discovery Order (see Dkt. 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 60 Filed 12/22/23 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 468
No. 61 at 4 in 2:22-cv-477). There is no reason that Plaintiff needs—or should be 

permitted—hundreds of hours of repetitive and duplicative deposition time across both 

cases. For example, it would be wasteful and ineffective to put Defendants’ Cobblestone 

1.0 fact witnesses up for a second deposition in Cobblestone 2.0 on factual issues that that 

are common to both cases such as licensing, sales, marketing, finances, and development. 

It is harassing and costly for Cobblestone to demand duplicative depositions so they can 

ask the same questions to the same fact witnesses twice. Yet, that appears to be exactly 

what Plaintiff intends to do. 

Defendants offer the most practical solution. In Defendants’ proposal, Plaintiff is 

allotted a reasonable number of additional fact deposition hours to account for the single 

additional patent in this case (Defendants’ proposal includes an additional 10.5 hours of 

fact depositions). Defendants likewise propose using the depositions in Cobblestone 1.0 in 

the Cobblestone 2.0 case as well. See Ex. A at 5 (Defendant’s proposal requests 59.5 hours 

per Defendant Group and adds a provision that includes counting the hours across all 

cases). 

Defendant’s proposed solution is both practical and attainable regardless of whether 

the separate Motion to Consolidate is ultimately granted by the Court. However, as 

explained in the Motion to Consolidate, the entire discovery process would be streamlined 

by consolidating the cases and the discovery periods together. This dispute is but one 

example of an issue that would be resolved by consolidation. 

Regardless, the Court should enter the Discovery Order attached as Exhibit A with 

Defendants proposal to prevent Plaintiff from engaging in harassing, repetitive, and costly 

duplicative discovery. 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 60 Filed 12/22/23 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 469
Plaintiff’s Summary of Disagreement 

Defendants’ proposal represents a drastic departure from the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure and this Court’s default rules, and attempts to effectuate its Motion to 

Consolidate through entry of the Discovery Order in this case. Plaintiff’s proposal 

reasonably allows for discovery relevant to both cases to be utilized without duplication, 

while acknowledging their differences. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

Plaintiff is entitled to ten depositions taken under Rule 30 without leave of Court, 

amounting to up to roughly 70 hours of deposition time per Defendant in each of what 

Defendants call “Cobblestone 1.0” and “Cobblestone 2.0.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(2)(A)(i). 

This Court’s default discovery order further does not limit the hours of party deposition 

time. Defendants’ proposal potentially leaves Plaintiff with only 10.5 hours of deposition 

time per Defendant. Plaintiff’s proposal of 49 maximum hours––tailored to its expected 

needs and also to minimize any burden on Defendants––already amounts to a substantial 

concession of what it likely otherwise would have been entitled to under the Federal Rules. 

 Defendants’ proposal is unreasonable. It is likely that in the Cobblestone 1.0 case, 

Plaintiff will utilize all 49 hours of deposition time per party, given the 11 ESI custodians 

that each Defendant designated. Given the number of witnesses identified, the highly 

compartmentalized knowledge each witness appears to have, and Plaintiff’s concern that 

these witnesses may lack the requisite specialized knowledge, 49 hours may prove to not 

be enough in Cobblestone 1.0, let alone merely 10.5 hours here. 

The complexity of this case merits Plaintiff’s request for 49 hours. The patent-insuit is distinct from the patents asserted in the Cobblestone 1.0 case. The patent-in-suit 

originates from a different assignee and has entirely different inventors. In addition, the 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 60 Filed 12/22/23 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 470
accused functionality in Cobblestone 2.0 pertains to 3GPP carrier aggregation, whereas the 

accused functionalities in Cobblestone 1.0 pertain to beamforming, supplemental uplink 

and/or bandwidth adaptation, handover between 4G LTE and 5G NR, and wifi-only 

automatic updates. Given that the accused functionalities are typically implemented by 

highly-specialized engineers working for each Defendant, it is unlikely that technical 

depositions taken in the Cobblestone 1.0 case would overlap with Cobblestone 2.0. Even 

if there is overlap, the undisputed portions of the discovery order already provide an avenue 

for the Parties to discuss streamlining efforts, including cross-use of fact deposition 

transcripts or portions thereof and reasonable deposition time constraints for repeat 

witnesses. But Defendants to date have not identified any relevant witnesses in this case, 

thus any purported overlap of any witnesses by Defendants is speculative, particularly 

given the disparate technologies involved in the two cases. Plaintiff should not be limited 

based on such speculation. 

In summary, Plaintiff’s ability to conduct discovery on this case should not be 

curtailed by Defendants’ drastic proposal. This Court should adopt Plaintiff’s proposal, 

which is already conservative in light of the Federal Rule default. 

Dated: December 22, 2023 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, 

/s/ David S. Frist

David S. Frist 

David.Frist@alston.com 

John Daniel Haynes 

John.Haynes@alston.com 

Emily Welch 

Emily.Welch@alston.com 

Michael Clayton Deane 

Michael.Deane@alston.com 

Katherine Donald 

Katie.Donald@alston.com 

Sloane Sueanne Kyrazis 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 60 Filed 12/22/23 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 471
Sloane.Kyrazis@alston.com 

ALSTON & BIRD LLP 

1201 West Peachtree Street NW 

Atlanta, GA 30309 

404-881-7000 

Fax: 404-881-7777 

Ross Ritter Barton 

Ross.Barton@alston.com 

ALSTON & BIRD LLP 

101 South Tryon Street 

Ste 4000 

Charlotte, NC 28280-4000 

704/444-1287 

Fax: 704/444-1111 

Theodore Stevenson, III 

Ted.Stevenson@alston.com 

ALSTON & BIRD LLP 

2200 Ross Ave 

Suite 2300 

Dallas, TX 75201 

214-922-3507 

Fax: 214-922-3899 

Attorneys for Defendants T-Mobile USA, 

Inc., AT&T Services Inc., AT&T Mobility 

LLC, AT&T Corp., and Cellco Partnership 

d/b/a Verizon Wireless 

Deron Dacus 

ddacus@dacusfirm.com 

The Dacus Firm 

821 ESE Loop 323, Suite 430 

Tyler, TX 75701 

903-705-1117 

Fax: 903-581-2543 

Attorney for AT&T Services, Inc., AT&T 

Corp., AT&T Mobility LLC, and Cellco 

Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless 

Melissa R. Smith 

melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com 

Tom Gorham 

tom@gillamsmithlaw.com 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 60 Filed 12/22/23 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 472
Gillam & Smith LLP 

102 N. College, Suite 800 

Tyler, TX 75702 

903-934-8450 

Fax: 903-934-9257 

Attorneys for T-Mobile USA, Inc. 

/s/ Reza Mirzaie 

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-00382-JRG-RSP Document 60 Filed 12/22/23 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 473
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document 

has been served on December 22, 2023, to all counsel of record who are deemed to have 

consented to electronic service via the Court’s CM/ECF system per Local Rule 

CV-5(a)(3). 

/s/ David S. Frist

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 60 Filed 12/22/23 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 474