1

UNITED STATEST DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC, 

Plaintiff

v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, 

INC., 

Defendant.

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

LIMITED INTERVENORS’ SUR-REPLY IN OPPOSITION TO 

COBBLESTONE’S MOTION TO MODIFY PROTECTIVE ORDER

Cobblestone’s Reply does little to dispel the concerns of the Carriers.

First, Cobblestone’s Reply attempts to walk back its requested relief, but introduces 

additional concerns in the process. Despite initially proposing language that allowed it to 

cherry pick evidence, it now proposes that it will simply dump everything produced by the 

Korean Samsung entity into the Carrier Cases. Setting aside the question of whether 

Cobblestone indicated during the meet-and-confer that this is what it intended,1

Cobblestone’s suggestion that it can simply dump non-party discovery obtained in 

abstentia—source code and all—is still troubling. If, on the one hand, the cases truly are 

different—as Cobblestone maintains when convenient to oppose consolidation—this 

1 It did not. Instead, Cobblestone’s counsel responded to a question about the scope 

of its proposal by indicating that it was a “good question” that it would have to consider 

before filing.

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 51 Filed 03/21/24 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 854
2

would result in a flood of irrelevant documents and source code being produced to 

Samsung’s customers and competitors in the Carrier Cases. On the other hand, if the cases 

truly are closely related—as Cobblestone maintains when convenient for discovery 

motions—then Cobblestone is attempting to use party discovery obtained outside the 

purview of the Carrier Defendants against the Carriers in separate cases. And for source 

code, that still means that the documents would be cherry picked; Samsung made its source 

code available for inspection in its case only to Cobblestone, which means that any print 

outs of that code would be cherry picked evidence.

Cobblestone next argues that the Carriers and Samsung misapprehend its request. 

Cobblestone argues that it is not seeking discovery from foreign Samsung entities, it is just 

producing the documents it received from foreign Samsung entities that are now in the 

possession of Cobblestone’s outside counsel. Cobblestone’s argument is a semantic 

distinction without a difference. The bottom line is that Cobblestone wants to produce 

documents and source code from a foreign Samsung entity under the guise of party 

discovery without ever attempting to pursue that discovery in the right way in the Carrier 

Cases. Nor does Cobblestone raise any complaints about the discovery it obtained from 

Samsung USA in the Carrier Cases. Instead, Cobblestone attempts to recast its motion as 

a preemptive measure to avoid discovery disputes by asking the Court to waive the rules 

of discovery. The Court should decline Cobblestone’s request for a shortcut.

Finally, Cobblestone refuses to address the issues of consolidation and double 

recovery. The great irony in this position is that it occurs immediately after Cobblestone 

suggested that it was trying to streamline the cases. The Carriers have demanded—time 

and again—that Cobblestone explain how it is not setting up a potential double recovery 

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 51 Filed 03/21/24 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 855
3 

problem. The Carriers have also demanded—time and again—a cogent explanation of why 

it would not be far more efficient to have Cobblestone’s seven different actions 

consolidated in some fashion. Every time Cobblestone refuses to engage. Cobblestone’s 

current strategy will likely maximize confusion, witness inconvenience, and discovery 

burdens for the Carriers and Samsung. The Court should not countenance their efforts.

Dated: March 21, 2024 

/s/ David S. Frist 

David S. Frist 

David.Frist@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

1120 South Tryon Street 

Suite 300 

Charlotte, NC 28203 

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 AT&T Services, Inc., 

AT&T Corp., AT&T Mobility LLC, 

T-Mobile USA, Inc., and Cellco 

Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, 

Deron Dacus

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 51 Filed 03/21/24 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 856
4

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, 

Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon 

Wireless

Melissa R. Smith

melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com

Tom Gorham

tom@gillamsmithlaw.com

Gillam & Smith LLP

102 N. College, Suite 800

Tyler, TX 75702

903-934-8450

Fax: 903-934-9257

Attorneys for T-Mobile USA, Inc.

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 51 Filed 03/21/24 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 857
5 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

has been served on March 21, 2024, on the counsel of record via electronic mail. 

/s/ David S. Frist 

David S. Frist

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 51 Filed 03/21/24 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 858