IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

MULLEN INDUSTRIES LLC,

Plaintiff,

v. 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., and 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, 

INC.,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-cv-00049-JRG

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 

Before the Court is the Motion to Quash the Samsung Defendants’ Venue Deposition 

Notices to the Extent they Seek Third-Party Confidential Information (the “Motion to Quash”) 

filed by Plaintiff Mullen Industries LLC (“Plaintiff”). (Dkt. No. 41.) Having considered the Motion 

to Quash and related briefing, the Court finds that it should be and hereby is GRANTED-INPART and DENIED-IN-PART, as set forth herein.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed this lawsuit against Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung 

Electronics America, Inc.’s (collectively, “Defendants”) on January 26, 2024, asserting patent 

infringement. (Dkt. No. 1.) On July 19, 2024, Defendants filed a Motion to Transfer Venue to the 

Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (the “Motion to Transfer”). (Dkt. No. 

37.) Thereafter, the parties agreed to conduct limited venue discovery. (Dkt. Nos. 39, 40.) 

Plaintiff filed the Motion to Quash on September 26, 2024, seeking to quash certain of 

Defendants’ noticed venue deposition topics to the extent they seek confidential third-party 

information. (Dkt. No. 41 at 1.) According to Defendants, the specific topics Plaintiff seeks to 

Case 2:24-cv-00049-JRG Document 45 Filed 11/08/24 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 1060
2

quash are Topics 7 and 8 (collectively, “Topics”) in Defendants’ Rule 30(b)(6) venue deposition 

notice. (Dkt. No. 42 at 1.) The Topics seek information regarding Jeffrey D. Mullen’s business or 

employment related travel to California and Jeffrey D. Mullen’s business relationships or 

employment with any company located in California. (See Dkt. No. 42-2.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 26(b)(1) governs the scope of discovery, providing that “[p]arties may obtain 

discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense” or 

“appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(b)(1). As the Fifth Circuit has repeatedly instructed, “[a] district court has broad discretion in 

all discovery matters, and such discretion will not be disturbed ordinarily unless there are unusual 

circumstances showing a clear abuse.” Beattie v. Madison Cnty. Sch. Dist., 254 F.3d 595, 606 (5th 

Cir. 2001). Once the moving party establishes that the materials requested are within the scope of 

permissible discovery, the burden shifts to the party resisting discovery to show why the discovery 

is irrelevant, overly broad, or unduly burdensome or oppressive, and thus should not be permitted. 

See SSL Servs., LLC v. Citrix Sys., Inc., 2010 WL 547478, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 10, 2010).

III. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff asserts that these Topics improperly seek confidential information regarding thirdparty Dynamics Inc. and other third parties. (Dkt. No. 41 at 2.) Plaintiff argues that this information 

is irrelevant to Defendants’ Motion to Transfer. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff asserts that these Topics amount 

to harassment “because Samsung has waived its ability to rely on these subjects in connection with 

Samsung’s motion to transfer venue because Samsung did not do so in its motion.” (Id.) Plaintiff 

does not object to limiting the Topics to the business of Plaintiff Mullen Industries LLC or 

regarding the asserted patents. (Id. at 3.)

Case 2:24-cv-00049-JRG Document 45 Filed 11/08/24 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 1061
3

Defendants assert that the Topics do not seek third-party confidential information. (Dkt. 

No. 42 at 1.) Defendants contend that the Topics merely seek information “about Jeffrey Mullen, 

the founder and CEO of Plaintiff Mullen Industries LLC and the sole named inventor of all nine 

patents-in-suit.” (Id. at 1-2.) Defendants argue that “Mr. Mullen’s presence in California on behalf 

of any entity, including Dynamics, is relevant” to its Motion to Transfer, which Defendants could 

not have included in their Motion to Transfer due to the lack of venue discovery before the filing.

(Id. at 3-5.) Defendants argue that “[i]f Mr. Mullen is regularly in California or keeps other 

addresses in the state—regardless of whether that is because of his work with Mullen Industries or 

other businesses that he owns or operates—then the NDCA would be more convenient for him 

than here in Texas.” (Id. at 3.)

The Court is persuaded that the Topics seek information beyond what is relevant to 

Defendants’ Motion to Transfer. Specifically, the Court does not find that the frequency Mr. 

Mullen is in California on behalf of third-party entities is relevant to Defendants’ Motion to 

Transfer. Instead, what is relevant to a Section 1404(a) analysis is the location of Plaintiff Mullen 

Industries LLC and the location of Mr. Mullen. The fact that Mr. Mullen may regularly travel to 

California for matters unrelated to the operations of Mullen Industries LLC is irrelevant to a 

Section 1404(a) analysis. 

Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendants may seek venue discovery regarding Plaintiff 

Mullen Industries LLC, the asserted patents, and the conduct of Jeffrey D. Mullen on behalf of 

Mullen Industries LLC. However, Defendants are not permitted to seek venue discovery regarding 

third-party Dynamics Inc., other third parties, or the conduct of Jeffrey D. Mullen unrelated to 

Mullen Industries LLC. See In re Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d 201, 203 (5th Cir. 2004) (identifying 

the non-exhaustive list of private and public interest factors the Court considers in evaluating a 

Case 2:24-cv-00049-JRG Document 45 Filed 11/08/24 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 1062
4

motion to transfer pursuant to Section 1404(a)).

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash (Dkt. No. 41) is GRANTEDIN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendants’ noticed 

venue deposition topics are QUASHED to the extent they seek information regarding Dynamics 

Inc., other third parties, or the conduct of Jeffrey D. Mullen unrelated to Mullen Industries LLC, 

but not otherwise.

.

____________________________________

RODNEY GILSTRAP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE So ORDERED and SIGNED this 8th day of November, 2024.

Case 2:24-cv-00049-JRG Document 45 Filed 11/08/24 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 1063