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 OPPOSED MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF ALL 

DISCOVERY WITHHELD PENDING MOTIE REVIEW

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 52 Filed 04/30/24 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 859
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1

II. FACTS: Samsung repeatedly ignored its deadlines, premised on MOTIE approval ......... 2

III. LAW: Courts Requires Production Despite Foreign Secrecy Laws................................... 3

IV. ARGUMENT: The Court Should Compel Immediate Production..................................... 4

A. Cobblestone has unfairly suffered from Samsung’s delay ........................................... 4

B. The Linde factors support production........................................................................... 4

C. Cobblestone intends to seek a tailored remedy should Samsung refuse....................... 5

V. CONCLUSION................................................................................................................... 6

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 52 Filed 04/30/24 Page 2 of 11 PageID #: 860
ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Linde v. Arab Bank, PLC,

18 of the U.S. Code. 269 F.R.D. 186 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) ...................................................... 3, 4, 6

Societe Internationale Pour Particpations Industrielles et Commerciales, S.A. v. Rogers, 

357 U.S. 197, 198–206 (1958)................................................................................................ 3, 5

Other Authorities

Translation of Act on Prevention of Divulgence and Protection of Industrial Technology, Center 

for Security and Emerging Technology (Apr. 27, 2024)............................................................ 1

Rules

Fed. R. Civ. P 37(b).................................................................................................................... 4, 6

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 52 Filed 04/30/24 Page 3 of 11 PageID #: 861
1

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Cobblestone respectfully moves the Court to compel the collective “Samsung” 

Defendants to immediately produce the source code used in the accused products, the technical 

documentation regarding the accused products, and respond to interrogatories about the technical 

operation of the accused products by May 31. Samsung is under a court order that required 

production of the source code and technical documents by December 27, 2023, and its responses 

to the technical interrogatories was due February 5, 2024. Dkt. 31 ¶ 3; Dkt. 39; P. R. 3-4. 

Samsung’s single, overarching objection is that it cannot produce the discovery ordered by this 

Court until the Korean Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy (MOTIE) reviews the materials and 

approves their export to the USA. See Translation of Act on Prevention of Divulgence and 

Protection of Industrial Technology, Center for Security and Emerging Technology (Apr. 27, 

2024), https://cset.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/t0521_industry_protection_EN.pdf

(translating the Korean law requiring MOTIE review).

While Cobblestone is sympathetic to foreign regulations, this Court’s power to order 

discovery is not subordinate to any foreign government ministry, including MOTIE. Samsung has 

proven that it can neither predict nor guarantee when, if ever, it will receive MOTIE approval. 

About 10 months have passed since the filing of this case, and four months since the technical 

production and source code were due. Samsung has had ample opportunity to pursue and obtain 

MOTIE approval, yet Cobblestone remains hindered in its discovery. 

Cobblestone simply cannot continue to wait. Accordingly, Cobblestone asks that the Court 

set a date by which Samsung must produce all source code, documents, and interrogatory 

responses being withheld pending MOTIE review.

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 52 Filed 04/30/24 Page 4 of 11 PageID #: 862
2

II. FACTS: Samsung repeatedly ignored its deadlines, premised on MOTIE 

approval

The documents and source code Cobblestone seeks in this motion were due December 27, 

2023. Dkt. 31 ¶ 3; Dkt. 39; P. R. 3-4. Samsung knew of this December 2023 deadline as early as 

August 17, 2023. See Dkt. 15 at 2; P. R. 3-4. Presumably, Samsung knew it needed MOTIE 

approval and should have and should have taken steps to meet its deadline. It remains unclear 

when Samsung chose to submit the information and materials to MOTIE, but it was not soon 

enough. In fact, the documents and source code still are pending MOTIE review. 

In the meantime, Cobblestone has repeatedly written to and met with Samsung about its 

MOTIE objection. In December 2023, Samsung first predicted that MOTIE review would 

complete in mid-January 2024. So, Cobblestone waited and followed up in February 2023. The 

parties met and conferred on March 1, 2024, when Samsung confirmed it was still awaiting 

MOTIE review. Cobblestone followed up again by email on March 7. On March 13, Samsung 

again confirmed that technical specifications and source code were being withheld pending 

MOTIE review, and that Samsung will only produce these once it receives MOTIE approval. 

Samsung further clarified that it has no control over MOTIE approval. Ex. A. On March 19, the 

parties’ lead and local counsel met and conferred. Cobblestone explained it could not keep waiting 

indefinitely for MOTIE approval and needed to move to compel. Samsung’s counsel 

acknowledged the conflict of laws but explained that its client was more beholden to the laws of 

Korea (which include criminal penalties) than to this Court, and Samsung offered to investigate 

the timeline. On March 26, Samsung estimated that “we will be making at least some of the source 

code available within a month.” Ex. B. Cobblestone followed up on April 23, but as of April 26, 

Cobblestone still has not been provided with the source code and technical documents owed in 

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 52 Filed 04/30/24 Page 5 of 11 PageID #: 863
3

December 2023. Rather, Samsung could only confirm that a MOTIE review session took place, 

but Samsung could not guarantee when or if MOTIE approval would occur. Ex. C.

III. LAW: Courts Requires Production Despite Foreign Secrecy Laws

The Supreme Court affirmed a district court’s discretion to compel discovery and issue

sanctions for noncompliance, even if foreign laws prohibit the discovery under criminal penalty. 

Societe Internationale Pour Particpations Industrielles et Commerciales, S.A. v. Rogers, 357 U.S. 

197, 198–206, 213 (1958). Under Societe Internationale, a party is deemed to have “control” over 

its documents for production, even when foreign laws prohibit export. Id. at 204-05. U.S. Courts 

are not beholden to laws, control, or interests of foreign countries. See id. at 205. 

Similarly, in Linde v. Arab Bank, PLC, a party refused production due to foreign bank 

secrecy laws, but the Court held that “that defendant’s foreign bank secrecy concerns must yield 

to United States interests” in enforcing chapter 18 of the U.S. Code. 269 F.R.D. 186, 193 (E.D.N.Y. 

2010). The Court evaluated five factors in deciding whether to compel production of information 

abroad, including: (1) “the importance to the investigation or litigation of the documents or other 

information requested;” (2) “the degree of specificity of the request;” (3) “whether the information 

originated in the United States;” (4) “the availability of alternative means of securing information;” 

and (5) “the extent to which noncompliance with the request would undermine important interests 

of the United States, or compliance with the request would undermine important interests of the 

state where the information is located.” Id. at 193. After allowing some time for the party to make 

a production, the Court issued sanctions. Id. at 193–94. 

Collectively, these two cases make clear that the discovery obligations imposed by U.S. 

Courts are not further subject to the control of foreign governments. Samsung’s objection to 

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 52 Filed 04/30/24 Page 6 of 11 PageID #: 864
4

producing code, technical documents, and interrogatory responses due to MOTIE review should 

be overruled.1

IV. ARGUMENT: The Court Should Compel Immediate Production

A. Cobblestone has unfairly suffered from Samsung’s delay

Samsung’s delay in producing the source code and technical information for the accused 

products has put Cobblestone at a severe disadvantage. It was due back in December 2023. It is 

now May 2024, with discovery closing in November 2024. Cobblestone has lost over four months 

of time for reviewing the code, consulting with its experts, conducting infringement analysis, 

translating and reviewing Korean documents, conducting follow up incomplete discovery,

preparing supplemental discovery, preparing to depose Samsung’s technical witnesses, and issuing 

third party subpoenas where appropriate. 

Samsung cannot even guarantee that it will receive MOTIE approval, much less accurately 

predict when this will occur. Indeed, Samsung’s predictions have proven inaccurate since midJanuary. Cobblestone has already waited over four months due to Samsung’s inaccurate 

predictions on the timing of MOTIE approval.

B. The Linde factors support production

Four of the five Linde factors support a decision to compel production. Under factor (1), 

Samsung should be compelled to produce the source code and technical documents because they 

are important, if not necessary, to prove infringement in patent cases. Factor (2) supports 

1 Deciding an appropriate remedy, were Cobblestone left without the evidence it needs for its case, 

is a question for another day. Remedies may include deeming facts established, permitting adverse 

inferences, striking pleadings, prohibiting arguments or evidence, or entering an order of contempt. 

Linde, 269 F.R.D. at 198, 202, 204; Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b). For now, Cobblestone seeks only an 

order with a specific date by which Samsung must produce the information. If Samsung disobeys 

this order, then Samsung’s noncompliance will provide context for fashioning a remedy or 

sanctions. 

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 52 Filed 04/30/24 Page 7 of 11 PageID #: 865
5

production because the requests are specific (source code, technical documents, and withheld 

interrogatory responses that Samsung has specifically objected to as requiring MOTIE approval) 

and contemplated by the Court’s standing orders. The parties do not dispute the scope of what is 

being withheld pending MOTIE approval. Factor (3) is neutral because the source code may not 

have originated in the United States, but products executing the source code are in the United 

States. Factor (4) favors production because there are no alternative means of securing information.

Factor (5) favors production because withholding the documents would undermine this Court’s 

important interests in enforcing the patent laws of the United States. Moreover, this Court’s 

discovery power and its ability to set production deadlines are not beholden MOTIE or any other 

foreign entity. Subjugating the Court’s discovery power to a foreign ministry will set bad policy 

for future cases.

Potential criminal penalties in a foreign country are not an excuse for non-production. 

Linde at 206 (“I have already rejected defendant's argument that the potential for criminal 

prosecution weighs against non-production); see Societe Internationale, 357 U.S. at 211–12 (but 

fear of criminal prosecution weighs against the more severe sanction of outright dismissal).

For these reasons, the Court should order that Samsung’s MOTIE objections are overruled, 

and that it should produce all discovery withheld pending MOTIE approval by May 31.

2

C. Cobblestone intends to seek a tailored remedy should Samsung refuse

Samsung’s counsel has indicated that if forced to pick between complying with this Court’s 

order and complying with MOTIE obligations, Samsung intends to comply with MOTIE due to its

criminal penalties. If that occurs, Cobblestone intends to pursue a remedy tailored to Samsung’s 

2 During earlier meet-and-confers, Samsung assured Cobblestone that the production was ready to 

go once MOTIE approval was received. More recently, Samsung backtracked and indicated it 

would need an additional two weeks after MOTIE approval. Samsung cannot keep delaying 

discovery that is already four months late.

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 52 Filed 04/30/24 Page 8 of 11 PageID #: 866
6

noncompliance pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 37(b), including establishing facts, prohibiting or 

striking claims or defenses, finding contempt, and awarding fees. Generally, Cobblestone will seek 

similar remedies to those issued in Linde, including instructing the jury that it may infer 

infringement from Samsung’s withholding of discovery, precluding Samsung from relying on the 

discovery that it withheld, and attorney and expert fees stemming from Samsung’s noncompliance. 

269 F.R.D. at 202, 204.

V. CONCLUSION

For these reasons, plaintiff respectfully requests the Court to overrule Samsung’s discovery 

objections based on MOTIE approval and order that Samsung immediately produce all discovery 

being withheld pending MOTIE approval by May 31, 2024. 

Dated: April 30, 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

Qi (Peter) Tong

TX State Bar No. 24119042

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 52 Filed 04/30/24 Page 9 of 11 PageID #: 867
7

RUSS AUGUST & KABAT

4925 Greenville Ave., Suite 200

Dallas, TX 75206

Email: ptong@raklaw.com

Andrea Fair 

Ward Smith & Hill, PLLC

1507 Bill Owens Parkway

Longview, Texas 75604

(903) 757-6400

andrea@wsfirm.com

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF,

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 52 Filed 04/30/24 Page 10 of 11 PageID #: 868
8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on April 30, 2024, I electronically filed the foregoing document with 

the Clerk of the Court for the Eastern District of Texas using the ECF System, and served 

defendants with a copy via electronic mail.

/s/ Reza Mirzaie

Reza Mirzaie 

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I hereby certify that counsel for Plaintiff has complied with the meet and confer 

requirement in Local Rule CV-7(h) by meeting and conferring with counsel for Defendants on 

March 19, 2024. For Cobblestone, Reza Mirzaie, Peter Tong, Matthew Aichele, and Andrea Fair, 

attended the conference. For Samsung, Olga Slobodyanyuk, Sean Pak, and Melissa Smith attended 

the conference. No agreement could be reached because Samsung will not produce the underlying 

discovery without MOTIE approval, and the parties are at an impasse.

/s/ Reza Mirzaie

Reza Mirzaie

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 52 Filed 04/30/24 Page 11 of 11 PageID #: 869