IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

SPORTSCASTR INC.

(d/b/a PANDA INTERACTIVE),

Plaintiff, 

v.

SPORTRADAR GROUP, AG, and

SPORTRADAR AG,

Defendant. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-00472-JRG

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

SPORTSCASTR INC. 

(d/b/a PANDA INTERACTIVE),

Plaintiff,

v.

GENIUS SPORTS LTD.,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-00471-JRG

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

JOINT STATUS REPORT REGARDING 

MOTIONS TO COMPEL BETWEEN PANDA AND GENIUS SPORTS

Case 2:23-cv-00471-JRG Document 75 Filed 10/25/24 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 3530
1 

Pursuant to the Court’s Order (Dkt. 72), Plaintiff Sportscastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA 

Interactive) (“PANDA”) and Defendant Genius Sports Ltd. (“Genius Sports”) hereby provide the 

following status report regarding their respective motions to compel (2:23-cv-471, Dkt. 51; id., 

Dkt. 57). The parties met and conferred on October 21 and 22. 

I. Genius Sport’s Motion to Compel (-471 Dkt. 51) 

The parties have met and conferred and remain at impasse. Each party maintains their 

position as set forth in the briefing. Provided below is each parties’ respective status update. 

A. Genius Sports’ Position 

PANDA’s discovery conduct has followed a similar pattern: agree to fix deficiencies by 

specific deadlines, miss those deadlines, and then serve facially deficient supplements after the 

deadline passes. That same conduct not only gave rise to Genius Sports’ motion to compel, it 

permeates PANDA’s supplements. PANDA’s continued refusal to keep its commitments proves 

the parties are at an impasse. Court intervention is necessary. 

Financials: Genius Sports asked PANDA to produce its financials four times over four 

months. Each time, PANDA assured Genius Sports it would eventually produce its financials. 

Finally, in September, PANDA let the cat out of the bag, admitting it had not even collected its 

financial data—despite it having brought this case nearly a year ago. PANDA’s repeated failure 

to keep its commitments proves the parties are at an impasse and that court intervention is 

necessary to ensure PANDA adheres to its discovery obligations. Indeed, after Genius Sports 

moved to compel, PANDA began producing financial data. Even then, its production falls far 

short of what it promised. 191 of the 214 excels PANDA produced were exact or near duplicates

(as is over 50% of its entire document production), and PANDA has not produced: documents 

showing (a) the products from which PANDA earns revenue; (b) the customers from which 

Case 2:23-cv-00471-JRG Document 75 Filed 10/25/24 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 3531
2 

PANDA earns revenue; and (c) the costs associated with the products from which PANDA earns 

revenue.1 

Interrogatory Nos. 4, 6, and 19: Genius Sports raised PANDA’s deficient responses and 

the prejudiced caused by these deficiencies on July 15. On three separate occasions, PANDA 

agreed to supplement its responses, but failed to keep its commitments, again proving the parties 

were at an impasse. After Genius Sports moved to compel, PANDA finally provided additional 

responses, but these responses failed to address the issues raised on the parties’ meet-and-confers 

and Genius Sports’ motion to compel. 

• Interrogatory No. 4: PANDA’s response fails to explain why PANDA believes the Accused 

Product includes a socket server or uses event sockets. It merely cites to PANDA’s 

infringement contentions, the declaration of Dr. Shamos, and PANDA’s forthcoming (nonexistent) claim construction brief. None of those documents provide a narrative response 

explaining how any Accused Product includes a “socket server” or uses “event sockets.” 

PANDA must explain what in the Accused Products allegedly meets these claim elements.

• Interrogatory No. 6: PANDA’s supplement does not provide when it became aware of the 

alleged infringement. It says PANDA became aware of “potential” infringement “no later than 

April 2023.” PANDA’s response, however, fails to identify the products PANDA believed 

infringed “no later than April 2023,” nor does it provide sufficient detail regarding when 

PANDA engaged outside counsel to investigate the alleged infringement. Those facts are not 

privileged.

• Interrogatory No. 19: In its opposition, PANDA told the Court it supplemented Interrogatory 

19 on July 20. Not so. Genius Sports informed PANDA of its incorrect representation to the 

Court. PANDA has still failed to inform the Court that it never supplemented its response 

to Interrogatory No. 19 on July 20. The only supplement PANDA provided was on September 

23 (after Genius Sports filed its motion to compel) and that supplement fails to address the 

communications PANDA has relied on in this case. PANDA previously stated to the Court 

that there were “instances where Defendant’s employees have accessed PANDA’s patented 

products and received detailed presentations of the patented technologies by PANDA’s 

officers.” -471 Dkt. 46 at 1. Yet, PANDA has not identified these. PANDA must come 

forward with its full basis for the parties’ prior communications and alleged demonstrations of 

its products. There is no reason for PANDA to continue withholding this information. 

1

 In fact, PANDA’s most recent production, which it withheld until October 22, shows that 

PANDA uses QuickBooks to track its financials, yet PANDA has produced just one export 

from its QuickBooks system. 

Case 2:23-cv-00471-JRG Document 75 Filed 10/25/24 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 3532
3 

Court intervention is necessary to compel PANDA to correct these deficiencies. 

B. PANDA’s Position

At the outset, Genius’s continued rhetoric and attacks against PANDA and its counsel are 

inaccurate and unhelpful. PANDA has engaged in discovery in good faith and continues to do so. 

Its continued production and supplementation—and its attempts to resolve disputes without Court 

intervention—is evidence of that good faith and what is expected of parties in any litigation. 

Before Genius filed its motion, PANDA agreed to provide the financial information Genius 

sought and to supplement its interrogatories. There was no impasse. PANDA then explained in its 

opposition the extensive financial information it had produced that mooted the motion. Dkt. 68. 

PANDA has since made multiple requests that Genius withdraw its motion and offered to meet 

and confer with Genius if there was any additional information Genius wanted. Genius refused. 

Nevertheless, since the motion was filed, PANDA continued to provide discovery, 

including producing additional financial documents and serving supplemental interrogatory 

responses—exactly what it agreed to do before Genius filed its motion. 

Genius’s latest set of complaints were set forth in an October 10 letter to PANDA (“Genius 

Letter”). PANDA explained in a letter on October 18 (“PANDA Letter”) that, based on the prior 

productions, its subsequent productions, and its continued commitment to provide relevant 

discovery, that further attention to this issue by the Court is not merited. The status of discovery 

in response to Genius’s latest complaints are as follows:

• Interrogatory No. 4. Genius continues to demand “a narrative response explaining why it 

believes the Accused Product includes a ‘socket server’ or uses ‘event sockets’ as alleged in 

the Complaint.” Genius Letter at 3. But PANDA gave them just that. Since Genius filed its 

motion, PANDA amended its infringement contentions with detailed source code citations and 

technical documents, and provided an expert declaration on the claim construction for “event 

socket.” PANDA’s ROG response explains in plain English “why [PANDA] believes the 

Accused Product includes a ‘socket server’ or uses ‘event sockets.’” PANDA Ltr. at 2. 

Case 2:23-cv-00471-JRG Document 75 Filed 10/25/24 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 3533
4 

• Interrogatory No. 6. Genius asserts that PANDA has failed to identify “when and how it 

became aware of the alleged infringement with respect to each accused product and each 

asserted patent.” Genius Letter at 5. Not true. Since Genius filed its motion, PANDA identified 

the dates it became aware of Genius’s infringement. Genius criticizes PANDA’s response for 

failing to include “when it engaged outside counsel and began investigating the alleged 

infringement, and when it concluded its investigation.” Id. Genius’s ROG does not request this 

information, nor does PANDA agree that this information would be non-privileged. 

• Interrogatory No. 19. Genius now insists on “a narrative response explaining who at PANDA 

communicated with Genius Sports’ executives in or around 2018, the dates those 

communications took place, and the communications PANDA employees had with Genius 

Sports’ executives.” Id. at 6. Genius has all this information already. Since Genius filed its 

motion, PANDA amended its response to incorporate the communications it is aware of 

between the parties, which were produced in July. Genius’s only complaint was that “Genius 

Sports asked PANDA to identify the specific individuals at PANDA involved in those 

discussions and provide any documents it has in its possession relating to this Interrogatory or 

relied on in drafting its response to this Interrogatory.” Genius 7/29 Letter. PANDA’s response 

properly invokes Rule 33(d). The information Genius seeks “may be determined by 

examining” the cited documents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d). 

• PANDA’s Financial Documents. Genius demands more “documents sufficient to show 

PANDA’s actual sales data and more granular detail regarding PANDA’s revenue in its 

P&Ls.” Genius Letter at 7. But since briefing was complete, PANDA has produced additional 

financial data showing on a monthly basis all revenue for all practicing products, profits and 

loss statements, transaction level details showing individual customers, products, and revenue, 

as well as projections, costs, and other financial data that can be used to determine profits.

PANDA is not aware of anything left to produce since it has given everything Genius asked 

for and more. Conversely, Genius has not provided this level of detailed financial information. 

II. PANDA’s Motion to Compel (-471 Dkt. 57) 

The parties agree that their positions as set forth in the PANDA’s motion to compel and 

Genius Sport’s response thereto have not changed. The parties remain at impasse and respectfully 

submit that the issue is ripe for the Court’s consideration. 

A. PANDA’s Position

Since filing the Motion to Compel, Genius has not produced a single additional financial 

document or amended a single ROG response. On the October 21 meet and confer, Genius stood 

Case 2:23-cv-00471-JRG Document 75 Filed 10/25/24 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 3534
5

on its position that it need not produce financials and other documents for all of the Accused 

Products. Instead, it maintained that it need only provide discovery for products it has unilaterally 

defined as Live Video Streaming (“LVS”) Products, including limiting its revenue to that which it 

characterizes as “streaming.” Genius therefore concedes that it is limiting discovery based on its 

non-infringement arguments and is not providing full discovery for all Accused Products—

including those products that are expressly identified and charted in PANDA’s infringement 

contentions. Given the parties’ positions, there is no ground for compromise and the Court’s 

assistance is needed to permit full discovery of all the Accused Products.

B. Genius Sports’ Position

PANDA has continuously and repeatedly told the Court and Genius Sports that its patents 

relate to “improve[ments] on traditional video streaming systems” (-471 Dkt. 1 ¶38; -471 Dkt. 56 

¶71), and that the Accused Products are “products that provide and implement video streaming 

platforms.” -471 Dkt. 1 ¶57; -471 Dkt. 56 ¶91. The only video streaming products Genius Sports 

has are its Live Video Streaming Products (“LVS Products”). Genius Sports produced all US 

revenues associated with LVS Products as well as details showing the Genius Sports entity that 

recognizes those revenues. PANDA, unsatisfied with those revenues, now wants to go on a fishing 

expedition through all of Genius Sports’ revenues—even if they have nothing to do with video 

streaming. PANDA claims Genius Sports has limited discovery based on its non-infringement 

contentions. That is wrong. And while PANDA’s infringement contentions remain deficient for 

multiple reasons, by its own admission, the only products it has accused are “products that provide 

and implement video streaming platforms.” PANDA is asking this Court to order production of 

revenues from products that PANDA has not accused of infringement so that PANDA may 

artificially skew the damages horizon. The Court should reject PANDA’s invitation. 

Case 2:23-cv-00471-JRG Document 75 Filed 10/25/24 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 3535
6 

Dated: October 25, 2024

By: /s/James Lomeo

Jeanne M. Heffernan

TBN 24128395 

James John Lomeo 

TBN 24118993 

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP

401 Congress Avenue 

Austin, TX 78701 

(512) 678-9100 

jheffernan@kirkland.com 

james.lomeo@kirkland.com 

Joshua L. Simmons (admitted pro hac 

vice) 

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP

601 Lexington Avenue 

New York, NY 10022 

(212) 446-4800 

joshua.simmons@kirkland.com 

Patrick Arnett (admitted pro hac vice) 

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP

1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20004 

(202) 389-5000 

patrick.arnett@kirkland.com 

Attorneys for Defendant Genius Sports 

Ltd.

Respectfully submitted:

By: /s/Mark D. Siegmund 

Christopher C. Campbell (DC No. 444262) 

ccampbell@kslaw.com 

Ryan A. Schmid (admitted pro hac vice) 

rschmid@kslaw.com 

KING & SPALDING LLP 

1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Suite 200 

Washington, DC 20006 

(202) 626-5578 

Britton F. Davis (admitted pro hac vice) 

bfdavis@kslaw.com 

KING & SPALDING LLP

1401 Lawrence Street, Suite 1900 

Denver, CO 80202 

(720) 535-1200 

Matthew D. Wood (#24110548) 

mwood@kslaw.com 

KING & SPALDING LLP

500 West 2nd Street, Suite 1800 

Austin, TX 78701 

(512) 457-2000 

Mark D. Siegmund (TX No. 24117055) 

msiegmund@cjsjlaw.com

CHERRY JOHNSON SIEGMUND JAMES, 

PLLC

7901 Fish Pond Road 

Waco, Texas 76710 

(254) 732-2242 

Greg Love (TX No. 24013060) 

glove@cjsjlaw.com 

CHERRY JOHNSON SIEGMUND JAMES, 

PLLC

107 E. Main Street 

Henderson, Texas 75652 

(903) 212-4444 

William D. Ellerman (TX No. 24007151) 

wellerman@cjsjlaw.com

Case 2:23-cv-00471-JRG Document 75 Filed 10/25/24 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 3536
7 

Ari Rafilson (TX No. 24060456)

arafilson@cjsjlaw.com

Brett Mangrum (TX No. 24065671) 

bmangrum@cjsjlaw.com

CHERRY JOHNSON SIEGMUND JAMES 

PLLC

8140 Walnut Hill Lane, Suite 830 

Dallas, Texas 75231 

(254) 732-2242 

Attorneys for SportsCastr Inc.

Case 2:23-cv-00471-JRG Document 75 Filed 10/25/24 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 3537