1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

TRUESIGHT COMMUNICATIONS LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD and 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, 

INC.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 2:23-cv-00643-JRG

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PARTIALLY DISPUTED DISCOVERY ORDER

Plaintiff Truesight Communications LLC (“Truesight” or “Plaintiff”) and Defendants 

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively, “Samsung” 

or “Defendants”) (Plaintiff and Defendants collectively referred to as “the Parties”) hereby submit 

the Proposed Partially Disputed Discovery Order attached as Exhibit A. 

The Parties were able to reach agreement on nearly all provisions of the Discovery Order, 

but the Parties have one dispute related to Defendants’ Proposed Addition (highlighted in yellow 

below) that requires the Court’s intervention. The Parties disagree on whether certain language 

should be added to Section 5(c) regarding the minimum number of hours a deposition of Samsung 

witnesses residing in or having a principal place of employment in Korea should count against 

Plaintiff’s total allotted deposition hours. 

The Parties’ competing proposals and arguments in favor of their proposals are presented 

below:

Case 2:23-cv-00643-JRG Document 33 Filed 06/27/24 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 314
2

I. Section 5(c)

Fact Depositions of Parties: Each side may take up to 56 total hours[1] of deposition 

testimony of the other side. Depositions of experts, inventors, and third parties do not 

count against these limits. Absent a showing of good cause, each deposition will be limited 

to no more than one (1) day of seven (7) hours pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(1). Should 

a single witness be designated pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) to address voluminous noticed 

deposition topics, the seven-hour time limit under 30(d)(1) will not apply to such witness, 

but such deposition may still not exceed seven hours in one day, absent agreement of the 

parties. A deposition of a witness will count for at least a minimum of 2 hours even if the 

deposition does not exceed 2 hours. [Defendants’ Proposed Addition: Notwithstanding the 

preceding sentence, a deposition of a Defendants’ witness residing in or having a principal 

place of employment in Korea will count for at least a minimum of 4 hours, even if the 

deposition does not exceed 4 hours.] In-person depositions of witnesses shall be taken in 

the city where the witness resides or has a principal place of employment, or at a mutuallyagreed upon location. Virtual depositions (e.g., Zoom) shall be taken during regular 

business hours of the witness, and counsel defending a party witness during a virtual 

deposition will always be permitted to be in the same room as the deponent during the 

deposition.

II. Plaintiff’s Position

Plaintiff maintains that the inclusion of a minimum number of deposition hours where that 

deposition does not exceed that time is unnecessary, in view of the parties’ agreed total number of 

deposition hours. However, in an effort to reach compromise and present an Agreed Discovery 

Order to this Court, Plaintiff agreed to a two-hour minimum. Defendants now argue that it should 

be permitted to implement a four-hour minimum for any depositions of Korea-based witnesses, 

regardless of whether that deposition takes place in-person in Korea, and even where a deposition 

may not exceed four hours. A four-hour minimum is unnecessary, unduly restrictive, and 

extremely prejudicial, particularly where it is limited to Defendants’ Korea-based witnesses. This 

Court’s default protective order does not contain such restrictions and sufficiently allays any 

concerns regarding unnecessary or burdensome discovery. While Defendants argue there is a 

[1] For purposes of this Section 5, “hours” means hours on the record.

Case 2:23-cv-00643-JRG Document 33 Filed 06/27/24 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 315
3

“burden inherent in preparing for and taking/defending depositions in Korea,” Defendants would 

effectively penalize Plaintiff for efficiently conducting discovery and not wasting the time or 

resources of parties and witnesses.

Defendants’ proposals to Section 5 presents a prejudicial and unduly burdensome 

restriction on Plaintiff. Defendants should not be permitted to penalize Plaintiff for its discovery 

efforts and Plaintiff respectfully requests that Defendant’s proposal regarding the four-hour 

minimum hour requirement be denied. 

III. Defendant’s Position

Samsung proposes additional language that would add a 4-hour minimum counted time for 

depositions of Samsung witnesses residing in or having their principal place of employment in 

Korea. Samsung anticipates that Plaintiff will seek to depose multiple Samsung witnesses located 

in Korea. A heightened minimum for only these witnesses (i.e., beyond the agreed 2-hour 

minimum) is warranted in light of the additional burden imposed on Samsung in having its counsel 

travel to Korea, and prepare and defend depositions of Samsung witnesses in Korea. The requested 

4-hour minimum would require Plaintiff, who is permitted under this same provision of the 

Discovery Order to take Virtual depositions, to ensure it has substantive basis for such depositions 

(i.e., in consideration of the burden of time and expense that potentially only Samsung would have 

to incur) and avoid a scenario in which Plaintiff could conduct multiple virtual depositions of short 

duration with minimal consequence to Plaintiff. Of course, as needed, to the extent Plaintiff 

reasonably expends its time with a 4-hour minimum, Samsung would reasonably consider a 

request for additional deposition time in the future, as warranted.

Case 2:23-cv-00643-JRG Document 33 Filed 06/27/24 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 316
4

Dated: June 27, 2024

/s/ Jin-Suk Park

Jin-Suk Park

jin.park@arnoldporter.com

Ali R. Sharifahmadian

Ali.Sharifahmadian@arnoldporter.com 

Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP

601 Massachusetts Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20001-3743

Telephone: (202) 942-5000

Facsimile: (202) 942-5555

Melissa R. Smith 

State Bar No. 24001351 

GILLAM & SMITH, LLP 

303 South Washington Avenue 

Marshall, Texas 75670 

Telephone: (903) 934-8450 

Facsimile: (903) 934-9257 

Email: melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com 

Attorney for Defendants

Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd., and 

Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Vincent J. Rubino, III

Alfred R. Fabricant

NY Bar No. 2219392

Email: ffabricant@fabricantllp.com

Peter Lambrianakos

NY Bar No. 2894392

Email: plambrianakos@fabricantllp.com

Vincent J. Rubino, III

NY Bar No. 4557435

Email: vrubino@fabricantllp.com

FABRICANT LLP

411 Theodore Fremd Avenue

Suite 206 South

Rye, New York 10580

Telephone: (212) 257-5797

Facsimile: (212) 257-5796 

John Andrew Rubino

NY Bar No. 5020797

Email: jarubino@rubinoip.com

Michael Mondelli III

NY Bar No. 5805114

Email: mmondelli@rubinoip.com

RUBINO IP

51 J.F.K. Parkway

Short Hills, NJ 07078

Telephone: (973) 535-0920

Facsimile: (973) 535-0921

Samuel F. Baxter 

State Bar No. 01938000 

Email: sbaxter@mckoolsmith.com 

Jennifer L. Truelove 

State Bar No. 24012906 

Email: jtruelove@mckoolsmith.com 

MCKOOL SMITH, P.C. 

104 E. Houston Street, Suite 300 

Marshall, Texas 75670 

Telephone: (903) 923-9000 

Facsimile: (903) 923-9099

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF,

TRUESIGHT COMMUNICATIONS LLC

Case 2:23-cv-00643-JRG Document 33 Filed 06/27/24 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 317
5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that, on June 27, 2024, all counsel of record who are 

deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via 

the Court’s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3).

/s/ Vincent J. Rubino, III

 Vincent J. Rubino, III

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

The undersigned hereby certifies that counsel for Plaintiff has met and conferred with 

counsel for Defendants, and all parties have agreed to the form of the Dispute Discovery Order

submitted herewith. 

/s/ Vincent J. Rubino, III

 Vincent J. Rubino, III

Case 2:23-cv-00643-JRG Document 33 Filed 06/27/24 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 318