IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION 

) 

MYCHOICE, LLC, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

TAW, INC., ) 

) 

Defendant. ) 

) 

Civil Action No. 2:23 -cv-00507-JRG-RSP 

JOINT REPORT ON DISCOVERY CONFERENCE 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

____________________________________ 

) 

MYCHOICE, LLC, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-00507-JRG-RSP 

v. ) 

) 

TAIV, INC., ) 

) 

Defendant. ) 

____________________________________) 

JOINT REPORT ON DISCOVERY CONFERENCE 

Case 2:23-cv-00507-JRG-RSP Document 40 Filed 11/06/24 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:

651
Pursuant to the Discovery Order ¶ 9(c), the parties conferred via video conference 

regarding the discovery issues presented in Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Dkt. No. 37) set 

for hearing on November 15, 2024, at 3 pm before Magistrate Judge Roy Payne. The 

conference was held on November 5, 2024, and attended by lead and local counsel for the 

parties. The parties discussed the following issues with no agreement reached at this time. 

(1) Taiv's Proposed On-Site Inspection of Electronic and Paper Records 

Plaintiff's Statement: Plaintiff inquired whether any of Defendant's electronic and paper 

records have been or would be segregated. Defendant would not agree to segregate 

responsive records insisting that Plaintiff must search for and find any relevant responsive 

records, after which they would be processed by Defendant for production. Regarding 

electronic records, Plaintiff asked Defendant to identify the repositories where responsive 

electronic records are maintained, how access would be provided, and whether Taiv would 

allow remotely accessing any such repositories. Defendant did not know what electronic 

repositories include responsive documents, the manner in which access would be provided, 

or whether Taiv would allow remotely accessing any such repositories. 

Defendant's Statement: MyChoice's overbroad requests implicate nearly every document 

in the company. Accordingly, it has proposed an on-site inspection of its document 

repositories. In response to MyChoice's November 5 request, Taiv provided a list of 

proposed repositories for MyChoice's in-person inspection and proposed a protocol for that 

review in which it would identify and provide access to the location of each category of 

document that counsel for MyChoice requests during the review. Taiv is not willing to 

provide remote access to all of its private corporate documents for entirely reasonable 

security concerns. With respect to paper records, Taiv is not aware of any relevant, 

1 1

Pursuant to the Discovery Order ¶ 9(c), the parties conferred via video conference 

regarding the discovery issues presented in Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Dkt. No. 37) set 

for hearing on November 15, 2024, at 3 pm before Magistrate Judge Roy Payne. The 

conference was held on November 5, 2024, and attended by lead and local counsel for the 

parties. The parties discussed the following issues with no agreement reached at this time. 

(1) Taiv’s Proposed On-Site Inspection of Electronic and Paper Records 

Plaintiff’s Statement: Plaintiff inquired whether any of Defendant’s electronic and paper 

records have been or would be segregated. Defendant would not agree to segregate 

responsive records insisting that Plaintiff must search for and find any relevant responsive 

records, after which they would be processed by Defendant for production. Regarding 

electronic records, Plaintiff asked Defendant to identify the repositories where responsive 

electronic records are maintained, how access would be provided, and whether Taiv would 

allow remotely accessing any such repositories. Defendant did not know what electronic 

repositories include responsive documents, the manner in which access would be provided, 

or whether Taiv would allow remotely accessing any such repositories. 

Defendant’s Statement: MyChoice’s overbroad requests implicate nearly every document 

in the company. Accordingly, it has proposed an on-site inspection of its document 

repositories. In response to MyChoice’s November 5 request, Taiv provided a list of 

proposed repositories for MyChoice’s in-person inspection and proposed a protocol for that 

review in which it would identify and provide access to the location of each category of 

document that counsel for MyChoice requests during the review. Taiv is not willing to 

provide remote access to all of its private corporate documents for entirely reasonable 

security concerns. With respect to paper records, Taiv is not aware of any relevant, 

Case 2:23-cv-00507-JRG-RSP Document 40 Filed 11/06/24 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:

652
responsive, and non-duplicative paper documents. 

(2) Taiv USA Responsive Documents in Defendant's Possession 

Plaintiff's Statement: Defendant would not agree to produce records in its possession that 

are allegedly the documents of its wholly owned subsidiary, Taiv USA, including without 

limitation Taiv USA's yearend financial records. 

Defendant's Statement: Taiv has already produced detailed financial information from its 

accounting systems that includes: information regarding the revenues received by both Taiv 

and non-party Taiv USA, detailed profit and loss statements for both Taiv Inc. and Taiv 

USA, and year end financial statements of Taiv, Inc.. Plaintiff has not identified any 

financial information it lacks but contends that needs additional statements to confirm that 

the numbers produced from Taiv's financial systems are accurate, a topic best addressed via 

a 30(b)(6) deposition. 

(3) Review of Defendant's Source Code 

Plaintiff's Statement: Defendant insists that its source code will only be produced at its 

counsel's office in San Francisco and will not agree to any process for Plaintiff to remotely 

review that code. 

Defendant's Statement: As Taiv has previously stated to MyChoice, it is willing to 

arrange for remote review of its code if such review is secure and MyChoice bears the cost 

of that remote review. Other than the insecure TeamViewer software, MyChoice has not 

proposed any alternative for Taiv to consider. Taiv pointed out to MyChoice that counsel 

do not have a Texas office at which to provide the code, and Taiv should not be obligated to 

hire additional counsel merely because MyChoice does not want to review its code. 

2 2

responsive, and non-duplicative paper documents.

(2) Taiv USA Responsive Documents in Defendant’s Possession 

Plaintiff’s Statement: Defendant would not agree to produce records in its possession that 

are allegedly the documents of its wholly owned subsidiary, Taiv USA, including without 

limitation Taiv USA’s yearend financial records. 

Defendant’s Statement: Taiv has already produced detailed financial information from its 

accounting systems that includes: information regarding the revenues received by both Taiv 

and non-party Taiv USA, detailed profit and loss statements for both Taiv Inc. and Taiv 

USA, and year end financial statements of Taiv, Inc.. Plaintiff has not identified any 

financial information it lacks but contends that needs additional statements to confirm that 

the numbers produced from Taiv’s financial systems are accurate, a topic best addressed via 

a 30(b)(6) deposition.

(3) Review of Defendant’s Source Code 

Plaintiff’s Statement: Defendant insists that its source code will only be produced at its 

counsel’s office in San Francisco and will not agree to any process for Plaintiff to remotely 

review that code. 

Defendant’s Statement: As Taiv has previously stated to MyChoice, it is willing to 

arrange for remote review of its code if such review is secure and MyChoice bears the cost 

of that remote review. Other than the insecure TeamViewer software, MyChoice has not 

proposed any alternative for Taiv to consider. Taiv pointed out to MyChoice that counsel 

do not have a Texas office at which to provide the code, and Taiv should not be obligated to 

hire additional counsel merely because MyChoice does not want to review its code. 

Case 2:23-cv-00507-JRG-RSP Document 40 Filed 11/06/24 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:

653
Respectfully submitted, 

Dated: November 6, 2024 

/s /Michael C. Gilleran 

Michael C. Gilleran 

(Mass. BBO No. 192210) 

Pro hac vice allowed 

michael.gilleran@fisherbroyles.com 

FISHERBROYLES, LLP 

75 State Street, Suite 100, PMB 4418 

Boston, Massachusetts 02109 

Direct: 781.489.5680 

Mobile: 339.237.1384 

LEAD ATTORNEY 

Chris P. Perque 

Texas State Bar No. 24005828 

FisherBroyles, LLP 

2925 Richmond Ave., Suite 1200 

Houston, TX 77098 

Phone: 832.604.4417 

Facsimile: 832.377.5929 

Email: chris.perque@fisherbroyles.com 

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF, 

MYCHOICE LLC 

Respectfully submitted, 

Is/ Ryan J. Marton 

Ryan J. Marton (Admitted E.D. Tex.) 

ryan@martonribera.com 

Phil Haack (Admitted E.D. Tex.) 

phaack@martonribera.com 

Hector Ribera (Admitted E.D. Tex.) 

hector@martonribera.com 

Carolyn Chang (Admitted E.D. Tex.) 

carolyn@martonribera.com 

MARTON RIBERA SCHUMANN & 

CHANG LLP 

548 Market Street, Suite 36117 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

415-360-2514 

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT 

TAIV, INC. 

3 3

Dated: November 6, 2024 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s / Michael C. Gilleran

Michael C. Gilleran 

(Mass. BBO No. 192210) 

Pro hac vice allowed 

michael.gilleran@fisherbroyles.com 

FISHERBROYLES, LLP 

75 State Street, Suite 100, PMB 4418 

Boston, Massachusetts 02109 

Direct: 781.489.5680 

Mobile: 339.237.1384 

LEAD ATTORNEY 

Chris P. Perque 

Texas State Bar No. 24005828 

FisherBroyles, LLP 

2925 Richmond Ave., Suite 1200 

Houston, TX 77098 

Phone: 832.604.4417 

Facsimile: 832.377.5929 

Email: chris.perque@fisherbroyles.com

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF, 

MYCHOICE LLC

Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/ Ryan J. Marton 

Ryan J. Marton (Admitted E.D. Tex.) 

ryan@martonribera.com

Phil Haack (Admitted E.D. Tex.) 

phaack@martonribera.com 

Hector Ribera (Admitted E.D. Tex.) 

hector@martonribera.com

Carolyn Chang (Admitted E.D. Tex.)

carolyn@martonribera.com 

MARTON RIBERA SCHUMANN & 

CHANG LLP 

548 Market Street, Suite 36117 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

415-360-2514 

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT 

TAIV, INC. 

Case 2:23-cv-00507-JRG-RSP Document 40 Filed 11/06/24 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:

654
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE 

Counsel for the parties conferred via email regarding the above motion in accordance with 

Local Rule CV-7(i), and the above submission is unopposed. 

/s/Chris P. Perque 

Chris P. Perque 

4 4

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE 

Counsel for the parties conferred via email regarding the above motion in accordance with 

Local Rule CV-7(i), and the above submission is unopposed. 

/s/Chris P. Perque 

Chris P. Perque 

Case 2:23-cv-00507-JRG-RSP Document 40 Filed 11/06/24 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:

655