Round Rock Research, LLC v. Oracle Corporation et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE for 39 Report and Recommendations, 32 Motion to Change Venue,, filed by Dell, Inc., Oracle Corporation. Signed by Judge Michael H. Schneider on 11/17/2011. (baf, )
United States District Court
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERM AN DIVISION
ROUND ROCK RESEARCH, LLC
ORACLE CORPORATION and
Case No. 4:11-CV-332
Judge Schneider/Judge Mazzant
MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Came on for consideration the report of the United States Magistrate Judge in this action, this
matter having been heretofore referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§636. On October 21, 2011, the report of the Magistrate Judge was entered containing proposed
findings of fact and recommendations that Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue to the Western
District of Texas (Dkt. #32) be DENIED.
On November 8, 2011, Defendant Dell, Inc. (“Dell”) filed objections to the Magistrate
Judge’s report (Dkt. #43).
On November 11, 2011, Plaintiff Round Rock Research, LLC
(“Plaintiff”) filed a response (Dkt. #45). Specifically, Dell asserts that the Magistrate Judge’s Report
improperly relied on an order by Judge Davis in the case Consolidated Work Station Computing,
LLC v. Dell, Inc., No. 6:10-CV-620-LED, slip op., at 6 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 28, 2011). Dell states that
it is improper to rely on a separate case involving a party in the transferor district as a factor
weighing against transfer when the other case does not involve the same parties, witnesses, evidence,
and facts as the case at hand.
In the Court’s opinion, the Magistrate Judge’s Report does not place an improper reliance
on the decision of Judge Davis in the Consolidated Work Station Computing case in determining the
weight of the factor of relative ease of access to sources of proof. The Magistrate Judge considered
the evidence submitted by both Plaintiff and Defendants and found the following:
The parties agree that a significant source of documents and physical evidence relating to the
accused infringing products is concentrated primarily in the Western District at Dell’s
headquarters in Round Rock, Texas. However, Defendants ignore the fact that there may be
other documents and physical evidence related to the development of the products in
conjunction with other third parties in various locations across the country. MOTION ,
HACKETT DECL. at 3. It is unclear where the primary concentration of Oracle’s documents
and other physical evidence is located; however, Defendants note that some may exist in the
Western District, Colorado, and California, while none exist in the Eastern District. None
of the inventors of the patents at issue are located in Texas. Finally, documents and other
physical evidence maintained at the Dell Services facility in the Eastern District will serve
as a source of proof regarding the use of the infringing technology. See Consol. Work Station
Computing, LLC, No. 6:10-CV-620-LED, slip. op. at 6 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 28, 2011).
(Report at 7). In determining whether this factor weighed in favor of transfer, the Magistrate Judge
considered the location of various documents and sources of proof relevant to the litigation.
Affidavits submitted by Dell indicate that many of their sources of proof are located in the Western
District of Texas, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, California, India, and Taiwan. (Report at 6).
Further, the Magistrate Judge considered the purpose of Dell Services, and its location in
Plano, Texas, in the Eastern District. (Report at 6-7). The Magistrate Judge properly concluded that
the Plaintiff in this case has made allegations regarding the use of the infringing products and intends
to use information obtained from Dell Services as a source of proof. The Magistrate Judge’s Report
cited Consolidated Work Station Computing to indicate that a court should consider allegations
regarding the accused product’s use in the district when considering relative ease of access to sources
of proof. The Magistrate Judge does not appear to cite any of the facts of the Consolidated Work
Station Computing case in making his determination. The Magistrate Judge concluded his
consideration of this factor by stating:
Because the sources of proof originate from varied locations across the country and the
globe, this factor is neutral. Transfer of this case to the Western District would make access
to some sources of proof easier, but there is other evidence that would not be more
convenient to access.
(Report at 7-8). The Magistrate Judge considered the varied locations of all the sources of proof in
his decision to weigh this factor as neutral, and in doing so, placed no improper reliance on the facts
of the Consolidated Work Station Computing case.
Finally, there is no indication that if the Magistrate Judge concluded that this factor weighed
in favor of transfer, then there would have been sufficient evidence to show that the Western District
of Texas is a “clearly more convenient” forum for the litigation. In re Volkswagen of America, Inc.,
545 F.3d 304, 315 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (“Volkswagen II”); In re TS Tech USA Corp, 551 F.3d
1315, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
After reviewing Defendant’s objections regarding the weight of the “relative ease of access
to sources of proof” factor and having made a de novo review of all other objections raised by
Defendant, the Court is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are
correct, and the objections are without merit. Therefore, the Court hereby adopts the findings and
conclusions of the Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of this Court.
It is, therefore, ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue to the Western
District of Texas (Dkt. #32) is DENIED.
SIGNED this 17th day of November, 2011.
MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?