T-Mobile USA Inc v. Huawei Device USA Inc et al

Filing 205

MINUTE ORDER entered upon the authority of Judge Richard A. Jones. On 7/28/2016, the Court held a telephonic conference addressing numerous issues raised by the Parties' discovery motions. Having heard from the Parties and having reviewed their submissions, the Court memorializes its oral rulings denying #130 Motion for Sanctions; granting in part and denying in part #132 Motion to Compel; granting #134 Motion to Compel; granting #136 Motion to Seal; granting in part and denying in part #138 Motion to Compel; granting #149 Motion for Leave; granting #163 Motion to Seal; granting in part, denying in part, and reserving in part #179 Motion to Compel; granting #181 Motion to Seal; granting in part, denying in part, and reserving in part #183 Sealed Motion; and granting #190 Motion to Seal. (VE)

Download PDF
HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 T-MOBILE USA, INC., 9 10 Plaintiff, v. CASE NO. C14-1351RAJ MINUTE ORDER 11 HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC., et al., 12 Defendants. 13 14 15 The following minute order is made by the direction of the Court, the Honorable Richard A. Jones: 16 The Court held a telephonic conference addressing numerous issues raised by the 17 Parties’ discovery motions on July 28, 2016. Having heard from the Parties and having 18 reviewed their submissions, the Court rules as follows: 19 20 1. The Court DENIES Defendants Huawei USA, Inc. and Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.’s (collectively, “Huawei”) Motion for Sanctions. Dkt. # 130. 21 a. To the extent Huawei requests an order prohibiting Plaintiff T-Mobile 22 USA, Inc. (“T-Mobile”) from presenting evidence derived from the 23 logical image or forensic toolkit, it may present a motion in limine 24 addressing that issue at the appropriate time. 25 26 2. The Court GRANTS Huawei’s Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Brief. Dkt. # 149. 27 28 MINUTE ORDER – 1 3. The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part T-Mobile’s Motion to 1 Compel. Dkt. # 132 & 138. 2 a. Huawei is ordered to produce or supplement their interrogatory 3 4 responses regarding information about the sales of Huawei’s devices 5 and consumer returns of the products. b. T-Mobile’s request to compel production of TMSS information is 6 denied. 7 c. Huawei is ordered to permit another inspection of its other testing 8 robots, specifically the OptoFidelity and Putian robots. Huawei must 9 10 also make the source code or software for those robots available to 11 T-Mobile. d. Huawei is ordered to produce sequence files associated with the 12 13 OptoFidelity and Putian robots. The Parties must meet and confer to 14 discuss whether similar files have been produced relating to the 15 xDeviceRobot and where those files may be located in Huawei’s 16 productions. 4. The Court GRANTS Huawei’s Motion to Compel. Dkt. # 134. 17 a. T-Mobile must designate another witness pursuant to Federal Rule of 18 19 Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) to testify as to any communications T-Mobile 20 has had with OptoFidelity and Deutsche Telekom AG regarding the 21 allegations in this case. b. T-Mobile must also disclose the identities of any other third parties it 22 23 has communicated with regarding the subject matter of this case. The 24 Parties should then meet and confer to discuss whether an additional 25 Rule 30(b)(6) witness is necessary. 26 /// 27 /// 28 MINUTE ORDER – 2 1 c. T-Mobile must supplement its responses to Huawei’s interrogatory nos. 2 2, 7, 8, and 9. For its supplemental response to Huawei’s interrogatory 3 no. 9, T-Mobile need only supplement its responses for the first 17 4 denied requests for admission. 5 6 7 5. The Court GRANTS in part, DENIES in part, and delays ruling on T-Mobile’s second Motion to Compel. Dkt. # 179 & 183. a. Huawei must make the 22 contested documents available to the Court 8 for in camera review within seven (7) business days of this Order. 9 b. T-Mobile’s request that the Court find that Huawei waived privilege as 10 to the entire subject matter of its investigation is denied. 11 c. Emails between Huawei and third parties, including T-Mobile, are not 12 protected by privileged. Specifically, documents with Privilege ID 13 55-61, and 625 are not privileged. Beyond that, to the extent privilege 14 existed, Huawei waived privilege for those documents. 15 d. The Court will address Huawei’s claims for privilege as to the other 16 documents that do not have a third party addressee. Those documents 17 appear to be Privilege ID 36, 204, 211, 236-240, 245, and 249-253. 18 6. The Court GRANTS the Parties’ Motions to Seal. Dkt. # 136, 163, 181, 190. 19 20 DATED this 28th day of July, 2016. 21 WILLIAM M. McCOOL, Clerk of the Court 22 23 /s/ Victoria Ericksen Deputy Clerk to Hon. Richard A. Jones 24 25 26 27 28 MINUTE ORDER – 3

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?