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)

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