T-Mobile USA Inc v. Huawei Device USA Inc et al
ORDER within 7 days the parties are permitted to submit a brief re certain points of contention addressed in the parties' pretrial submissions by Judge Richard A Jones. (RS) Modified on 2/13/2017/cc OptoFidelity, LLC (RS).
HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
T-MOBILE USA, INC.,
HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC., et al.,
Case No. C14-1351-RAJ
On February 10, 2017, the Court held a pretrial conference in the above captioned
matter. In pre-conference email communications and/or at the conference itself, the
parties raised several matters on an informal basis. The Court resolved these matters as
First, Plaintiff T-Mobile USA, Inc. (“T-Mobile”) requested that Defendant Huawei
Device USA, Inc. (“Huawei”) be precluded from calling Jin Zhou and Xuesong Yu as
trial witnesses because they were not properly disclosed under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26. Because these proposed witnesses were not sufficiently disclosed, the
Court granted T-Mobile’s request. Accordingly, Huawei is precluded from calling these
witnesses at trial.
Second, Huawei sought permission to obtain certain fact discovery from a foreign
non-party located in Finland. Because discovery has long been closed and trial is
imminent, the Court denied Huawei’s request. Accordingly, further fact discovery is not
ORDER – 1
Third, T-Mobile requested twenty pages of further briefing on certain points of
contention addressed in the parties’ pretrial submissions. Huawei opposed this request.
The Court finds that further, limited briefing is warranted. Accordingly, within seven (7)
days from the date of this Order, the parties are each permitted to submit a brief not
exceeding ten (10) pages to address these issues.
DATED this 13th day of February, 2017.
The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge
ORDER – 2
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?