`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`VOCALIFE LLC
`v.
`
`BOSE CORPORATION
`
`VOCALIFE LLC
`v.
`
`SONOS, INC.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:21-CV-00128-JRG
`(Lead Case)
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:21-CV-00129-JRG
`(Member Case)
`
`ORDER
`Before the Court is Defendant Sonos Inc.’s (“Sonos”) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Vocalife
`
`LLC’s First Amended Complaint for Improper Venue (the “Motion to Dismiss”) (Dkt. No. 39)
`
`and Sonos’s Unopposed Motion for Hearing on Defendant Sonos Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss
`
`Plaintiff Vocalife LLC’s First Amended Complaint for Improper Venue or Transfer (the “Motion
`
`for Hearing”) (Dkt. No. 67). In the Motion to Dismiss, Sonos argues that its authorized dealers in
`
`the Eastern District of Texas do not constitute a “regular and established place of business.” (Dkt.
`
`No. 39 at 6). Plaintiff Vocalife LLC (“Vocalife”) responds that the authorized dealers constitute
`
`“a regular and established place of business” and requests targeted venue discovery to further
`
`address and develop such. (Dkt. No. 59 at 5–6).
`
`The Court has discretion to allow targeted venue discovery. Moore v. CITGO Ref. &
`
`Chemicals Co., L.P., 735 F.3d 309, 315 (5th Cir. 2013) (“A district court has broad discretion in
`
`all discovery matters, and such discretion will not be disturbed ordinarily unless there are unusual
`
`circumstances showing a clear abuse.”); Green v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 754 F.3d 324, 329 (5th
`
`Cir. 2014) (“A district court abuses its broad discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous
`
`Page 1 of 3
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1046
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00128-JRG Document 68 Filed 12/09/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 975
`
`view of the law, but we will only vacate a court’s judgment if it affected the substantial rights of
`
`the appellant. The appellant must prove both abuse of discretion and prejudice.” (citing Crosby v.
`
`La. Health Serv. & Indem. Co., 647 F.3d 258, 261 (5th Cir. 2011))) (citations omitted). In all
`
`cases, discovery decisions “must . . . adhere to the liberal spirit of the Rules” of Civil Procedure.
`
`U.S., ex rel., Rigsby v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 794 F.3d 457, 469 (5th Cir. 2015), aff’d sub
`
`nom. State Farm Fire &Cas. Co. v. U.S. ex rel. Rigsby, 137 S. Ct. 436 (2016) (citing Fed. R. Civ.
`
`P. 26(b)(1)). The Court’s discretion—and the liberal thrust of the Rules of Civil Procedure—
`
`extends to venue discovery. Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 n.13 (1978)
`
`(“[W]here issues arise as to jurisdiction or venue, discovery is available to ascertain the facts
`
`bearing on such issues.”).
`
`Having reviewed the briefing, the Court finds that it could benefit from targeted venue
`
`discovery and additional briefing after such discovery is completed. Accordingly, it is
`
`ORDERED that the parties are to conduct targeted venue discovery limited to the issues raised in
`
`Sonos’s Motion to Dismiss. Such discovery shall conclude upon sixty (60) days from the date of
`
`this Order. The discovery may include document requests, interrogatories, and/or a deposition of
`
`Sonos’s declarant, Ms. Alaina Kwasizur, or a similarly knowledgeable witness. All discovery
`
`conducted as part of the targeted venue discovery shall count towards the limitations set forth in
`
`the Court’s Discovery Order (Dkt. No. 45). Sonos’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED-WITHOUT-
`
`PREJUDICE pending targeted venue discovery. Defendant may then refile its Motion to Dismiss
`
`after the targeted venue discovery is completed.
`
`Further, Sonos’s Motion for Hearing is DENIED-WITHOUT-PREJUDICE. Similarly,
`
`Sonos may refile its request for a hearing on these issues after the venue discovery is complete and
`
`briefing on its reurged Motion to Dismiss is complete.
`
`
`
`2
`
`Page 2 of 3
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1046
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00128-JRG Document 68 Filed 12/09/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 976
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`.
`
`____________________________________
`RODNEY GILSTRAP
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`So ORDERED and SIGNED this 9th day of December, 2021.
`
`Page 3 of 3
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1046
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
