`13006
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
` FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`TOUCHSTREAM TECHNOLOGIES,
`INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
`et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`ORDER
`
`CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP
`(Lead Case)
`
`Before the Court is the Motion to Strike the Opinions of Dr. Russell W. Mangum III filed
`
`by the Charter Defendants. Dkt. No. 95. The Court considered and denied the Comcast
`
`Defendants’ separate Motion to Strike the Opinions of Dr. Mangum. Dkt. No. 239. The Court finds
`
`that this Motion raises identical issues as Comcast’s.1 Compare Dkt. No. 83, with Dkt. No. 95.
`
`Both motions raise the issues of failure to account for use, failure to apportion the Quadriga
`
`Agreement, and improper reliance on the Google matter. Accordingly, for the reasons provided in
`
`Dkt. No. 239, this Motion is DENIED.
`
`1 Charter raises one distinct issue: Dr. Mangum’s purported reliance on documents that were not produced in
`discovery. Dkt. No. 95 at 14. In support of this assertion, Charter cites a string of relativity numbers that are cited in
`the appendix to Dr. Mangum’s report. Id. Charter does not assert that any of Dr. Mangum’s opinions contained in
`his report rely on these documents. The Court finds that Charter has not demonstrated its entitlement to relief based
`on this cursory showing.
`
`
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
