`Case 2:24-cv-00321-AWA-DEM Document 78_Filed 03/05/25 Page1of 4 PagelD# 1890
`Case 2:24-cv-00321-AWA-DEM Document 78 Filed 03/05/25 Page 1 of 4 PageID# 1890
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`Norfolk Division
`
`SOUNDCLEAR TECHNOLOGIESLLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Vv.
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Civil Action No. 2:24-cvy-321
`
`MEMORANDUM ORDER
`
`This matter is before the court on SoundClear Technologies, LLC’s Motion to Conduct
`
`Venue Discovery, (ECF No. 69). Plaintiff SoundClear seeks venue discovery ostensibly to test
`
`the scope of the investigation Defendant Google, LLC, conducted, and to further scrutinize the
`
`declarations supporting Google’s Motion to Transfer Venue. Pl. SoundClear’s Mem. Supp. Mot.
`
`Conduct Venue Discovery (“Pl.’s Mem.”) (ECF No.70, at 1-3). Defendant Google respondsthat
`
`it conducted its investigation based on the features, products, and components SoundClear
`
`identified as relevant in its Complaint, that it did not withhold any relevant information, and that
`
`many of SoundClear’s justifications for venue discovery are “mere speculation.” Google’s Opp’n
`
`SoundClear’s Mot. Conduct Venue Discovery (“Def.’s Opp’n”) (ECF No. 71, at 1-2). SoundClear
`
`replied, arguing that it seeks further venue discovery to confirm that Google conducted its
`
`investigation objectively. PI. SoundClear’s Reply Supp. Mot. Conduct Venue Discovery (ECF
`
`No. 72, at 5). The court heard oral argument on the motion,and for the reasonsstated on the record
`
`and briefly explained below, DENIES SoundClear’s Motion to Conduct Venue Discovery.
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00321-AWA-DEM Document 78
`Filed 03/05/25
`Page 2 of 4 PagelD# 1891
`Case 2:24-cv-00321-AWA-DEM Document 78 Filed 03/05/25 Page 2 of 4 PageID# 1891
`
`District courts enjoy broad discretion in determining whetherto grant limited discovery to
`
`explore jurisdictional facts, including venue. See Va. Innovation Scis., Inc. v. Samsung Elecs.
`
`
`Co., Ltd., 928 F. Supp. 2d 863, 874 (E.D. Va. 2013) (finding Fourth Circuit’s reasoning with
`
`respectto jurisdictional discovery persuasive and applicable to motion for venue discovery). “{A]
`
`district court act[s] within its discretion by denying discovery .
`
`.
`
`. when the plaintiff had failed to
`
`offer a concrete proffer, there was no indication of fraud or misconduct in the defendant’s
`
`affidavits, and there was no reason to believe the additional information sought would alter the
`
`outcome.” Symbology Innovations, LLC v. Lego Sys., Inc., 282 F. Supp. 3d 916, 933-34 (E.D.
`
`Va. 2017) (citing Carefirst of Md., Inc. v. Carefirst Pregnancy Ctrs., Inc., 334 F.3d 390, 403 (4th
`
`Cir. 2003)).
`
`SoundClear seeks limited discovery to search for evidence rebutting Google’s declarations.
`
`The declarations identify the location of Google witnesses with technical knowledge relevant to
`
`the accused features of its Google Nest products. SoundClear claimsit needs additional discovery
`
`into the underlying methods of Google’s investigation. In support of its request, SoundClear has
`
`“offered nothing beyond. .. bare allegations” and “conclusory assertions”that it believes Google
`
`did not provide all of teams involved in the accused products. See Va. Innovation Scis., Inc., 928
`
`
`F. Supp. 2d at 874 (quoting Carefirst of Md..
`Inc., 334 F.3d at 403). SoundClear identifies no
`
`evidence supportingits theory that Google overlooked any potential witnesses besidesthe fact that
`
`Google is a large company andlikely has “hundreds of such ‘teams.’” See Pl.’s Mem. (ECF No.
`
`70, at 8-9).
`
`SoundClear concededit had no reason to believe Google conductedits investigation in bad
`
`faith. See Monarch Networking Sols. LLC v. Juniper Networks,Inc., No. 1:23-cv-670, 2023 U.S.
`
`Dist. LEXIS 237871, at *8 (E.D. Va. Oct. 3, 2023) (denying motion for venue discovery when
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00321-AWA-DEM Document 78
`Filed 03/05/25
`Page 3 of 4 PagelD# 1892
`Case 2:24-cv-00321-AWA-DEM Document 78 Filed 03/05/25 Page 3 of 4 PageID# 1892
`
`party made “no allegation of any fraud or
`
`intentional misconduct” in party’s factual
`
`representations) (internal quotations and citation omitted).
`
`Instead,
`
`it speculates that venue
`
`discovery will produce evidence to rebut Google’s assertion that no relevant party and non-party
`
`witnessesreside in Virginia. But “resolution of motionsto transfer venue .
`
`.
`
`. necessarily require
`
`a court to rely on parties accurately to disclose the facts underlying the motionsthey file as most,
`
`if not all, of the relevant facts are [often] exclusively controlled by one ofthe parties.” Id. at *19
`
`(internal quotations andcitation omitted). Absent any facts suggesting Google misrepresentedits
`
`findings, no reason to conduct discovery on the methods of Google’s investigation exists.
`
`SoundClear claimsthatit is “troubling that SoundClear was able to locate four individuals
`
`omitted from Google’s analysis of its own employees” who “work on the accused products and
`
`related business.” Pl.’s Mem. (ECF No. 70, at 11) (identifying claimed “omitted employees”).
`
`However,noneofthe four employees identified by SoundClear live or work in the Eastern District
`
`ofVirginia, and the suggestion that they work on accused technology is supported by no more than
`
`a mention of Google Nest in their title or CV. None of the supposedly “omitted employees” have
`
`been shown to have any information material to the underlying claims, and provide no support for
`
`SoundClear’s theory that Google omitted relevant employees.
`
`Finally, the information Plaintiff requests would not necessarily alter the outcome of the
`
`Motion to Transfer Venue. SoundClear largely seeks privileged information about the way
`
`Google’s attorneys conducted their investigation and information beyond what courts require to
`
`consider a motion to transfer venue. Id. at *18-19 (“A motion to transfer venue must be brought
`
`at an early stagein litigation whenit is typically difficult to anticipate the identity oftrial witnesses
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. [a] court must therefore rely on preliminary assessments of preliminary lists of witnesses.”)
`
`(internal quotationsand citation omitted). SoundClear doesnotlack information to rebut Google’s
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00321-AWA-DEM Document 78
`Filed 03/05/25
`Page 4 of 4 PagelD# 1893
`Case 2:24-cv-00321-AWA-DEM Document 78 Filed 03/05/25 Page 4 of 4 PageID# 1893
`
`Motion to Transfer Venue, considering that its proposed interrogatory and deposition requests
`
`largely restate questions already asked of Google, and its already-filed opposition to Google’s
`
`Motion to Transfer Venue—including exhibits—is 674 pages long. See Def.’s Opp’n (ECF No.
`
`71, at 2-3, 11-13); Pl. SoundClear’s Resp. Br. Opp’n Def.’s Mot. Transfer Venue (ECF No.61).
`
`Accordingly, there is no basis to permit venue discovery, and SoundClear’s Motion to
`
`Conduct Venue Discovery, (ECF No. 69), is DENIED.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Ss
`
`Douglas E. Wienw
`United States Magistrate Judge
`
`
`DOUGLASE. MILLER
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`Newport News, Virginia
`
`March 5, 2025
`
`