IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC, §
§ Plaintiff, § § v. § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-CV-397-JRG-RSP AT&T INC., AT&T SERVICES, INC., § (LEAD CASE)
AT&T MOBILITY, LLC, and AT&T § CORP., §
§
§
Defendants. .
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Before the Court is the Motion for Sanctions Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e)(1), filed by the AT&T Defendants. Dkt. No. 118.
A substantively identical motion1 was filed in a parallel litigation: Headwater Research LLC v. Verizon Communications Inc., et al, 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP. See Dkt. No. 164 in 2:23-cv-00352.
For the reasons discussed in the Court’s ruling on the parallel motion (Dkt. No. 299 in 2:23-cv-00352), the instant Motion is also DENIED.
SIGNED this 3rd day of January, 2012.
SIGNED this 3rd day of July, 2025.
ROY S. PAYNE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Footnotes
- ↩ 1 The two motions are materially identical with respect to, inter alia, whether Plaintiff had a duty to preserve. See Dkt. No. 164 in -352 case at 4-7; compare Dkt. No. 118 in -397 case at 4-7. Because the Court has already determined under these facts that Plaintiff did not have such a duty (See Dkt. No. 299 in -352 case at 3-4), any subsequent differences in the motions with respect to (for example) prejudice to Defendants are irrelevant given that the prerequisite element of duty has not been met.