EDN Global Inc et al v. AT&T Mobility Services LLC et al

-1-
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
EDN GLOBAL, INC., et al., 	§
Plaintiffs, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	No. 3:23-CV-355-X
§
AT&T MOBILITY SERVICES, 	§
LLC, et al., 	§
Defendants. 	§
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel filed on January 23, 2026
(Dkt. No. 165), which was filed with a supporting appendix (Dkt. No. 166-1 (“P.
App.”).) United States District Judge Brantley Starr referred the motion to the
undersigned for a hearing, if necessary, and determination. (Dkt. No. 167.) In
compliance with an order for expedited briefing,1 Defendants filed a response (Dkt.
No. 174 (“Resp.”)) and supporting appendix (Dkt. No. 175 (“D. App.”)) on January
30. The Court held a hearing on the motion on February 10. (Dkt. No. 183.)
For the reasons that follow, the Court denies the motion.
I. BACKGROUND
FirstNet is a nationwide telecommunications network intended for use by
emergency responders and public safety agencies. FirstNet is funded by the First
1 Plaintiffs’ request for expedited consideration and resolution of the motion was
undermined by Plaintiffs’ failure to submit a brief in compliance with court rules, which
took time to remedy. (See Dkt. No. 177; see also Dkt. No. 181 (“Mot.”).)
Case 3:23-cv-00355-X Document 185 Filed 02/17/26 Page 1 of 11 PageID <pageID>

-2-
Responder Network Authority, an agency within the Department of Commerce, and
the network has been built under a public-private partnership between the Authority
and AT&T.
Plaintiffs EDN Global, Inc. and its principal, Jerome Edmondson, entered
into agreements with AT&T entities (“Defendants”) to market and sell services and
devices to first responders for use on the FirstNet system. According to Plaintiffs,
they had confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information about potential
FirstNet customers, and their compensation under the agreement with AT&T
included a volume activation bonus and FirstNet gross add incentives. Plaintiffs
allege that, once Defendants obtained Plaintiffs’ protected information and realized
how successful Plaintiffs would be in selling services and devices and the resulting
amounts that would be owed to Plaintiffs under the agreements, Defendants
terminated their agreements for convenience in July 2019 but continued to use
Plaintiffs’ proprietary information to secure FirstNet customers. Plaintiffs’ claims
relate to misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition, fraud, and tortious
interference.
Plaintiffs’ instant motion originally sought four facets of discovery. First,
Plaintiffs deposed Melissa Ayala as the corporate representative of AT&T
Enterprises, LLC on December 16, 2025. Plaintiffs assert that Ayala was not
adequately prepared and reasonably knowledgeable concerning the topics of
examination noticed, and they ask the Court to order Defendants to produce another
Case 3:23-cv-00355-X Document 185 Filed 02/17/26 Page 2 of 11 PageID <pageID>

-3-
corporate representative for a deposition at Defendants’ cost. Second, Plaintiffs
request that the Court order Defendants to provide updated discovery concerning
FirstNet subscribers that Plaintiffs might contend were signed up using Plaintiffs’
efforts or information. Third, Plaintiffs seek an order compelling Defendants to
produce invoices and “underlying data” for sales of devices and services to FirstNet
customers. Fourth, Plaintiffs seek an order requiring Defendants to disclose portions
of the contract between the FirstNet Authority and AT&T. The parties stated at the
hearing that they have reached an agreement with respect to Plaintiff’s second and
third requests. The Court, therefore, addresses the two remaining disputes.
II. LEGAL STANDARDS AND ANALYSIS
A. 	Plaintiffs have not shown that Ayala was not reasonably prepared and
knowledgeable on the topics noticed.
Plaintiffs noticed the deposition of Defendant AT&T Enterprises, LLC
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) on October 22, 2025. (P. App. 121-22.) It
identified five topics for examination:
1. 	The FirstNet customer benchmarks and payments to AT&T for
achieving said benchmarks from the FirstNet Authority based on
the terms in the FirstNet Contract from January 1, 2017 through
today.
2. 	AT&T’s profits from meeting the FirstNet customer benchmarks
and, or devices set forth in the FirstNet contract between AT&T
and the FirstNet Authority from January 1, 2017 through today.
3. 	AT&T’s profits from FirstNet customer sales to entities, agencies,
municipalities, persons, or groups EDN disclosed to AT&T as
potential FirstNet customers, subscribers, or leads from January
1, 2015 through January 1, 2021.
Case 3:23-cv-00355-X Document 185 Filed 02/17/26 Page 3 of 11 PageID <pageID>

-4-
4. 	The amount of money in U.S. dollars AT&T owed EDN at the
time the FirstNet Addendum was terminated.
5. 	The amount of money in U.S. dollars AT&T owed EDN at the
time the Alliance Agreement was terminated.
(P. App. 127.) An amended deposition notice sent on December 3 setting the
deposition for December 16 contained the same topics. (P. App. 136, 142.) Four
days before the deposition—on December 12—Defendants served written objections
to the deposition notice and identified the areas of examination for which it would
produce a witness. (Dkt. No. 159 at App. 31-35.)
AT&T Enterprises presented Melissa Ayala as the corporate representative,
and Plaintiffs deposed her on December 16. (See D. App. 6.) According to Plaintiffs,
Ayala was consistently unable—or refused—“to provide substantive answers to the
noticed Rule 30(b)(6) topics.” (Mot. at 7.) They have directed the Court to multiple
points in the deposition transcript in which Ayala indicated an inability to fully
answer the question asked, and they find particular fault with Ayala’s inability to
answer questions about a spreadsheet Defendants produced the day before the
deposition. They also charge Ayala as deficient because “she did not know whether
(1) there were instances AT&T used information it obtained from EDN without its
permission; (2) there were instances where AT&T used EDN’s information and was
unauthorized to do so; and (3) AT&T ever used any of EDN’s information.” (Mot.
at 8 (footnotes omitted).) Plaintiffs therefore contend that Defendants failed to
Case 3:23-cv-00355-X Document 185 Filed 02/17/26 Page 4 of 11 PageID <pageID>

-5-
present a corporate representative who was adequately prepared and knowledgeable
on the topics noticed for examination.
A corporation or other legal entity, of course, is incapable of sitting for a
deposition. Rule 30(b)(6) is the procedural mechanism through which a litigant may
depose an entity or organization. Once noticed for a deposition under the rule, the
corporation must “designate one or more officers, directors, or other persons to
testify on its behalf about information known or reasonably available to it.” Robinson
v. Nexion Health At Terrell, Inc., 312 F.R.D. 438, 441 (N.D. Tex. 2014). “The rule
streamlines the discovery process and places the burden of identifying responsive
witnesses for a corporation on the corporation, which appears vicariously through its
designee.” Id. (citing Resol. Tr. Corp. v. S. Union Co., 985 F.2d 196, 197 (5th Cir.
1993)). Once designated, the entity cannot rest on the designee’s personal
knowledge but has a duty to “prepare the designee to the extent matters are
reasonably available, whether from documents, past employees, or other sources.”
Id. (quoting Brazos River Auth. v. GE Ionics, Inc., 469 F.3d 416, 433 (5th Cir. 2006)).
The deponent entity “must prepare the designated witness to ‘answer fully,
completely, unevasively, the questions posed . . . as to the relevant subject matters.”
Id. (quoting Brazos River Authority, 469 F.3d at 435). “If the designated deponent is
not knowledgeable about relevant facts, and the corporation has failed to designate
an available, knowledgeable witness then the appearance is essentially no appearance
at all, and sanctions may be imposed.” Id.
Case 3:23-cv-00355-X Document 185 Filed 02/17/26 Page 5 of 11 PageID <pageID>

-6-
The duties imposed by Rule 30(b)(6) do not rest exclusively on the corporate
deponent. The “party seeking to depose an organization ‘must describe with
reasonable particularity the matters for examination.’” Pauls v. The Prudential Ins. Co.
of Am., No. 3:16-CV-2116-M-BN, 2016 WL 6397564, at *4 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 28, 2016)
(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6)); see also Chauvin v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., No. CV
23-392, 2023 WL 4175100, at *7 (E.D. La. June 26, 2023). “For Rule 30(b)(6) to
effectively function, the requesting party must take care to designate, with
painstaking specificity, the particular subject areas that are intended to be questioned,
and that are relevant to the issues in dispute.” Pauls, 2016 WL 6397564, at *4
(quoting Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. P & H Cattle Co., No. CIV.A. 05-2001-DJW, 2009
WL 2951120, at *10 (D. Kan. Sept. 10, 2009)). Failing to provide the necessary
specificity can leave a topic overly broad and can foist onto the deponent the
impossible task of adequately preparing a witness to testify. See id.
There is at least one additional responsibility imposed by Rule 30(b)(6) that is
relevant here. Since 2020, the rule has required “the serving party and the
organization [to] confer in good faith about the matters for examination” “[b]efore or
promptly after the notice . . . is served[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6). The Court’s task
of assessing Defendants’ compliance with the deposition notice in this case has been
made more difficult by the parties’ failure comply with this requirement. Plaintiffs
candidly admitted at the hearing that there was no pre-deposition conference on the
examination topics. For their part, Defendants acknowledged an awareness of the
Case 3:23-cv-00355-X Document 185 Filed 02/17/26 Page 6 of 11 PageID <pageID>

-7-
requirement but said that, after waiting for an invitation to confer that never arrived,
they resorted to written objections and restated the topics rather than invite the
conference required by the rule. The rule, however, does not expressly place the
onus on one or the other party to initiate the conference. See Vail v. Hyundai Motor
Am., No. 23-CV-297-JDR-SH, 2024 WL 2095549, at *6–7 (N.D. Okla. Mar. 8, 2024)
(faulting corporate deponent for failing to act promptly in raising objections to
deposition topics).
The parties’ failure to confer as required prevents the rule from working as
intended. The advisory committee notes to the 2020 amendment make clear that the
obligation to confer is intended to “facilitate[] collaborative efforts” and head off
discovery disputes: “Candid exchanges about the purposes of the deposition and the
organization’s information structure may clarify and focus the matters for
examination, and enable the organization to designate and to prepare an appropriate
witness or witnesses, thereby avoiding later disagreements.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6)
advisory committee notes 2020 amendment. These notes recognize that the
discussion may be “iterative” and make clear that the parties’ obligation is to confer
in good faith consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 1, not that the parties must reach
agreement. Id. This conference requirement encourages the “refine[ment]” of the
deposition topics, see Chauvin, 2023 WL 4175100, at *8, and it is incorporated in the
rule to minimize later disagreements requiring court intervention.
Case 3:23-cv-00355-X Document 185 Filed 02/17/26 Page 7 of 11 PageID <pageID>

-8-
The Court could fault both parties for the failure. But, as the party asking the
Court to find that a witness was inadequately prepared, Plaintiffs must recognize that
they have made their position more difficult by failing to engage in the refining and
clarifying discussion contemplated by Rule 30(b)(6). So, even if the Court chooses in
this instance not to deny the motion to compel based on the failure to confer, see
Walker LP v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London, No. CV 22-485-BAJ-RLB, 2023
WL 6134767, at *5 (M.D. La. Sept. 19, 2023), it assesses Ayala’s inability to answer
certain questions—particularly those that are not squarely within the heart of the
topics identified—through a lens that was not focused by the required conference.
The Court turns to Plaintiffs’ assertions that Ayala was not reasonably
prepared and not reasonably knowledgeable. Having reviewed the transcript of
Ayala’s deposition as directed by the parties, the Court observed that Ayala was
deposed for a full day—the deposition convened at 9:22 that morning and adjourned
at 4:15. (See D. App. 6, 66.) She provided substantive answers to the questions
posed, and none of the instances Plaintiffs point to as proof of Ayala’s possible
refusal to answer persuade the Court that she was being an obstinate witness rather
than a conscientious one. See Costa v. Cnty. of Burlington, 254 F.R.D. 187, 190
(D.N.J. 2008) (“Simply because defendant’s witness could not answer every question
posed to him does not equate to the fact that defendant did not satisfy its obligation
to prepare its 30(b)(6) witness.”). After considering the transcript and the parties’
Case 3:23-cv-00355-X Document 185 Filed 02/17/26 Page 8 of 11 PageID <pageID>

-9-
arguments, the Court finds that Ayala’s deposition did not amount to a non-
appearance.
Two aspects of Plaintiffs’ arguments bear discussion. First, Plaintiffs fault
Ayala for failing to answer questions that are not clearly within the scope of the
topics noticed. For example, as noted above, Plaintiffs argue that Ayala was
inadequately knowledgeable because she did not know whether AT&T used EDN’s
information without EDN’s permission or whether it had used EDN’s information at
all. (See Mot. at 8.) Plaintiffs contend that these questions fall within the third topic
noticed. But it is not clear that AT&T Enterprises’ duty to present a knowledgeable
witness about the company’s profits from FirstNet customers was required to know
the specific ways, if any, that AT&T used EDN information or precisely which
customers the witnesses should consider as having been “disclosed” by EDN. That
is the type of clarification and refinement that could have been facilitated through the
required pre-deposition conference.
Second, Plaintiffs argued at the hearing that Ayala was an unsatisfactory
witness because she could not provide sufficient answers about Defendants’ profits
and losses on the FirstNet Contract. Plaintiffs’ complaints center on Defendants’
failure to provide a GAAP-approved accounting of the contract performance. For
example, they focused on Exhibit 28 to Ayala’s deposition as an example of financial
information that is insufficient, arguing at the hearing that Defendants must have
somewhere a reconciliation of the finances to GAAP-approved numbers that are
Case 3:23-cv-00355-X Document 185 Filed 02/17/26 Page 9 of 11 PageID <pageID>

-10-
rolled up into the company’s public filings. By their motion, Plaintiffs hope to find a
witness who can explain the Defendants’ net profits on the FirstNet Contract on a
GAAP-approved basis. Defendants, however, point out that none of the topics
noticed concern AT&T’s public filings or its profits on the FirstNet Contract
generally.2 Rather, the topics Plaintiffs noticed concern AT&T’s performance with
respect to certain aspects of the contract—i.e., achievement of certain benchmarks or
sales to certain customers. Defendants provided the information from its systems as
kept in the ordinary course. One would not expect a company such as AT&T to
maintain GAAP-compliant profit-and-loss statements as to any particular customer.
Based on the topics as Plaintiffs crafted them, the Court cannot find that Ayala was
not reasonably prepared and knowledgeable because she could not discuss GAAP-
compliant figures concerning the company’s performance of the FirstNet Contract.
B. 	The Court declines to reconsider its prior order with respect to portions of
the FirstNet Contract.
Plaintiffs previously requested a copy of the FirstNet Contract through an
earlier motion to compel. (See Dkt. No. 116.) The Court denied that request, in part
due to the sensitivity of certain technical information contained in the contract and
Plaintiffs’ ability to obtain information about the relevant financial aspects of the
contract through other means. (See Dkt. No. 125 at 3-4.) Plaintiffs ask again, this
2 Defendant notes that, subsequent to the first Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, Plaintiffs
noticed a second Rule 30(b)(6) deposition including AT&T’s SEC filings as a topic but later
withdrew the notice, evidencing their understanding that the public filings were not part of
the first deposition.
Case 3:23-cv-00355-X Document 185 Filed 02/17/26 Page 10 of 11 PageID <pageID>

-11-
time for “relevant portions” of the contract. (Mot. at 14-16.) They assert that the
disclosure of contract provisions “defining connection thresholds, performance
requirements, and the metrics tied to AT&T’s compensation.” (Mot. at 15.)
Plaintiffs specifically disclaim any request for sensitive infrastructure details or
technical specifications. (Id. at 16.) At the hearing, they asserted that the portions of
the contract requested concern “Task Four,” the portion of the contract that relates
to the build-out of the system and financial considerations.
The Court declines Plaintiffs’ request to reconsider its prior order. Consistent
with the Court’s prior order, Defendants have provided discovery concerning the
milestones set by the contract and AT&T’s remuneration for achieving those
milestones and financial information concerning revenues and expenses. (See, e.g., P.
App. 96-102.)
III. CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs’ Expedited Motion to Compel is DENIED, and the parties shall bear
their respective costs.
SO ORDERED on February 17, 2026.
BRIAN McKAY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:23-cv-00355-X Document 185 Filed 02/17/26 Page 11 of 11 PageID <pageID>