Neural AI, LLC v. Tesla Inc. — Entry #12: REPLY to Response to Motion, filed by Neural AI, LLC, re 6 CORRECTED MOTION to Compel Compliance With Subpoena Served on Third Party Tesla, Inc

Case 7:26-mc-00318-LS    Document 12      Filed 08/31/26     Page 1 of 8


                    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                     FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                          MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION


NEURAL AI, LLC,
                                         Misc. Case No. 7 :26-mc-00318
      Petitioner,
                                         Principal case pending in W estem District of
      V.                                 Texas, Civil Action No. 7:24-cv-00221-LS-
                                         DTG
TESLA, INC.,

      Respondent.


     NEURAL Al'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO COMPEL
  COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA SERVED ON THIRD-PARTY TESLA, INC.


                                     1


           Case 7:26-mc-00318-LS           Document 12        Filed 08/31/26      Page 2 of 8


           Tesla's opposition asks this Court to believe that NAI agreed to accept a five-paragraph

declaration listing GPU model numbers and call it a day. No document supports that claim: not

the subpoena, not the draft declaration NAI provided, not any document in the record. What the

record does show is that NAI offered Tesla a streamlined path to resolve both subpoenas by

addressing fifteen substantive questions in declaration form, and NAI would forgo broader

document discovery "subject to resolving any material gaps." Ex. 10 at 1; Tesla took the shortcut

but skipped the substance, then unilaterally declared the matter "concluded." Ex. 21 at 2. It is not.

I.         TESLA REWRITES THE PARTIES' MEET AND CONFER EFFORTS

            Tesla's self-serving account of the parties' meet-and-confer is contradicted by the written

     record. Tesla's central premise-that NAI agreed to limit discovery to identifying hardware and

     software products (Opp. at 4-6}-has no support. NAI offered to avoid more intrusive discovery

     into Tesla's systems if Tesla confirmed that it used NVIDIA software on NVIDIA hardware

     without source-code modification and that relevant functionalities were present. Ex. 10 at 1; Ex.

     12. Otherwise, NAI needed information about Tesla's modifications and their effect on

     infringement. Ex. 10 at 1. The "out-of-the-box" discussion was a path to narrowing discovery

     through those substantive confirmations, and not an agreement to accept a product list.

            The draft declaration's scope is explicit: fifteen paragraphs covering GPU identification

     (Ex. 12 ,-i 3); three categories of NVIDIA software (,-r,-r 4--6); whether Tesla uses that software

     without modification to source code (,-r 7); whether hardware and software function, to the best

     of Tesla's knowledge, as designed by NVIDIA (,-r 8); use of NVIDIA-distributed pretrained

     models (,-r 9); CPU/GPU memory architecture (,-r,-r 10---11); standard data paths, including

     GPUDirect (,Ml 12-13); U.S. operations (,-r 14); and frequency of use (,-r 15). That is the scope

     NAI proposed and the information needed to resolve the subpoenas.


                                                     1


           Case 7:26-mc-00318-LS            Document 12      Filed 08/31/26      Page 3 of 8


            Tesla states N AI' s draft declaration sought "pre-written admissions." Opp. at 1. Not true.

 NAI's draft declaration was a template addressing the information needed to resolve the

 subpoenas and did not dictate any language. Indeed, NAI expressly said "Tesla may revise to

 ensure its accuracy." Ex. 10 at 1. But any revision still needed to address any modification Tesla

 made to the NVIDIA hardware and software, if any, relevant to NAI's infringement theories.

            Tesla's own declarant admits that NAI only agreed to accept the declaration "subject to

 any material gaps." Fawzy Deel. 1 13. NAI expressly preserved its right to seek additional

 information, and the declaration's omissions produced this dispute.

II.        TESLA'S DECLARATION IS MATERIALLY DEFICIENT

           Tesla recasts the dispute as one over "length." Opp. at 7. That is a straw man. The problem

is what Tesla omitted, not how much it said. Its five-paragraph declaration sidesteps the technical

facts needed to resolve the subpoenas.

           Rather than revising NAI's draft declaration to accurately address the core subjects, Tesla

provided non-answers. Ex. 20. The declaration identifies six GPU models (id. 1 3), a partial

software list (14), and states that some software is used "as provided" (15). It omits:

      1.      Whether Tesla uses all NVIDIA software without modification to code (Ex. 12, 17);

      2.      Whether hardware/software functions as designed by NVIDIA (id. 18);

      3.      Use of NVIDIA-distributed pretrained models (id.19);

      4.      CPU/GPU memory architecture (id. ffl0--11);

      5.      Standard data paths including GPUDirect (id. ffl2-13);

      6.      U.S. operations (id. 114); and

      7.      Frequency of use (id. 115).

Those omissions are material.


                                                    2


        Case 7:26-mc-00318-LS             Document 12        Filed 08/31/26       Page 4 of 8


        Indeed, Tesla's qualification that only "some software" is used "as provided" creates

precisely the uncertainty that further discovery must resolve. Ex. 20 ,r 5. That wording necessarily

leaves open whether Tesla modifies other NVIDIA software, what those modifications are, and

whether they affect the accused functionality. Tesla offers no explanation. Those unanswered

questions make a Tesla deposition even more necessary-not less-to determine how Tesla

actually uses NVIDIA's software and to develop the third-party evidence bearing on NAI's

infringement claims against NVIDIA.

        Moreover, NAI asked only for Tesla's best knowledge and not a guarantee that NVIDIA's

products work "as designed and intended." Opp. at 5. If Tesla knows otherwise, that fact warrants

further discovery on induced infringement. Tesla cannot evade a material factual question by

relabeling it a request for a legal conclusion. It is not.

III.    THE MOTION IS TIMELY

        Tesla's timeliness argument fails on every level.

        First, the motion was timely under the stipulated deadline. NVIDIA agreed that third-

party document motions could be filed through August 18, 2026. Laiche Deel. ,r 28. NAI filed on

August 17. Tesla protests it was "not a party to that stipulation" (Opp. at 10, n.4 ), but the stipulation

governs the schedule in the underlying litigation. Tesla has no standing to veto a scheduling

agreement between the actual parties.

        Second, the motion is timely even without the stipulation. Local Rule CV -16(e) permits

motions filed ''within 14 days after the discovery deadline [if they] pertain to conduct occurring

during the final 7 days of discovery." Tesla served its materially inadequate declaration on August

10, the day before discovery closed. NAI filed on August 17, within fourteen days of the original

deadline and Tesla's noncompliance. The motion is therefore independently timely.


                                                    3


        Case 7:26-mc-00318-LS           Document 12        Filed 08/31/26      Page 5 of 8


       Third, service of the subpoenas was timely. Tesla argues NAI served them too late because

they were issued in June 2026 rather than October 2025, when NAI served other customers. But

Tesla cites no case holding that a subpoena served nearly two months before the close of document

discovery-and three months before the close of deposition discovery-is untimely. It is not. The

subpoenas were timely, and Tesla had more than adequate time to respond but chose not to.

 IV.     TESLA'S DIVISIONAL OBJECTION IS MERITLESS

       NAI complied with Rule 45 and the Clerk's express instructions. The subpoenas designate

Austin as the place of compliance, and NAI filed its motion in the Western District of Texas, which

is the "district where compliance is required." Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B)(i). Rule 45 requires

filing in the proper district, not a particular division. Rule 45(c)'s 100-mile limitation governs

where Tesla must comply, not the courthouse hearing the motion.

       Moreover, NAI was instructed to direct its motion to Midland/Odessa. Because the original

motion had no divisional header, the Clerk issued a deficiency notice directing NAI to revise the

header to read "Midland/Odessa Division" and refile. See Ex. A. NAI followed that instruction

exactly. Tesla's objection thus identifies, at most, an administrative assignment issue the Court

may correct. It is no basis to deny an otherwise timely motion filed in the correct federal district,

much less without leave to refile.

 V.      TESLA'S CROSS-MOTION TO QUASH SHOULD BE DENIED

       Tesla's burden objections are boilerplate. It identifies no specific cost or hardship and does

not explain why answering fifteen factual questions about its own GPU infrastructure is unduly

burdensome. That is insufficient. See Waller v. Jet Specialty, Inc., 2024 WL 7050192, at *3 (W.D.

Tex. 2024) ("The resisting party 'must show how the requested discovery is overly broad, unduly

burdensome, or oppressive by submitting affidavits or offering evidence revealing the nature of


                                                 4


        Case 7:26-mc-00318-LS          Document 12          Filed 08/31/26    Page 6 of 8


the burden."') (citation omitted).

       Tesla's overbreadth objection fares no better. NAI's twelve requests target discrete steps

in the accused method and specific technical elements of its infringement claims-software

selection, data paths, memory architecture, and GPU computation scheduling-not a fishing

expedition. N AI further narrowed the requests by offering a declaration alternative that would have

eliminated document production entirely. Tesla refused that accommodation and now complains

about the scope of the discovery it forced NAI to pursue. NAI has made every effort to minimize

Tesla's burden. It offered to accept a declaration in lieu of document production. It provided

focused technical questions. It narrowed scope at every tum. Tesla rejected each accommodation.

       Moreover, NVIDIA itself told this Court that it lacks knowledge of how customers deploy

its products and that NAI must seek this information directly from customers. Laiche Deel. ,r 24.

Tesla is the only entity that can answer these questions.

       Finally, to be clear, NAI does not need access to Tesla's unique trade-secret code. NAI

needs to know how Tesla is incorporating NVIDIA 's code, what functionalities it is invoking, and

what modifications, if any, it is making. Tesla repeatedly frames NAI's requests as seeking all of

Tesla's proprietary information, but NAI has repeatedly explained its focus is on Tesla's use and

integration of NVIDIA products-not Tesla's independent innovations-and the draft declaration

confirms the same scope. The Court should ignore Tesla's baseless confidentiality objections.

VI.    CONCLUSION

         For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant NAI's Motion to Compel and deny

 Tesla's Cross-Motion to Quash. At minimum, it should compel Tesla to produce documents

 sufficient to establish the facts addressed in NAI's draft declaration and designate a witness to

 testify regarding the declaration Tesla served and any remaining gaps. Ex. 14.


                                                 5


       Case 7:26-mc-00318-LS   Document 12   Filed 08/31/26     Page 7 of 8


Dated: August 30, 2026


                                         Respectfully submitted,

                                         Isl Rocco Magni
                                         Max L. Tribble
                                         Texas State Bar 20213950
                                         Brian D. Melton
                                         Texas State Bar 24010620
                                         Rocco Magni
                                         Texas State Bar 24092745
                                         Samuel Drezdzon
                                         Texas State Bar 24117374
                                         SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
                                         1000 Louisiana
                                         Suite 5100
                                         Houston, TX 77002
                                         Telephone: (713) 651-9366
                                         Facsimile: (713) 654-6666
                                         mtribble@susmangodfrey.com
                                         bmelton@susmangodfrey.com
                                         rmagni@susmangodfrey.com
                                         sdrezdzon@susmangodfrey.com

                                         Tamar Lusztig
                                         NY State Bar 5125174
                                         Emily Portuguese
                                         NY State Bar 5920327
                                         One Manhattan West, 50th Floor
                                         New York, NY 10001
                                         tlusztig@susmangodfrey.com
                                         eportuguese@susmangodfrey.com

                                         Tanner Laiche
                                         WA State Bar 60450
                                         401 Union Street, Suite 3000
                                         Seattle, WA 98101
                                         tlaiche@susmangodfrey.com

                                         Attorneys for Petitioner Neural AI, LLC


                                     6


        Case 7:26-mc-00318-LS        Document 12      Filed 08/31/26     Page 8 of 8


                              CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

       The undersigned does hereby certify that on August 30, 2026, a true and correct copy of

the foregoing document was served on counsel for Tesla, Inc. and all counsel of record in the

underlying action.


                                                  Isl Rocco Magni
                                                  Rocco Magni


                                              7