A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


Entries for tag: Discovery

Informal Request for Production at Deposition Insufficient to Preserve Rights Absent Later Formal Request

Andrew E. Russell, April 18, 2021
Document Production Deposition

Judge Andrew's In re Chanbond opinion an Friday focused primarily on reopening discovery, but it also addressed a second issue, which I thought merited a separate post.

Shortly before trial, in a reply brief, Defendants sought production of an "Advisory Services Agreement" between the plaintiff and third party IPNav. They had previously informally requested the document at a deposition, and renewed that request as part of their motion to reopen discovery after the document's importance became apparent in light of the standing dispute. Defendants request at the deposition was apparently on the record, and Plaintiff indicated it would look for the document, but Defendants did not follow up with a formal document request:

I agree with Plaintiff that Defendants …
View

What Are the "Usual Discovery Dispute Procedures" in the District of Delaware?

Andrew E. Russell, Jan. 25, 2021
KB Discovery Dispute

Le Duel a l'Épée et au Poignard (The Duel with the Sword and Dagger)
Le Duel a l'Épée et au Poignard (The Duel with the Sword and Dagger), Jacques Callot

After we talked last week about an unsuccessful effort to bypass the Court's discovery dispute procedures, I thought it might be interesting to talk about what those procedures are, for people who don't practice here day in and day out.

A discovery dispute is a special procedure that allows the parties to receive a (relatively) quick hearing to resolve issues that arise during discovery. Bringing a discovery dispute is the only way the Court allows the parties to address these kinds of discovery issues in a typical District of Delaware case (including both patent and non-patent cases).

Is This in the Rules or What?

Discovery disputes are not mentioned in the local rules, but all of the judges have discovery dispute procedures in their form scheduling orders. ...

View

Court Orders "Unusual" Preliminary 30(b)(6) Deposition, Suggests Sanctions After Defendant Potentially "Hiding the Ball" on Damages

Andrew E. Russell, Oct. 18, 2020
Damages Sua Sponte

Google tells me
Google tells me "hide the ball" is a football thing. Dave Adamson, Unsplash

In Guest Tek Interactive Entertainment, Ltd. v. Nomadix, Inc., C.A. No. 18-1394-RGA (D. Del.), plaintiff sent RFPs for various financial documents, but defendant produced only a single page profit and loss statement for each year, claiming no more was available.

Plaintiff brought a discovery dispute and asked Judge Andrews to order production of any further documents in defendant's possession.

Judge Andrews declined. Instead, he sua sponte suggested that the parties resolve this via a 30(b)(6) deposition about the kinds of financial information that defendant keeps:

[D]o a 30(b)(6) deposition and find out if there are any other documents. And you know, …
View

New Standard for Striking a Theory from a Rebuttal Expert Report

Andrew E. Russell, Sept. 4, 2020
Pennypack Discovery

Stop Sign
Luke van Zyl, Unsplash

This week, Judge Burke issued an interesting oral order on a discovery dispute about the admissibility of "new" expert opinions in rebuttal reports.

In the order, he sets forth a simple baseline test for what a party has to show to strike purportedly "new" expert opinions in a rebuttal report. To succeed in striking a "new" theory, a party must show at least:

(a) how they clearly disclosed that theory well before final . . . contentions were due . . . ; (b) how the same theory was thereafter found in their opening expert reports . . . ; and (c) how [the opposing party] never provided any substantive response to that theory until …
View

Judge Burke Sets Forth Views on Impermissible Discovery in Trade Secret Actions

Andrew E. Russell, Aug. 28, 2020
Discovery

Restricted Data Notice
"Restricted Data" stamp, RestrictedData, CC BY 2.0

In another part of the opinion mentioned earlier today, Judge Burke set forth his views on the scope of discovery in a trade secret action—an issue that comes up a lot, along with the related issue of the disclosure of the alleged trade secrets:

As to what is not relevant trade secret discovery: what [Plaintiff] is not entitled to do is to set out a claim in Count IX for trade secret misappropriation—i.e., a claim involving a certain set of alleged facts, occurring in a certain alleged time frame, involving a certain referenced set of persons and a certain type of purported misconduct—and then say to [Defendant], “Now that we have …
View

The Court: Broad, General Interrogatories Merit Only Broad, General Answers

Andrew E. Russell, Aug. 28, 2020
Interrogatories Discovery

Judge Burke yesterday unsealed a lengthy opinion addressing a range of discovery disputes in a pending trade secret litigation.

In one instance, plaintiff sought to force a further response to a broad interrogatory, and complained that Defendant's broad answer omitted important time periods. The interrogatory asked:

[D]escribe in detail the stage of R&D, design, documentation, clinical work, marketing and/or sales of the [relevant product] at the time [Defendant] or anyone on behalf of [Defendant] was in first contact with any Former [Plaintiff] Employee . . . .

Judge Burke denied the request, noting that the time periods Plaintiff complained about were from before the alleged trade secret theft, and therefore it was not clear why they were relevant. He also …

View

Three Things Docket Navigator Didn't Mention About Judge Bryson's Recent Discovery Opinion

Andrew E. Russell, July 28, 2020
Errata 30(b)(6)

This morning, Docket Navigator covered Judge Bryson's D. Del. discovery opinion that was made public this week, focusing on his denial of a motion to strike errata to a 30(b)(6) deposition transcript.

But there are (at least) three other interesting points about the errata in the opinion:

  • COVID issues make deposition errata more necessary:
Mr. Rothrock had to prepare for his deposition under difficult circumstances, including having to consult remotely with others in the company. Mr. Rothrock understandably could have made a mistake during his deposition in light of the numerous topics and challenging circumstances in which he was forced to prepare. Given those circumstances, I will not disregard Mr. Rothrock’s errata.
  • The Court noted that, as usual, …
View
Newer

Archive