Discovery Category Archives — Page 4 of 10 — Patent Lawyer Blog Published By Patent Lawyer

Published on: February 23, 2016

The Problem with Backup Tapes: District Court Orders Retention of Old Backup Tapes for Ongoing Litigation

In this patent infringement action pending in a multi-district litigation, one of the defendants moved the district court for an order allowing the defendant to destroy old backup tapes. Defendant ICM, Inc. (“ICM”) moved for an order permitting it to destroy old backup tapes that contain electronic business information of ICM for the years 2003 through 2009.
Continue reading

Published on: February 16, 2016

Applying New Proportionality Requirements, Court Grants Motion to Compel and Orders Production of Unredacted Tax Returns and Financial Statements

by Stan Gibson

In this patent infringement action, Slide Fire Solutions, LP (“Slide Fire”) moved to compel discovery responses from Bump Fire Systems (“Bump Fire”). Bump Fire also requested a protective order to prevent the disclosure of certain discovery, including sensitive trade secrets and financial information.

With respect to the financial information, the court analyzed the motion to compel under the new proportionality standards set for in Fed.R.Civ.P. 26: The party seeking discovery, to prevail on a motion to compel or resist a motion for protective order, may well need to make its own showing of many or all of the proportionality factors, including the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, in opposition to the resisting party’s showing. And the party seeking discovery is required to comply with Rule 26(b)(1)’s proportionality limits on discovery requests; is subject to Rule 26(g)(1)’s requirement to certify “that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief formed after a reasonable inquiry: … (B) with respect to a discovery request…, it is: (i) consistent with these rules and warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law, or for establishing new law; (ii) not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; and (iii) neither unreasonable nor unduly burdensome or expensive, considering the needs of the case, prior discovery in the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the action”; and faces Rule 26(g)(3) sanctions “[i]f a certification violates this rule without substantial justification.” FED. R. CIV. P. 26(g)(1)(B), 26(g)(3); see generally Heller v. City of Dallas, 303 F.R.D. 466, 475-77, 493¬95 (N.D. Tex. 2014).
Continue reading

Published on: December 16, 2015

District Court Denies Discovery Served Too Close to Discovery Cut-Off

by Stan Gibson

Plaintiff filed a patent infringement action, alleging that Defendant B2B Supply and Defendant Jerrell P. Squyres (hereinafter “Defendants”) infringed U.S. Patent No. 7,731,462 (the ‘462 patent). Toward the end of discovery, the Defendants served written discovery and filed a motion seeking to extend the discovery deadline by 50 days to complete fact discovery and compelling Plaintiff to produce all responsive documents, certify that its production is complete, produce witnesses for deposition, and answer Defendants’ interrogatories.

In support of the motion, Defendants argued that an extension was necessary because Plaintiff had withheld documents from production and had otherwise failed to cooperate with discovery. As explained by the district court, the Defendants argued they were unable to complete discovery because Plaintiff withheld production, provided deficient respondes to discovery, and failed to certify that it had produced all responsive documents, which prevented Defendants from using the information to serve additional written discovery requests and third party subpoenas. Plaintiff responded that it timely served its responses and objections to Defendants’ discovery requests and that it had been diligent in searching for responsive documents.
Continue reading

Published on: December 14, 2015

District Court Grants Sanctions Reducing Number of 30(b)(6) Depositions, Awarding Costs to Plaintiff and with a Warning that Defendant’s Discovery Could Be Closed

by Stan Gibson

In this patent infringement action, the plaintiff filed a motion for discovery sanctions. The plaintiff argued in its motion that defendant failed to comply with the district court’s October 7, 2015 oral discovery order and related text-only order, in which the district court apparently warned the defendant that failure to comply would result in sanctions.
Continue reading

Published on: November 30, 2015

Calling the “Hotline”: Witness Ordered to Answer “Who” and “When” Deposition Questions Regarding Litigation Hold Memorandum

by Stan Gibson

On November 17, 2015, during a deposition of a fact witness, counsel for the plaintiff, Ericsson Inc. (“Ericsson”), attempted to question the witness regarding a litigation hold memorandum (the “memo”). Counsel for the plaintiff stated that she inquired as to the existence of such a memo, the date received, if any, and the recipients of the memo, if any.

Plaintiff’s counsel explained to the court that the witness was directed by counsel not to answer the questions on the basis of attorney-client privilege. The court was further advised that the information was relevant because there are allegations of potential spoliation in this case.
Continue reading

Published on: September 22, 2015

Court Declines to Stay Discovery Pending Motion to Dismiss Under Section 101 Because Court Does Not Believe That There Is an Immediate and Clear Possibility that Motion to Dismiss Will be Granted

by Stan Gibson

The defendants filed a motion to stay discovery until the district court ruled upon its motion to dismiss pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 101. In their motion to stay, Defendants asserted that its motion to stay discovery should be granted because it is a dispositive motion to dismiss that is likely to be granted, which would render any discovery conducted unnecessary and wasteful.

Plaintiff argued in opposition to the motion to stay that the Defendant’s motion to dismiss is not likely to be granted and also that the parties previously agreed that no Rule 12 motion concerning the pleadings would delay the commencement or conducting of discovery. Plaintiff also argued that it has incurred significant expenses in the litigation and that a stay of discovery would be prejudicial and harmful.
Continue reading

Published on: September 17, 2015

Court Orders Sanctions for Failure to Produce Source Code on a Timely Basis

by Stan Gibson

Plaintiffs Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson’s (“Ericsson”) filed a motion to compel discovery of source code and technical documents, pursuant to Local Patent Rule 3-4 in the Eastern District of Texas. As explained by the district court, Patent Local Rule 3-4 requires the party opposing a claim of infringement to produce or make available “[s]ource code, specifications, schematics, flow charts, artwork, formulas, or other documentation sufficient to show the operation of any aspects or elements of an Accused Instrumentality identified by the patent claimant in its P. R. 3-1(c) chart.”
Continue reading

Published on: September 10, 2015

Court Orders Further Production of Financial Records from Company and Accountant, Finding “Inconceivable” That Company Was Only Able to Locate Two Years of Tax Returns

by Stan Gibson

Plaintiffs filed an action defendants, Bouncing Angels, Inc. for, among other things, patent and copyright infringement. Plaintiffs successfully moved the district court to allow them to amend the complaint to add the owner of defendant Bouncing Angels, Inc., as a defendant based on financial evidence they discovered that could support an argument in favor of piercing the corporate veil. Discovery was extended “for the limited purpose of allowing discovery and dispositive motions only on issues relating to piercing the corporate veil.” The plaintiffs filed a motion to compel discovery on that issue.

As explained by the court, “[t]he discovery requests at issue in the Motion are all directed at defendant Bouncing Angels, and consist of document requests, requests for admissions, and an interrogatory. The discovery seeks Bouncing Angels’ tax returns and annual statements for a number of years, loan and security documents relating to a line of credit, information as to this defendant’s working capital, and whether Bouncing Angels ever conducted an independent audit.”
Continue reading

Published on: August 13, 2015

In-House Counsel Ordered to Sit for Additional Deposition After Emails Improperly Withheld on Basis of Privilege

by Stan Gibson

Sprint Communications Company, L.P., filed a patent-infringement action against Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, Comcast IP Phone, LLC, and Comcast Phone of Kansas, LLC (collectively, “Comcast”). The district court had previously ordered Comcast to produce seven emails received by Comcast’s in-house patent counsel, David Marcus, that Comcast had improperly withheld as privileged. After it received copies of the emails, Sprint moved to compel Comcast to produce Marcus for a second deposition to answer questions related to the emails.

The district court explained that the “recently produced emails involve communications from 2007 between in-house counsel for Comcast, Cox, and Time Warner Cable, and attorneys from the law firm of Dreier, LLP. The three cable companies had jointly retained Dreier to monitor proceedings in a patent-infringement lawsuit that Sprint had brought against Vonage Holdings Corp. and Vonage America, Inc. in the District of Kansas. Some of the patents that were at issue in Vonage are at issue in this case.”
Continue reading

Published on: June 8, 2015

Claw Back of Privileged Documents Fails Where Defendants Had Used the Documents in Depositions, Expert Reports and in Briefs without Objection

by Stan Gibson

Defendants filed a motion to compel Adaptix to re-produce documents that Adaptix had clawed back on the grounds of privilege. Adaptix had early produced the documents in several productions. The Defendants argued in the motion that even if Adaptix could demonstrate the documents are privileged, Adaptix waived the privilege because Defendants had notified Adaptix that they were relying on the documents at least nine months before Adaptix sent its clawback letter. Defendants pointed out that they had relied on information disclosed in the documents in depositions, expert reports, and briefing, all without any objection from Adaptix.

In response, Adaptix asserted that its data vendor erroneously produced the documents to Defendants without Adaptix knowledge even though they had been properly tagged as privileged. Adaptix also asserted that the documents fell within the protections of the attorney client work product doctrine because they pertained to testing that was performed for purposes of litigation at the direction of Adaptix’s attorneys. Adaptix then argued that it was only in March of 2015 that it “eventually realized the error of Defendants’ access to the documents at issue and promptly sent a letter clawing them back.”
Continue reading