"Behold, our fulsome and complete damages theory disclosure. I'm sure this won't cause us any problems down the line."Andy Bridge, Unsplash
Parties in patent cases are often tempted to provide bare-bones responses to contention interrogatories, offering just enough to preserve their ability to expand on the arguments later during expert reports. That's easier, obviously, than providing more detailed contentions, and it also maintains flexibility as discovery develops.
Plus, parties simply may not have fully developed their theories at the time contention interrogatories are due. Expert reports are when theories are typically fully fleshed out, after discovery has closed and the universe of information is set, more or less.
But there is another consideration as well, beyond preventing a …
I have to assume "Orca Security Ltd." is a company that provides bodyguards for killer whales.Lachlan Gowen, Unsplash
Given how often parties use search terms, you'd think we would see precedent on them more often. But opinions about the use of search terms for document production only come out occasionally. It may be that many of these disputes are resolved on teleconferences, where the generally escape the notice of anyone who is not on that case.
Anyway, this week the Court unsealed a new opinion regarding document production and the use of search terms.
In Orca Security Ltd. v. Wiz., Inc., C.A. No. 23-758-JLH-SRF (D. Del.), the parties agreed in an ESI stipulation that they would search using search terms. The searched terms resulted in about 110,000 unique hits in the defendants documents—but it produced only about 25,000 documents. It argued the remainder were non-responsive to the plaintiff's discovery requests.
The plaintiff moved to compel production of the remaining 85,000 documents. The Court granted the motion, relying primarily on the fact that the defendant is withholding so many documents that hit the search terms:
The ESI Order provides that "the parties will have substantially completed production of all non-privileged custodial ESI responsive to the parties' Priority Requests, subject to any unresolved objections[,]" by August 30, 2024. (D.1. 71 at 6; D.I. 106) Even if the court were to construe this provision broadly to support Defendant's position that documents hitting on search terms can be withheld based on relevance,' relevance is broadly construed in the context of discovery. . . . The fact that Defendant is withholding more than seventy-five percent of the documents hitting on the parties' agreed-upon search terms amounts to "specific, compelling evidence suggesting that [Defendant] is withholding responsive ESI material." Doe 1 v. Baylor Univ., 2018 WL 11471253, at *2 (W.D. Tex. May 6, 2018).
. . . Plaintiff explains that search terms combining "orca* AND" with keywords deemed to be relevant to the issues in the case resulted in about 35,000 unique documents across custodians, but Defendant's production includes less than 3,000 documents for that keyword combination. . . . These documents are facially relevant, satisfying Plaintiff's initial burden to establish the relevance of the requested information. . . . Defendant offers no argument or examples supporting its position that documents hitting on these agreed-upon search terms are not responsive.
Orca Security Ltd. v. Wiz., Inc., C.A. No. 23-758-JLH-SRF, D.I. 182 (D. Del. Oct. 22, 2024).
It's interesting that the Court focused primarily on the relevance of the documents to the issues in the case, rather than whether the documents were responsive to plaintiff's discovery requests. The scope of the plaintiff's requests was not discussed in the decision—possibly because ...
There's not a lot of space in a discovery dispute letter to get into the real nitty gritty of the dispute. You've gotta put in the standard, say the word "Pennypack" 20 or 30 times, and work in the phrase "flies in the face of" at least once.
AI-Generated, displayed with permission
A recent opinion from Judge Burke, however, illustrates the folly of briefing disputes in this way, even if it is satisfying.
The defendant in Attentive Mobile Inc. v. Stodge Inc., C.A. No. 23-87, D.I. 400 (D. Del. Oct. 16, 2024) moved for a protective order to prevent the depositions of two employees. The opening letter apparently got quite into the weeds about the nature …
Yes, this is yet another Pennypack post. I can't resist. It's a tough-to-apply standard that impacts many cases (patent and otherwise). And it can sometimes seem to reward bad behavior by litigants, even—maybe especially—when applied as written.
But not this time! In Prolitec Inc. v. ScentAir Technology, LLC, C.A. No. 20-984-WCB (D. Del. Oct. 2, 2024), the patentee produced documents about a pre-priority-date sale of prior art after fact discovery closed and just five days before opening reports.
Unsurprisingly, the other side's opening expert report five days later did not include invalidity allegations about this sale.
This is an issue I've seen come up a few times, but I don't know of another opinion on it offhand.
Source code is typically managed using a source control or version control system, typically (but not always) using a program called git. Git is a command-line program that allows developers to manage different versions of source code in a tree structure called a "repository."
A developer can create a "branch" within the repository, for example, to work on a specific feature. As they work on aspects of the code for that feature, they can "commit" them, along with a message about the purpose of their revisions. When they are done working on that feature, …
"Yes, we need to know their financials for our permanent injunction. It totally won't help us in settlement negotiations or anything."AI-Generated, displayed with permission
This is another one where I saw a potentially useful order about an issue that comes up from time to time, and thought "I should write a blog post about that, so I can find it later." I hope this will be helpful for others as well.
Last week in Nexus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Exela Pharma Sciences, LLC, C.A. No. 22-1233-GBW (D. Del.), the Court addressed the question of whether a plaintiff in a "competitor-competitor" patent case could compel production of the defendant's corporate-level financials. It held that no, it could not, …
Bringing a discovery dispute is a bit of a 3-body problem. At any given time, you've probably got a half dozen complaints with what the other side is doing. When one boils over into a dispute you have to grapple with whether you should just bring all of them—and risk looking unreasonable—or just address the most pressing and risk having to raise serial disputes, which might look even worse. The push and pull can quickly become insoluble.
Luckily, we got an Order from Judge Burke this week that should make this calculus slightly easier going forward.
The defendants in Bardy Diagnostics, Inc. v. Vital Connect, Inc., C.A. No. 22-351-CFC-CJB, D.I. 97 (D. Del. June 11, 2024) (Oral Order) brought the first discovery dispute of the case (by either party) via judge Burkes usual procedure of filing a letter listing the disputes.
The disputes read as the usual humdrum list of custodians not searched and rogs insufficiently answered. The only thing out of the ordinary, is that there were 5 of them included in the letter.
Judge Burke responded to the request for a teleconference the next day with ...
Long-time readers can maybe skip this post, as we've discussed this issue before.
But I thought it was worth a post, because it's still something that comes up from time to time. But the court's rulings are clear: You can't redact information from document production just because you think it is irrelevant. You have to produce the documents without redactions.
This came up again this week, this time before visiting judge Murphy. Consistent with our other judges, he rejected the idea of permitting redactions of irrelevant material:
Defendants’ motion to modify the stipulated protective order (DI 52) is DENIED. . . . Defendants were unable to identify any occasion where a district court …
"Guys, if we write our own opening brief on their issue, we'll get more than twice the page limit! The Court loves extra briefing, right?"ron dyar, Unsplash
I've had this come up a couple of times lately, and an opinion came out on Friday that addresses it.
Here is an example scenario: Each side has a discovery dispute. The Court sets a briefing schedule with opening, answering, and reply 3-page briefs. Can each side spend half of its opening brief pre-briefing the other side's issues? Should they?
Judge Fallon resolved this on Friday with a clear "No". You wait for the other side to file their brief, and then respond:
Last month we wrote about how delay is a motion killer. Procrastination is a problem most of us litigators share. But if you want your discovery motion granted, it's best to move now not later. Keep up the pressure.
We got another example of that yesterday in Tot Power Control, S.L. v. LG Electronics Inc., C.A. No. 21-1304-MN (D. Del. Apr. 23, 2024) (unsealed May 7, 2024). Tot is an opinion by Judge Fallon on several discovery motions, and two of them were denied due to delay.
First, the Court denied a request to compel plaintiff to produce communications related to valuations it received. Back in June 2023, the plaintiff had agreed …
This blog is for general informational purposes. It is not an offer to perform legal services, and should not be considered a substitute for legal advice. Nothing in this blog should be construed as forming an attorney-client relationship. If you have legal questions, please consult counsel in your jurisdiction.
