This decision is a bit dense, but it's on an issue that could come up in any case.
The plaintiff in TOT Power Control, S.L. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., C.A. No. 21-1305-MN (D. Del.) accused several products by name, and also stated in its infringement contentions that it would "seek discovery as to the identity of any [of the defendant's] products with substantially similar designs to the expressly listed accused products." D.I. 131.
The case progressed, and it turns out that the defendant does, indeed, have multiple products with similar names. The Court ultimately granted a motion to compel the defendant to provide financial discovery on each of the alternative products, even …
"Our two identified custodians have the 'majority' of relevant docs and any others have 'duplicative' info." Discovery dispute goes *poof*?AI-Generated, displayed with permission
In the District of Delaware, unless the parties agree otherwise, ESI discovery is guided by the Default Standard for Discovery. The Court published the Default Standard over a decade ago, and at this point quite a bit of case law has developed interpreting its various provisions.
Among other things, the Default Standard requires each party to identify "[t]he 10 custodians most likely to have discoverable information" in a case. These custodians' files will ultimately be searched as part of the document production process.
One common question is: what if we have less than 10 custodians with discoverable information? The answer to that is typically "disclose what you have," but I had not seen a case setting a standard for when a party can disclose less than 10 custodians—until this week.
In Attentive Mobile Inc. v. 317 Labs, Inc., C.A. No. 22-1163-CJB (D. Del.), Judge Burke addressed a discovery dispute where the defendant identified just four custodians. He denied a motion to compel the identification of more custodians based on an argument that the four custodians had a "majority" of the non-duplicative ...
If there is one thing that tends to kill discovery motions, it's delay. If you want to have the best chance of winning your motion to compel, supplement, strike, etc., you need to bring the motion early. Don't wait.
We got a good example of that last week in CosmoKey Solutions GmbH & Co. KG v. Duo Security, Inc., C.A. No. 18-1477-JLH, D.I. 163 (D. Del. Apr. 9, 2024). There, a defendant sought to compel a deposition of an inventor before a Markman hearing, arguing that the testimony was important for claim construction. The Court denied the request, in part because they waited too long:
ORAL ORDER: The Court has reviewed the discovery …
"Hang on, judge. You can't just rely on what is in our letter briefs. We filed those three days ago!"AI Generated, displayed with permission
Judge Burke issued an oral order late last week addressing a discovery dispute where a defendant requested that the Court order plaintiff to apply more e-mail search terms. He denied the request, noting that the parties were clearly still meeting-and-conferring:
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the portion of the pending motion regarding discovery disputes, (D.I. 198), in which Defendant requests that the Court order Plaintiff to utilize 24 additional ESI search terms ("Defendant's request"), and the briefing related thereto, (D.I. 204; D.I. 212; D.I. 214), hereby ORDERS that Defendant's request is DENIED, without prejudice to renew. That request, as briefed, is clearly unripe. In the briefing, the parties, including Defendant, alternatively described the issue as one as to which the parties were: (1) "continu[ing] their meet and confers [such that Plaintiff] offered some supplemental ESI searches and... [Defendant] requested some modifications[,]" (D.I. 204 at 2); (2) "still negotiating on the scope of additional search terms and are not at an impasse" and "working... to narrow the additional search terms[,]" (D.I. 212 at 1); and (3) "continu[ing] to discuss matters" in that Defendant "intends to submit new search terms [that] should resolve all of [Plaintiff's] alleged criticism" such that the matter "should be resolved" in the future, (D.I. 214 at 1).
Topia Technology, Inc. v. Egnyte, Inc., C.A. No. 21-1821, D.I. 226 (D. Del. Feb. 9, 2024).
He explained why the Court requires parties to ...
"Counsel, go stand in the corner until you figure out what 'collegiality' means."Mag Pole, Unsplash
Several District of Delaware judges have discovery dispute procedures that require parties to first file a letter stating that the parties have met and conferred but are unable to resolve some disputes, and list the disputes.
This usually works out well, but a few issues can occasionally come up with this procedure. For example:
One party refuses to meet-and-confer, forcing the other side to file solo.
The parties have met and conferred to death, but one party refuses to sign the the joint letter anyway (or just refuses to respond), solely for the purpose of delay.
The judges' form scheduling orders in D. Del. have deadlines for "substantial completion" of document production. Generally, this deadline is set so that the parties can get most of their documents out and then proceed to depositions.
This tends to be one of the key deadlines in cases, and it often the subject of disputes. We've talked before about how a party cannot withhold a category of documents until after the deadline, and how waiting to produce things until after the deadline can result in exclusion.
Parties typically agree to make "rolling productions" up until that deadline. But, sometimes, the "rolling production" is a trickle, with the bulk of the documents coming just before the deadline—leaving the other side to scramble to review everything in time for depositions.
This week we got some useful precedent from Judge Burke about how that technique is inappropriate, and how parties need to spread their "rolling" production out proportionally:
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Plaintiff's discovery dispute motion ("Motion"), (D.I. 73), and the briefing related thereto, (D.I. 70; D.I. 72; D.I. 82), hereby ORDERS that the Motion is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART as follows: (1) The Court agrees with Plaintiff that Defendants should make an orderly and proportional production of their ESI discovery, such that they should not be dumping the bulk of those remaining documents on Plaintiff at or near the December 5 substantial completion deadline. But the Court sees that Defendants have begun to move forward with those productions (perhaps spurred by Plaintiff's Motion), and it also agrees with Defendants that it is not in a good position to set an arbitrary number of ESI documents that should be produced each X days on Y dates.; and (2) So the Court will simply order that between now and December 5, Defendants should produce their remaining ESI discovery on a consistent, roughly proportional, rolling basis, such that Plaintiff does not get the bulk of the remaining documents at or near the deadline. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 11/6/2023. (mlc) (Entered: 11/06/2023)
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Amazon.com, Inc., C.A. No. 22-1447-CJB, D.I. 91 (D. Del. Nov. 6, 2023).
The plaintiff had sought an order compelling the defendant to produce "50,000 documents per week" over the 7 weeks that were then remaining before the substantial completion deadline. The Court rejected that part of the request, possibly because the defendant argued it didn't have all that many documents.
But the order makes clear that the defendant has to roll out what it does have in a "roughly proportional, rolling basis" before the final deadline. Nice!
I've attached the order below so that we can all find it next time this issue comes up in a discovery dispute.
"Do we want to bring this discovery dispute, or do we want to cross their corporate rep at trial? Choices, choices..."Vladislav Babienko, Unsplash
We've written before about how the Court sometimes sets up escalating obstacles for parties who are insensitive to the Court's time and bring too many discovery disputes. In that case, the Court gave the parties "homework" (writing letters to the Court) after their seventh discovery dispute.
In Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation, C.A. No. 22-1377-MN-JLH (D. Del.), the Court referred all pre-trial matters up until dispositive motions to Magistrate Judge Hall.
Judge Hall took action after the parties brought what looks like seven discovery disputes. The docket shows the Court's escalating response to the parties disputes:
June 1 - First teleconference
June 16 - Second teleconference
July 7 - First in-person hearing
July 14 - Second in-person hearing
August 3 - Third in-person hearing
September 1 - Fourth in-person hearing; Court warns that future disputes will be charged to trial time
September 14 - Fifth in-person hearing; Court charges the parties' trial time
Guessing from the docket, it looks like the parties brought a number of rapid-fire discovery disputes starting on June 1. For the third dispute in about a month, the Court increased the friction on the parties by forcing them to come to Delaware to argue the disputes.
That doesn't seem to have slowed them down at all. After three in-person disputes ...
Bonjour dear readers! I have missed you all so. The blog vacation has been a real boon for us, and we've got a whole trove of opinions, orders, and shouted comments built up to discuss over the next few weeks.
One of the first that caught my eye was an order from Judge Burke that contained that rarest of gems -- praise for a party to a discovery dispute -- and included a neat primer on what the Court likes to see when ruling on them.
I don't know why, but whenever you ask it to include text it always sort of converts it into a realistic seeming eastern european languageAI-Generated, displayed with permission
The dispute in question was pretty standard stuff, with the defendant wanting a supplemental protective order that gave extra protections to design files that it likened to source code. As the party seeking the stricter protective order, they bore the burden which the Court found they met easily:
Defendant did here what too few parties in discovery disputes do: it made a detailed factual record, supported by multiple sworn declarations, that strongly supported its arguments. That is, Defendant has demonstrated that the "highly technical details necessary to fabricate [its] proprietary... lens designs" are, "in effect, the source code of lenses" and "are as commercially sensitive as any other form of source code[,]" such that they should receive the heightened form of protection set out in the SPO.
ImmerVision, Inc. v. Apple Inc., C.A. No 21-1484, D.I. 136 (D. Del. Aug. 4, 2023) (Oral Order).
The "detailed factual record" here was more straightforward [read: achievable] than you might think. The defendant submitted 2 declarations: a 3-pager from ...
As Delaware counsel, I sometimes have to say something along the lines of "the Court is going to see right through that" or "nobody is as sly as they think they are."
Usually this is in the context of something like slipping wholesale invalidity arguments into a claim construction brief (seriously? You think you are going to win SJ of anticipation at claim construction?) or "just flagging" a completely unrelated and irrelevant issue in a discovery dispute.
I saw an example of this last week in Speyside Medical, LLC v. Medtronic Corevalve, LLC, C.A. No. 20-361−GBW−CJB, D.I. 290 (D. Del. Jun. 26, 2023).
The headline is a nice quote from a Judge Burke oral order last week in Bausch & Lomb Incorporated v. SBH Holdings LLC, C.A. No. 20-1463-GBW-CJB, D.I. 77 (D. Del. May 12, 2023).
There, the defendant moved to stay but apparently failed to meet-and-confer at all before moving. The plaintiff wisely called them out for failing to do so:
As an initial matter, it is undisputed that SBH did not attach a certification pursuant to D. Del. LR 7.1.1 to its Motion or letter brief; nor could it have, because there was no meet and confer between counsel. The first B+L heard about SBH’s Motion was in SBH’s letter to the Court …
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.
