A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


Entries for tag: Legal Writing

Responding to Opposing Arguments Isn't "Sandbagging"

David M. Fry, June 25, 2020
Litigation Legal Writing

As Andrew recently explained, the District of Delaware has a longstanding rule against "sandbagging," or saving arguments for a reply brief that should have been in a full and fair opening brief. But not every new argument is sandbagging.

In f'real Foods, LLC v. Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc., C.A. No. 16-41-CFC (D. Del. June 24, 2020), the defendants opposed a permanent injunction on sale of their commercial blenders by pointing out that the plaintiffs presented no evidence that their blender could meet the technical requirements demanded by one of defendants' customers (Dairy Queen).

In reply, the plaintiffs submitted new evidence and argued for the first time that their blenders could be modified to meet Dairy Queen's …

View

"Sandbagging" and the District of Delaware

Andrew E. Russell, June 3, 2020
Litigation Legal Writing

Sandbags
ideadad, Unsplash

In an R&R this week, Magistrate Judge Burke flatly declined to consider a "critical[]" argument raised for the first time in a reply brief:

In their reply brief, Defendants made one other argument, which they failed to raise in their opening brief . . . . (D.I. 37 at 9 (“Critically, neither of these manuals refer to the named defendants in this case[.]”)) Because this argument could have and should have been raised in the opening brief, it has been waived, and so the Court will not consider it here. See McKesson Automation, Inc. v. Swisslog Italia S.p.A., 840 F. Supp. 2d 801, 803 n.2 (D. Del. 2012); LG Display Co., Ltd. …
View

Judge Andrews Rejects Footnote "Incorporating" Eight Pages of Prior Briefing

Andrew E. Russell, May 29, 2020
Litigation Legal Writing

Judge Andrews today rejected a portion of a defendant's objections to an R&R because the defendant set forth its objections in "a footnote, which purport[ed] to include about eight pages of the earlier briefing." Sapp et al v. Industrial Action Services, LLC et al, No. 19-912-RGA, at 10 (D. Del. May 29, 2020) (emphasis added).

He held—perhaps not surprisingly—that this "is an insufficient objection." Id.

That said, he did sustain the same defendant's objections to other portions of Magistrate Judge Burke's R&R, although he called the underlying legal issue a "close call." Id. at 8.

View
Newer

Archive