Judge Andrews issued an order a couple of weeks ago applying a Delaware local rule in a way I haven't seen before.
District of Delaware Local Rule 5.4 talks about when a party must serve vs. file discovery materials. Broadly, it says that in pro se cases, discovery request and responses is filed with the Court, and that in other cases, they are served but not filed.
But paragraph (b)(3) of LR 5.4 lays out what happens with deposition transcripts and other discovery materials when relied upon:
If depositions, interrogatories, requests for documents, requests for admissions, answers, or responses are to be used at trial or are necessary to a pretrial or post trial motion, the verbatim portions thereof considered pertinent by the parties shall be filed with the Court when relied upon.
LR 5.4(b)(3).
I've read this rule before but, honestly, have not thought much about it all that much since. Obviously, if you are relying on material, you will have to provide that material to the Court.
But Judge Andrews faced a situation where a party filed 490 pages of deposition transcripts containing the opposing party's information, which it had designated outside-counsel-only. They only cited a few of the pages in the related motion. The opposing party objected, saying it was unnecessary to file the transcripts, and doing so would unnecessarily put their information at risk.
The Court agreed, and cited Local Rule 5.4(b)(2) as requiring parties to file only the pertinent portions of deposition transcripts and discovery responses:
I received three submissions. . . . In relevant part, Plaintiff said there was no rule prohibiting what Plaintiff did, and some judges prefer to get complete depositions, etc. But I think Delaware does have a relevant Local Rule-Rule 5.4(b)(3), which states, in part, "If depositions ... are necessary to a pretrial... motion, the verbatim portions thereof considered pertinent by the parties shall be filed with the Court when relied upon." Some cases may require some judgment at the margins in deciding what is "pertinent." Plaintiff's decision to file the entirety of the two depositions and the twenty-six pages of the billing records is not in compliance with the Local Rule. The great bulk of the filings are clearly "not pertinent" to the motion to strike the expert report. Thus, they should not have been filed the way Plaintiff filed them.
Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., C.A. No. 19-2216-RGA, at 2 (D. Del. Jan. 14, 2025).
The Court struck the filings, and ...
