Computer Programs and Systems, Inc. et al v. Wazu Holdings, Inc. et al

Filing 154

Order granting in part and denying in part 117 MOTION to Compel filed by Computer Programs and Systems, Inc., and 118 Second MOTION to Compel Discovery filed by Evident, Inc., Wazu Holdings, Ltd. as set out herein. Parties are ordered to notify Court in writing whether the exchange of information resulted in a resolution and the status of the outstanding discovery dispute by no later than 7/3/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Katherine P. Nelson on 6/26/2017. (srd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
COMPUTER PROGRAMS AND
SYSTEMS, INC., and
EVIDENT LLC,

:
:
:
:
:
:
: CIVIL ACTION 15-0405-KD-N
:
:
:
:
:

Plaintiffs,
vs.
WAZU HOLDINGS, LTD. and
EVIDENT, INC.,
Defendants.

ORDER
On June 15, 2017, a hearing was held on Plaintiffs, Computer
Programs and Systems, Inc. (“CPSI”) and Evident, LLC’s, Motion to Compel
(Doc. 117) and Defendants, Wazu Holdings, Ltd. and Evident, Inc.’s, Motion
to Compel (Doc. 118), limited to the outstanding issues reported by the
parties on May 26, 2017 (Doc. 148). As a result, the parties’ motions (Docs.
117 and 118) are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:
A.

Defendants’ request that Plaintiffs produce all internal emails
from January 1, 2013 to present between Scott Schneider, Boyd
Douglas, David Dye, and Jenny Humphreys that include the
following terms/phrases: “Rebranding”, “Tenet Partners”,
“Brandlogic”, “Evident, Inc.”, “Wazu”, “Trademark Litigation”,
and “Canada”.

Plaintiffs are ORDERED to produce the emails as requested.
B.

Plaintiffs’ request that Defendants supplement their discovery
responses to specify which documents are responsive to

1

particular requests for production or otherwise categorize or
index the voluminous documents produced.
At the hearing, Plaintiffs were ordered to provide to Defendants, in
writing, a list of the proposed categories by which the emails previously
produced (approx. 85,388 pages) should be classified by not later than June
19, 2017. Defendants were ordered to respond to the list in writing by not
later that June 26, 2017. The Court understands that Plaintiffs provided the
subject list to Defendants and has no reason to believe that Defendants will
not respond by today, June 26, 2017. As such, the parties are ORDERED to
notify this Court in writing by not later than Monday July 3, 2017,
whether said exchange of information resulted in a resolution of this dispute
or whether further court intervention is necessary and on what grounds.
C.

Defendants’ request that Plaintiffs produce user/functionality
manuals for Evident, LLC, software and screenshots, screen
“grabs”, printouts, screen “captures” or other visual depictions of
each and every element, module, interface, component,
associated fields/menus, dialogue boxes, integrated forms,
windows, tabs, and for other architecture of the Evident, LLC,
software distributed under the name Thrive for the period of
April 2015 to present.

It is the Court’s understanding that Defendants have been provided
the requested information.
D.

The Production of all CPSI Board Minutes during the requested
time period in an un-redacted form.

During the hearing, counsel for Defendants suggested a compromise of
this dispute: that counsel for Defendants be allowed to conduct a visual

2

review all of the board minutes for the relevant time period in an un-redacted
form at the office of counsel for Plaintiffs. Counsel for Plaintiffs requested
the opportunity to discuss such a resolution with their client. The parties are
ORDERED to notify the Court the status of this outstanding discovery
dispute by not later than Monday, July 3, 2017.
E.

The production of the communications concerning the advice of
Plaintiffs’ counsel about whether the EVIDENT mark is
available and whether the use of the mark infringes on others’
use.

The redacted and un-redacted versions of the relevant communications
were submitted to the Court for in camera review. The undersigned finds
that the redacted communications produced were in compliance with the
discovery requests and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure such that no
additional information should be un-redacted and no further production is
necessary.
DONE and ORDERED this the 26th day of June 2017.

/s/ Katherine P. Nelson
KATHERINE P. NELSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3