L-3 Communications Corporation et al v. Jaxon Engineering & Maintenance, Inc. et al

Filing 336

MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya: Motion Hearing held on 7/16/2012, granting in part and denying in part 298 Motion to Compel, denying 307 Motion to Compel, granting 324 Motion to Compel, and denying 227 Motion to Stay. FTR: Courtroom C-201. (kmtcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya
Civil Action No. 10-cv-02868-MSK-KMT

FTR - Courtroom C-201

Date: July 10, 2012

Deputy Clerk, Nick Richards

L-3 COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, and
L-3 SERVICES, INC.,

Benjamin G. Chew
Suzanne Maureen Parker
Irene Tenedios

Plaintiffs,
v.
JAXON ENGINEERING & MAINTENANCE,
INC.,
JONI ANN WHITE,
RANDALL K. WHITE,
SCOTT WHITE,
SUSAN RETTIG,
CHARLES RETTIG,
JAMES YOUNGMAN,
JERRY LUBELL,
KELLY RICE,
JOHN MCCLURE, and
JOHN DOES 1-25, said names being fictitious as
such names are unknown at this time,

Jennette C. Roberts
Lora Ann Brzezynski

Defendants.
COURTROOM MINUTES / MINUTE ORDER
MOTION HEARING
Court in session: 1:32 p.m.
Court calls case. Appearances of counsel. Ms. Joni White is also present.
Motion Hearing is called regarding Defendants’ Forthwith Motion to Stay This Litigation
Pending Reexamination of the Asserted Patents [Doc. No. 227, filed April 2, 2012],
Defendants’ Motion to Compel Complete Responses to Defendants’ First, Second,
Third and Fourth Set of Discovery Requests [Doc. No. 298, May 25, 2012], Plaintiffs’
Motion to Compel and Request to be Added to the July 10 Motions Docket [Doc. No.
307, filed June 12, 2012], and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Second Day of Deposition of
Defendant Susan Rettig [Doc. No. 324, filed July 3, 2012].

It is ORDERED:

Defendants’ Forthwith Motion to Stay This Litigation Pending
Reexamination of the Asserted Patents [227] is DENIED without
prejudice as premature. Staying the matter would be premature at
this time and would be unduly prejudicial to plaintiffs. Either party
may file a proper motion to stay on this basis after November 1,
2012.

It is ORDERED:

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel and Request to be Added to the July
10, 2012 Motions Docket [307] is DENIED without prejudice for
plaintiff’s failure to comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 37.1. The motion
may be raised again pending compliance with court orders as
follows:
- General objections shall not be a basis to withhold non-privileged
documents and those documents held on that basis are ordered to
be produced. If documents are privileged, they are not required to
be produced.
- As to documents concerning HEMP technology, defendant shall
produce documents based on plaintiff’s definition of HEMP
technology unless there are specific objections outside of an
objection to only plaintiff’s definition.
- Indicate in responses whether there are specific documents or
categories of documents for which defendant has not searched.
- To the extent defendant’s are relying on a court order from either
District Judge Marcia S. Krieger or Magistrate Judge Kathleen M.
Tafoya as a reason not to produce documents, set forth when the
order was issued, the exact language from the order, and inform
plaintiff’s whether, on the basis of the order, documents are being
withheld.
- These orders are to be complied with on or before July 17, 2012.
Any documents required to be produced that were specifically
withheld on general objection will also be produced on or before
July 17, 2012. Plaintiff shall set forth challenges to specific
objections where documents have been withheld, if any, on or
before July 24, 2012. After the exchange of documents, the parties
are to meaningfully meet and confer and attempt to reach a
resolution.

The court advises counsel that sanctions will be awarded or recommended if frivolous
objections continue.
Page 2 of 4

It is ORDERED:

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Second Day of Deposition of Defendant
Susan Rettig [324] is GRANTED. The parties shall confer on a
mutually convenient date for the deposition of Ms. Rettig.

As to Defendants’ Motion to Compel Complete Responses to Defendants’ First,
Second, Third and Fourth Set of Discovery Requests [298], Plaintiff’s counsel informs
the court of certain agreements reached. Plaintiffs will produce everything as to
Request for Production of Documents Nos. 26 and 27. Counsel also informs the court
there is nothing to produce as to Request Nos. 26 and 27. As to Request for Production
No. 72, plaintiff has withdrawn general objection No. 3. Plaintiff has produced all
responsive non-privileged documents as to Request Nos. 23, 63, and 68. As to Request
No. 69, there are no responsive documents. As to Request No. 71, plaintiff agrees to
produce any communications forthwith between Thomas Daley and Susan Rettig. There
are no communications between L-3 Communications Corporation and Charles Rettig.
Plaintiff stands on the remainder of their objection to Request No. 71.
Oral argument from defendants.
Oral argument from plaintiffs.
It is ORDERED:

Parties shall provide an index of documents produced as to
Request No. 23 on or before July 31, 2012. (This Order was later
modified as noted infra.)

It is ORDERED:

Defendants’ Motion to Compel Complete Responses to Defendants’
First, Second, Third and Fourth Set of Discovery Requests [298] is
GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
As to Request for Production of Documents No. 3, the motion is
GRANTED. Plaintiff’s shall produce the time sheets of John
McClure, James Youngman, and Jerry Lubell, to the extent they
exist, from December of 2002. The time sheets of Kelly Rice shall
be produced from February of 2005. L-3 shall re-check for existing
time sheets pertaining to Charles Crain and Phil Lane since none
were produced for either. Time sheets and further responsive
documents to Request No. 26 shall be produced on or before
Monday, July 16, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. due to the upcoming deposition
of Mr. Crain.

Court in Recess: 3:36 p.m.
Court in Session: 3:49 p.m.
Subject to discussion amongst counsel, Request for Production No. 67 is resolved.
Oral argument from defendants.
Page 3 of 4

Oral argument from plaintiffs.
It is ORDERED:

The motion is GRANTED as to Interrogatory No. 13 and Request
for Production No. 41. Plaintiff will fully respond to the Interrogatory
and the Request for Production to the extent it can. The court
understands more information will be available once a software
review is completed and is fodder for supplementation.

It is ORDERED:

As to Request for Production No. 77, the motion is GRANTED.
Both parties shall exchange software programs at issue in this
matter on or before July 31, 2012.

It is ORDERED:

As to Request for Production Nos. 42 and 44, the motion is
GRANTED. Plaintiff withdraws objections to both requests and will
produce all documents, with the exception of “raw test data”
referred to during this hearing, as to Nos. 42 and 44. The
documents will be produced on or before July 31, 2012.
As to “raw test data” only, the parties are expected to work cooperatively to determine if it needs to be produced since it will be
voluminous.
Defendant’s will be required to pay for any reasonable equipment
that needs to be utilized in the production of “raw test data” if
production is required.

It is ORDERED:

As to Request for Production Nos. 50 and 54, the motion is
GRANTED. Plaintiff withdraws objection based on clarification on
No. 50. Documents will be produced as to Request Nos. 50 and 54
on or before July 31, 2012.

It is ORDERED:

The motion is DENIED as to Request for Production No. 60 as
irrelevant.

The remainder of Defendants’ Motion to Compel Complete Responses to Defendants’
First, Second, Third and Fourth Set of Discovery Requests [298] will be discussed July
11, 2012 at 10:15 a.m.
Court in Recess: 4:59 p.m.
Hearing continued.
Total In-Court Time 03:15
*To obtain a transcript of this proceeding, please contact Avery Woods Reporting at [phone].

Page 4 of 4