HealthTrio, LLC v. Aetna Inc. et al

Filing 117

MINUTE ORDER granting 107 Defendants' Motion to Compel Infringement Contentions and Written Discovery, as set forth in the Order, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 8/11/2014.(emill)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 12-cv-03229-REB-MJW HEALTHTRIO, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, Plaintiff, v. AETNA, INC., a Connecticut corporation, ACTIVEHEALTH MANAGEMENT, INC., a Delaware corporation, and MEDICITY, INC., a Colorado corporation, Defendants. MINUTE ORDER Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe It is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Compel Infringement Contentions and Written Discovery (docket no. 107) is GRANTED as follows. See Orenshtey v. Int’l Bus. Machines Corp., No. 02-CV-5074-JFK-RLE, 2013 WL 17483, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2013). Plaintiff HealthTrio [“Plaintiff”] has stated in its Response (docket no. 109) that it does intend on providing supplement information to respond to Defendant Atena’s [“Defendant”] interrogatory No. 15 upon receipt of technical documents from Defendant. Plaintiff argues that the subject motion (docket no. 107) is therefore moot. Plaintiff further argues that it has not yet received core technical documents that they requested from Defendant and its source code (in the form agreed upon by the parties). Plaintiff also agues that without such information, it is unable to fully respond to Defendant’s interrogatory no. 15. Lastly, Plaintiff argues that Defendant agreed to provide to Plaintiff in June 2013, the core technical documents and source code which have not been produced. Accordingly, it is FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant provide to Plaintiff the core technical documents and its [Defendant’s] source code (in the form agreed upon by the parties) on or before August 29, 2014. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall fully respond to Defendant’s interrogatory No. 15 on or before September 15, 2014. It is FURTHER ORDERED that each party shall pay their own attorney fees and costs for the subject motion (docket no. 107) finding that it would be unjust under the facts and circumstances presented here to award expenses. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(3). Date: August 11, 2014

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?