WhitServe LLC v. Computer Packages, Inc et al

Filing 569

ORDER granting 503 motion to compel. Signed by Judge Alfred V. Covello on August 26, 2013. (Gentile, N.) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/26/2013: # 1 REPLACEMENT PDF) (Ferguson, L.).

3:06-cv-01935 (AVC) August 26, 2013. The defendant’s motion to
compel damages related discovery is GRANTED.
The defendant has filed a motion to compel the plaintiff’s
production of certain documents related to the computation of damages in
this case. Specifically, the defendant seeks an order requiring the
plaintiff to produce: (1) Each and every license that NetDocket LLC
and/or WhitServe LLC has granted, plus all correspondence relating to
the same, as well as all documents, including license drafts, e-mails,
letters between and/or among counsel, and the like, concerning any
negotiation or offer of a license by or to NetDocket LLC and/or
WhitServe LLC.; (2) every damages expert report served by or on
WhitServe LLC involving any of the patents-in-suit, including all
appendices and/or attachments thereto; and (3) every deposition
transcript and accompanying exhibits in any lawsuit naming NetDocket LLC
and/or WhitServe LLC as a party (other than this one), of damages
experts retained by or on behalf of NetDocket LLC and/or WhitServe LLC.
“[P]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter
that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense . . . .” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 26(b)(1). “Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial
if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence.” Id. “The definition of relevance [is] to be
liberally construed . . . .” Breon v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 232 F.R.D.
49, 52 (D. Conn. 2005). Moreover, the district court has “wide latitude
to determine the scope of discovery . . . .” In Re Agent Orange Product
Liability Litigation, 517 F.3d 76, 103 (2d Cir. 2008). “The objecting
party bears the burden of demonstrating specifically how, despite the
broad and liberal construction afforded the federal discovery rules,
each request is not relevant or how each question is overly broad,
unduly burdensome or oppressive . . . .” Klein v. AIG Trading Group
Inc., 228 F.R.D. 418, 422 (D. Conn. 2005) (internal citations and
quotation marks omitted).
The plaintiff has failed to show how the defendant’s request is
overly broad, unduly burdensome or oppressive. This case was remanded
for a new trial on damages, and the defendant is entitled to discovery
to accurately calculate those damages. Accordingly, the motion to compel
damages related discovery is GRANTED. If appropriate, documents that are
subject to confidentiality agreements with third parties shall be
produced with an “outside attorneys’/experts’ eyes only” restriction.
The plaintiff shall provide the defendant with the requested documents
on or before September 6, 2013.
SO ORDERED.

___/s/_____________________
Alfred V. Covello, U.S.D.J.