InteliClear, LLC v. Victor

Filing 118

ELECTRONIC ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY (see attached). Signed by Judge Joan G. Margolis on 4/24/2017. (Watson, M.)

ELECTRONIC ORDER IN INTELICLEAR, LLC V. VICTOR, 16 CV 1403 (JBA)
4/24/17 – All discovery was to be completed in this highly acrimonious file on or before March 29,
2017. (Dkt. #5). Under the Amended Scheduling Order/Endorsement Order, filed by U.S. District
Judge Janet Bond Arterton on March 30, 2017, the Joint Trial Schedule is to be filed on or before
May 30, 2017, jury selection is scheduled for September 26, 2017, and the jury trial is to
commence on October 16, 2017. (Dkt. #109, ¶ 4). That same day, Judge Arterton also referred
the case to this Magistrate Judge to resolve the outstanding discovery requests. (Dkt. #110; see
also Dkt. #109, ¶ 3).
The following day, defendant Victor filed his Notice of Supplemental Compliance with Items 1, 2
and 3 of Court Endorsement Order (Dkt. #113), which sets forth in some detail the discovery with
which he complied and the discovery matters that were still open.
A lengthy telephonic discovery conference was held before this Magistrate Judge on April 4, 2017.
(Dkt. #114).1 Following the conference, as requested, counsel forwarded supplemental materials
to the Magistrate Judge. On April 6, 2017, plaintiffs’ counsel forwarded a letter, to which several
documents were attached: his earlier letter, dated March 31, 2017, to defense counsel; a copy of
plaintiffs’ expert report, dated February 3, 2017; and a copy of defendant’s Preliminary Damages
Analysis, also dated February 3, 2017.
The following day, April 7, 2017, plaintiffs’ counsel forwarded another letter to this Magistrate
Judge, summarizing additional conversations held between counsel the prior day, in which
substantial progress was made. That same day, defendant forwarded his Notice of Supplemental
Compliance with Discovery Per Telephonic Discovery Conference on 4/4, in which he represented
that he has produced an additional 3,037 pages of responsive documentation, totaling more than
10,000 pages of production in the various related lawsuits. (At 5-6). Both counsel represented
that they were going to continue to confer with one another regarding any remaining discovery
issues.
On April 13, 2017, defendant forwarded another Notice of Supplemental Compliance with Discovery
Per Telephonic Conference on 4/4.
The Magistrate Judge’s Chambers has received no further communications from counsel.
In light of the substantial progress made between the parties and counsel, for which the Magistrate
Judge is most grateful, she will assume that the parties and counsel will continue to cooperate with
one another, and that they will notify Chambers, by letters, on or before May 1, 2017, if they
reach an impasse with respect to any outstanding discovery issues.2 In addition, the Amended
Scheduling Order included that this Magistrate Judge was ordered “to set a prompt amended

1

Earlier in the day, defense counsel had faxed copies of the discovery requests and objections at
issue in the underlying Notice of Supplemental Compliance.
2

For example, in their April 7, 2017 letter, plaintiffs advise that plaintiff InteliClear “was standing
on its relevance objections as to Request Nos. 34, 38, and 42.” (At 2). Similarly, in his Notice of
Supplemental Compliance, dated April 7, 2017, defense counsel pointed out that plaintiffs’ counsel
indicated that “he would likely stand on his objection with regard to . . . items 32 and 37. . . .” (At 7).

discovery cutoff date.” (Dkt. #109, ¶ 3). In their letters, counsel are to advise the Magistrate
Judge whether they have they reached an agreement as to a “prompt amended discovery cutoff
date[]” for the completion of all outstanding discovery, and if not, they are provide the Magistrate
Judge with suggested dates.