TQ Delta LLC v. Pace Americas Inc.

Filing 115

MEMORANDUM ORDER Denying Plaintiff's discovery request (see Memorandum Order for further details). Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 9/28/2015. Associated Cases: 1:13-cv-01835-RGA, 1:13-cv-01836-RGA, 1:13-cv-02013-RGA(nms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
TQDELTALLC,
Plaintiff,

v.

Civil Action No. 13-1835-RGA

PACE PLC, et al.,
Defendants.

TQ DELTA LLC,
Plaintiff,

v.

Civil Action No. 13-1836-RGA

ZHONE TECHNOLOGIES INC.,
Defendant.

TQ DELTA LLC,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 13-2013-RGA

v.
ZYXEL COMMUNICATIONS INC.,
et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM ORDER
The issue raised in the discovery disputes is whether Defendants have "control" over
Broadcom' s technical specifications and documents. The disputed documents are stored on
Broadcom's servers. To the extent Defendants have access to these specifications and

documents, that access has not to date been exercised. Plaintiff wants Defendants to access the
requested information and retrieve it for Plaintiff. Plaintiff does not argue that Defendants
presently have possession or custody of the items at issue. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(l).
Broadcom and Defendants have NDA agreements, which, by letter dated September 10,
2015, have been filed on the docket. I have reviewed them.
Broadcom and Defendants are unrelated, independent corporations. The NDAs appear to
keep all legal rights to the specifications and documents with Broadcom. NDA § 12. Thus, for
the specifications and documents that are at issue here, I do not think Defendants have control of
the items that Plaintiff seeks. See generally Inline Connection Corp. v. AOL Time Warner Inc.,
2006 WL 2864586 (D.Del. Oct. 5, 2006). I think there is a difference between having the present
ability to access the items and having control of the items.
Plaintiffs request is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED this '2.1Q day of September 2015.