Fidelity National Financial, Inc. v. Attachmate Corporation
Filing
129
ORDERED: The Court grants 111 Fidelity's motion for extensions of time. The parties must conduct all depositions by May 12, 2017; must provide responsive expert disclosures within two weeks after the responding party deposes the opposing p arty's expert; and must provide rebuttal expert disclosures within three weeks after issuance of the response expert reports. The Court grants 113 Fidelity's unopposed motion to provisionally file documents under seal; directs Fidelity to file the exhibits under seal by April 28, 2017, by delivering them to the clerk in a sealed envelope with a copy of this order; and directs Attachmate, by May 5, 2017, to file either a motion to seal or a notice informing the Court it does not wish to keep the documents under seal. If Attachmate files no motion to seal, Fidelity must file the documents on the public docket by May 12, 2017. The Court denies 104 Fidelity's motion to compel without prejudice to filing a similar motion afte r deposing Attachmate's corporate representatives and clarifying its requests. The Court grants 106 Attachmate's first motion to compel to the extent the Court directs Fidelity to supplement its answers to interrogatories within 14 days a fter taking relevant depositions and denies the motion as moot to the extent it seeks an order directing Fidelity and Black Knight to provide objections to deposition topics. The Court denies in part 116 Attachmate's second motion to compel to the extent the Court will not compel Fidelity and Black Knight to prepare deponents on identified topics but grants in part the motion to the extent Attachmate may attempt to narrow the topics. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patricia D. Barksdale on 4/19/2017. (BGK)
United States District Court
Middle District of Florida
Jacksonville Division
FIDELITY NATIONAL FINANCIAL, INC.,
Plaintiff, Counter-Defendant,
V.
ATTACHMATE CORPORATION,
NO. 3:15-CV-1400-J-20PDB
Defendant, Counter-Plaintiff,
Third-Party Plaintiff, Counter-Defendant,
V.
BLACK KNIGHT FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC,
Third-Party Defendant, Counter-Plaintiff.
Order
Before the Court are (1) Fidelity National Financial, Inc.’s motion to compel
Attachmate Corporation to provide better responses to interrogatories and requests
for production, Doc. 104; (2) Attachmate’s motion to compel Fidelity to provide better
responses to interrogatories and compel Fidelity and Black Knight Financial
Services, LLC, to serve objections to corporate-representative deposition topics by a
date certain, Doc. 106; (3) Fidelity’s motion to extend expert-disclosure deadlines and
the deadline to take certain depositions, Doc. 111; (4) Fidelity’s unopposed motion to
provisionally file under seal exhibits to its response in opposition to Attachmate’s
motion, Doc. 113; and (5) Attachmate’s motion to compel Fidelity and Black Knight
to produce representatives to testify on objected-to deposition topics, Doc. 116. On
April 6, 2017, the Court conducted a hearing on the first four motions. Doc. 123. On
April 19, 2017, the Court conducted a hearing on the fifth. Doc. 124.
At the April 6 hearing, the Court granted the motion for extensions of time,
Doc. 111. The parties must conduct all depositions by May 12, 2017; must provide
responsive expert disclosures within two weeks after the responding party deposes
the opposing party’s expert; and must provide rebuttal expert disclosures within
three weeks after issuance of the response expert reports.
At the April 6 hearing, the Court granted the motion to seal, Doc. 113. The
Court directs Fidelity to file the exhibits under seal by April 28, 2017, by delivering
them to the clerk in a sealed envelope with a copy of this order; and directs
Attachmate, by May 5, 2017, to file either a motion to seal in compliance with Local
Rule 1.09 or a notice informing the Court it does not wish to keep the documents
under seal. If Attachmate files no motion to seal, Fidelity must file the documents on
the public docket by May 12, 2017.
On Fidelity’s motion to compel, in light of the parties’ discussions at the April
6 hearing, it is apparent Fidelity will be able to better articulate its requests after
deposing witnesses with knowledge relevant to the requests. The Court denies
Fidelity’s motion to compel, Doc. 104, without prejudice to filing a similar motion
after deposing Attachmate’s corporate representatives and clarifying its requests.
On Attachmate’s first motion to compel, at the April 6 hearing, Fidelity
asserted it likely could better answer interrogatories asking for the number of
licenses for each software product it claims it owns after deposing Attachmate
employees on the meaning of certain documents. The Court grants in part
Attachmate’s motion to compel, Doc. 106, to the extent the Court directs Fidelity to
supplement its answers within 14 days after taking the depositions. Because Fidelity
and Black Knight have provided objections to Attachmate’s proposed corporaterepresentative deposition topics, the Court denies as moot the motion to the extent
it seeks an order compelling them to provide objections by a date certain.
2
At the April 19 hearing, the parties clarified the only remaining disputed
deposition topics are those concerning the factual bases for Fidelity’s and Black
Knight’s claims and affirmative defenses. The Court denied in part Attachmate’s
second motion to compel, Doc. 116, to the extent the Court will not compel Fidelity
and Black Knight to prepare deponents on the topics as noticed because of concerns
about undue burden and risk of inadvertent exposure of work product. Answering
questions on the topics as noticed would require complex judgments about the facts,
the claims, and the legal principles. The Court granted in part the motion to the
extent Attachmate may attempt to narrow the topics to address those concerns.
Ordered in Jacksonville, Florida, on April 19, 2017.
c:
Counsel of record
3
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?