Digital Ally, Inc. v. Taser International, Inc.

Filing 259

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 216 Taser International, Inc.'s Motion for Protective Order Regarding Digital Ally, Inc's Revised Rule 30(b)(6) Notice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James on 9/21/2018. (mn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
DIGITAL ALLY, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 16-2032-CM-TJJ

TASER INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On September 19, 2018, the Court held a telephone discovery status conference with the
parties. Plaintiff Digital Ally appeared through counsel, Paul R. Hart. Defendant Taser appeared
through counsel, Lauren E. Douville, John D. Garretson, and Pamela B. Peterson. After
reviewing the parties’ briefing and hearing further argument, the Court grants in part and denies
in part Taser International, Inc.’s Motion for Protective Order Regarding Digital Ally, Inc.’s
Revised Rule 30(b)(6) Notice1 as set forth below.
Through its briefing, Taser agreed to withdraw its request for a protective order on
several topics. Accordingly, the motion is moot as to those topics. The topics remaining at issue
are Topic Nos. 9, 11, 12, 15, 30, 35, 37, 38, 39, and 42.
A. Topic No. 9
The motion for protective order to this topic is granted in part. Topic No. 9 will be
limited to only that source code that was previously requested by Digital Ally and produced on a
disk by Taser to Digital Ally. The suggestion by Digital Ally that this topic also extend to any
“reasonably related code” is rejected because it is too vague and therefore unworkable.

1

ECF 216.

B. Topic No. 11
The motion for protective order for Topic No. 11 is granted. The parties have agreed that
“[t]he sale of the Accused Products outside of the United States, the exportation of the Accused
Products and any Component Parts of the Accused Products, and the entity or entities who
participate in said exportation” shall be limited to the revenue related to customers who have
purchased an ASU.
C. Topic No. 12
The motion for protective order for Topic No. 12 is granted to the extent that Taser
produces a witness to testify regarding “the design, development, and operation of Evidence.com
as it works with the Accused Products . . . .”2
D. Topic No. 15
The motion for protective order with regard to Topic No. 15 is granted provided,
however, that Taser shall have an authorized representative certify its response to Interrogatory
No. 19.
E. Topic No. 30
The motion for protective order for Topic No. 30 is granted. The Court finds the phrase
“[o]ther products and services sold with the Accused Products” to be vague and not sufficiently
defined so that a designated witness could be properly prepared to discuss this topic.
F. Topic No. 35
The motion for protective order for this topic is granted in part. This topic shall be limited
to SEC filings (10-K and 10-Q forms), or equivalent if not public, that pertain to the Accused
Products and Evidence.com from 2014 to the present.

2

ECF 235 at 9 n.5.

2

G. Topic No. 37
The motion for protective order for this topic is granted and is limited to any licenses to
which Taser was a party and for which Taser may provide an expert to testify, in addition to the
testimony Taser has agreed to provide in its Objections.3
H. Topic Nos. 38, 39, and 42
The motion for protective order for these topics is granted. The Court finds either that the
burden outweighs any relevance of the information requested in these topics, or that these topics
are vague and not sufficiently defined so that a designated witness could be properly prepared to
discuss these topics.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that Taser International, Inc.’s
Motion for Protective Order Regarding Digital Ally, Inc.’s Revised Rule 30(b)(6) Notice (ECF
No. 216) is granted in part and denied in part as set forth herein.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated September 21, 2018, at Kansas City, Kansas.

Teresa J. James
U. S. Magistrate Judge

3

ECF No. 218-15 at 27–28.

3