Vesta Corporation v. Amdocs Management Limited et al

Filing 221

OPINION & ORDER: The Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff's Motion to Compel 187 . The Court denies Plaintiff's motion to compel a response to Interrogatory 3 and grants Plaintiff's motion to compel a response to Interrogatory 4. See 5-page opinion & order attached. Signed on 4/4/2016 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (mr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

VESTA CORPORATION,
No. 3:14-cv-1142-HZ
Plaintiff,
OPINION & ORDER
v.
AMDOCS MANAGEMENT
LIMITED and AMDOCS, INC.,
Defendants.
Erick J. Haynie
Daniel T. Keese
Joanna T. Perini-Abbott
Stephen English
Julia E. Markley
Meredith Price
PERKINS COIE, LLP
1120 NW Couch Street, 10th Floor
Portland, OR 97209
Indra Neel Chatterjee
Andrew Ong
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
1000 Marsh Road
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Attorneys for Plaintiff
1 – OPINION & ORDER

Andrew G. Klevorn
Bruce G. Vanyo
Yonaton M. Rosenzweig
Christina Lucen Costley
KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN, LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 2600
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Kristin J. Achterhof
Meegan I. Maczek
Richard H. Zelichov
KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN, LLP
525 West Monroe Street
Chicago, IL 60661
Joshua L. Ross
Robert A. Shlachter
Timothy S. DeJong
STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER, PC
209 SW Oak Street, Fifth Floor
Portland, OR 97204
Attorneys for Defendants

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:
Plaintiff Vesta Corporation brings this motion to compel Defendants Amdocs
Management Limited and Amdocs, Inc. to respond to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories 3 and 4. For the
reasons that follow, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion as to Interrogatory 3 and grants
Plaintiff’s motion as to Interrogatory 4.
STANDARDS
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides that “[p]arties may obtain discovery
regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and
proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the
action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’
resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issue, and whether the burden or
2 – OPINION & ORDER

expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” It specifies that “[i]nformation
within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
However, “[o]n motion or on its own, the court must limit the frequency or extent of
discovery otherwise allowed by these rules or by local rule if it determines that:
(i)

the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be
obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less
expensive;

(ii)

the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information
by discovery in the action; or

(iii)

the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C).
A party may serve an interrogatory on any other party which “relate[s] to any matter that
may be inquired into under Rule 26(b).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1). “The grounds for objecting to
an interrogatory must be stated with specificity.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4).
Federal Civil Procedure Rule 37(a)(3)(B)(iii) empowers a propounding party to “move
for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection” if, among other
things, “a party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 33[.]” Rule 37(a)(4)
provides that “an evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a
failure to disclose, answer, or respond.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4).
DISCUSSION
I.

Interrogatory No. 3
Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 3 requests that Defendants identify any occasion in the past

in which they have been accused of misappropriating or misusing another party’s confidential,
proprietary, or trade secret information. Plaintiff requests the name of the person or entity
3 – OPINION & ORDER

making the accusation, a description of the type of information Defendants were accused of
misappropriating or misusing, the dates of the accusation, and the manner in which the
accusation was resolved. Plaintiff argues that such information is reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence because prior occurrences of misappropriation could lead to
discovery of facts in this case relating to Defendants’ motives, its opportunities for trade secret
misappropriation, and the absence of mistake. In addition, Plaintiff argues that prior occurrences
of misappropriation could lead to the discovery of admissible evidence with respect to the
policies and procedures by which Defendants avoid using confidential information that belongs
to another.
Plaintiff’s arguments are unavailing. Even assuming that Defendants misappropriated
trade secrets or confidential information in other cases, such behavior is not relevant to the
accusations in this case. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s reliance on Rapaport v. Robin S. Weingast &
Associates, Inc., No. CIV.A. 11-02254 SRC, 2013 WL6022441, at *3 (D.N.J. Nov. 13, 2013)
and Marsh v. Cty. of San Diego, No. CIV.05CV1568WQH(AJB), 2007 WL 1994058, at *1
(S.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2007) is misplaced. In both of those cases, the propensity evidence sought
was relevant to the plaintiff’s allegations of a larger plan or conspiracy. Here, whether
Defendants have been accused of misappropriating someone else’s trade secrets has no bearing
on this case and would not make any element of Plaintiff’s claim more or less likely to be true.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Interrogatory 3 does not “relate to any matter that may be inquired into
under Rule 26(b).” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1).
II.

Interrogatory No. 4
Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 4 requests the names of the customers and potential

customers to which Defendants have sold or tried to sell their competing payment solution
4 – OPINION & ORDER

product, including an identification of the specific payment solutions offered or sold, and the
name of the employees who have been the primary points of contact with each customer or
potential customer. Plaintiff argues that this interrogatory is relevant because this case alleges
that Plaintiff has suffered losses on various accounts, not just Metro-PCS. Defendants contend
that Plaintiff’s Interrogatory 4 is an improper attempt to expand the scope of this case to other
customers. Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 4 seeks relevant information and is proportional to the
needs of the case.
CONCLUSION
The Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel [187]. The Court
denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel a response to Interrogatory 3 and grants Plaintiff’s motion to
compel a response to Interrogatory 4.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this ____________day of ________________________, 2016.

________________________________________________
MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ
United States District Judge

5 – OPINION & ORDER