INVISTA TECHNOLOGIES S. r.l. v. M&G POLYMERS USA LLC et al

Filing 36

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 1 Petition and application for an order under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to permit petitioner to obtain discovery from M&G Polymers USA, LLC, M&G Resins USA, LLC, M&G USA Corporation and Frederick J. Fournier. Case terminated on 4/19/2017.(Signed by Judge Gray H Miller) Parties notified.(rkonieczny, 4)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
IN RE APPLICATION OF
INVISTA TECHNOLOGIES S.A.R.L.,
Petitioner,
v.
M&G POLYMERS USA, LLC, et al.,
Respondents.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

April 19, 2017
David J. Bradley, Clerk

MISCELLANEOUS ACTION H-17-110

ORDER
Pending before this court is a petition and application for an order under 28 U.S.C. § 1782
to permit petitioner to obtain discovery from M&G Polymers USA, LLC, M&G Resins USA, LLC,
M&G USA Corporation and Frederick J. Fournier (“Respondents”). Dkt. 1. The court held an
initial hearing on the application on February 16, 2017, during which it ordered the parties to attempt
to agree on the scope of discovery and a confidentiality agreement. Dkt. 22. The court held a second
hearing at the request of the petitioner INVISTA Technologies, S.a.r.l. (“INVISTA”) on April 17,
2017. The court has considered the parties’ briefing, arguments made during both hearings, and the
applicable law, including a thorough consideration of the factors listed in Intel Corp. v. Advanced
Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 264, 124 S. Ct. 2466 (2004).
As stated on the record during the second hearing, INVISTA’s application to permit
discovery is GRANTED IN PART. Respondents must provide the requested discovery in the scope
agreed upon by the parties,1 but they may redact information as stated on the record that may be

1

Respondents noted in a letter to the court that they “stand ready and willing to produce
responsive, non-privileged documents.” Dkt. 29. INVISTA notes that “M&G agrees that the terms and
the results are reasonable.” Dkt. 30.

subject to a secrecy order currently being considered by the Italian court in which the underlying case
is pending. If the Italian court denies the motion for a secrecy order or enters a less restrictive
secrecy order than requested, Respondents are ORDERED to lift any redactions that are not in
conformance with the level of secrecy approved by the Italian court and re-produce these documents.
Respondents are ORDERED to re-produce any affected documents within ten (10) days of the date
the Italian court enters its order on the motion for a secrecy order.
Respondents’ request for reciprocal discovery is DENIED.
Signed at Houston, Texas on April 19, 2017.

___________________________________
Gray H. Miller
United States District Judge

2