Cvent Inc v. RainFocus et al

Filing 468

MEMORANDUM DECISION and Order.granting in part and denying in part 451 Motion for Short Term Discovery; granting 459 Motion for Amended Scheduling Order. The court DENIES the request as to striking the report. Defendants' r equest to re-depose Mr. Romn is GRANTED. Defendants may also submit a responsive report following the deposition. The dispositive motion deadline is moved to 30 days after the supplemental deposition of Mr. Romn. The Daubert motion deadline is also extended to 30 days after the additional deposition. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 11/22/2021. (jl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
Cvent Inc.,
Plaintiff,

v.
RainFocus, Inc. et. al,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER
Case No. 2:17-cv-00230-RJS-DBP
Chief District Judge Robert J. Shelby

Defendants.

Chief Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead

This matter is before the court on two matters brought by Defendants. 1 Defendants move
the court to strike the rebuttal report of Kendyl A. Román, or in the alternative, permission to redepose Mr. Román and serve a responsive expert report. (ECF No. 451.) Defendants also move
the court for an extension of time so they can re-depose Mr. Román. (ECF No. 461.) Plaintiff
opposes the motions, but does offer some middle ground. “If Defendants need time to take a
supplemental deposition of Mr. Román, Cvent will cooperate and make him available, as it
offered to do previously, so that the dispute may be litigated on the merits.” Op. p. 2-3, ECF No.
463. Based upon the Tenth Circuit’s preference for deciding cases on the merits, and because
trial is not yet scheduled, the court will grant Defendants’ request to re-depose Mr. Román and
extend the schedule. 2 See, e.g., Ehrenhaus v. Reynolds, 965 F.2d 916, 921 (10th Cir.1992)
(noting the “judicial system’s strong predisposition to resolve cases on their merits”); Cessna

This case is referred to the undersigned in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(A) from Chief Judge Robert
Shelby. (ECF No. 64.)
1

The court has determined that oral argument would not be materially helpful and will decide the motion based on
the written memoranda. DUCivR 7-1.

2

Fin. Corp. v. Bielenberg Masonry Contracting, Inc., 715 F.2d 1442, 1444 (10th Cir.1983)
(discussing preference for deciding cases on the merits).
The parties in this dispute are no strangers to motion practice and they have doggedly
litigated this case. A brief review of the docket indicates numerous orders entered by the court,
so the court does not outline in detail the history and background of this case. Suffice it to say,
this dispute centers on allegations of trade secret misappropriation. (ECF No. 185.) In the current
dispute, the parties came close to resolving the present issues on their own. Yet, as is often the
case in this matter, they cannot quite get across the goal line. Thankfully, the parties both agree
that Mr. Román can be re-deposed. The major sticking point lies in Plaintiff’s reluctance to
extend the schedule to allow the deposition. Plaintiff offers little in the way of opposition to
moving the deadlines other than the reasoning, that in agreeing to an extension, Plaintiff is
essentially stipulating, “Mr. Román’s rebuttal report is improper.” Op p. 2. Plaintiff’s preceding
statement that it “remains willing to make Mr. Román available for deposition on the topics in
the rebuttal report [b]ut Defendants opted to move to strike instead” undermines Plaintiff’s
reasoning. This is a retaliatory approach—the opposing party moved to strike the report, so we
will oppose an extension to depose our expert again—even though re-deposing Mr. Román is a
logical agreeable position that could have been reached by the parties.
The court finds extending the schedule a bit longer will not prejudice the parties.
Accordingly, the court GRANTS IN PART Defendants’ motions.
ORDER
Defendants’ Short Form Discovery Motion to Strike the Rebuttal Report of Kendyl A.
Román is GRANTED IN PART. The court DENIES the request as to striking the report.

2

Defendants’ request to re-depose Mr. Román is GRANTED. Defendants may also submit a
responsive report following the deposition.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time is
GRANTED. The dispositive motion deadline is moved to 30 days after the supplemental
deposition of Mr. Román. The Daubert motion deadline is also extended to 30 days after the
additional deposition.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 22 November 2021.

Dustin B. Pead
United States Magistrate Judge

3