Following entry of a preliminary injunction in this trademark case, the court dealt with production of financial information.
The order begins with a three paragraph footnote in 10 point type explaining how a hotline call turned into a 17 page opinion. It also contains a useful summary of the relevant discovery standards, including the Eastern District of Texas’ Local Rule CV–26, which also provides guidance in considering whether information is relevant for discovery.
(As local practitioners are aware, this language was originally written by Judge Parker in 1991 as part of the Plan, and was ported over into CV-26(d) essentially verbatim in 2000).
Judge Craven concluded that all financial information concerning Licensed Scrum, including public and private courses from January 1, 2016 through the present, was relevant and proportional to SAI’s needs in this case. However, she also found that SI had met its burden in showing the requested company-wide financials should not be produced at this time, as SI had carried the burden of making specific objections regarding relevance and proportionality concerns, especially considering it had agreed to produce all financial information regarding License Scrum since 2016.
© 2020 Michael C. Smith. Use limited to individual subscribers. Further distribution prohibited.
This blog does not constitute legal advice. If you’d like to discuss a related legal matter, please contact Michael C. Smith via email or call 903-938-8900.