Discovery of Litigation Funding

Or not. Judge Ezra affirmed Magistrate Judge Gilliland’s order denying a motion to compel additional information related to litigation funding under these facts, noting that Texas is not Delaware. “Because there is no legal requirement in the Western District of Texas to require full disclosure of the information Shopify is seeking,” he wrote, “the Court cannot find that the Order contains a clear error.”

Plaintiff’s Request to Strike New Invalidity Contentions Denied

Judge Albright denied the plaintiff’s request to prevent the defendant from adding new prior art references and testimony.  Although the opinion does not contain the reasoning for the holding, the parties’ dispute contentions indicated that the issuance of a new claim construction after the close of discovery in connection with the court’s ruling on a summary judgment motion, and the resulting revised infringement contentions may have played a role.

How Not To Submit A Proposed Discovery Order

I really hate it when the parties submit an order which states on its face “the parties jointly submit this proposed order.”  An order is a statement by the court, not the parties.  But to get to the point, the discovery order by Judge Albright in this Austin Division case hacks its way through a jungle of redactions to deny the request for “all versions” of certain source code, as well as to produce documents from a third party.

Motion For Additional Discovery Denied

This discovery order doesn’t contain the court’s reasoning, but the order is worth reading anyway because the parties present such diametrically opposed positions on whether discovery should be reopened on an issue, and the court clearly felt that under the facts presented it should not be – which included a broader context for the scheduling issues presented in the case.