I thought EDTX caselaw on the issue of discovery into unaccused products was pretty clear, but apparently another case was required.
The issue here was whether a foreign party would be prohibited from retaining as a consultant an attorney.
Defendant asked the Court to strike Plaintiff’s disclosures or extend deadlines as a result of Plaintiff’s alleged failure to timely produce damages information. The Court saw this as an issue of whether under its procedures relevant documents must be requested.
Yes, this is a real site – here – and the plaintiff in this case will have the opportunity to use it.
Plaintiff sought “targeted venue discovery” based on arguments made by the defendants at a recent hearing on the defendant’s motion for reconsideration of denial of their prior venue motion.
The parties filed cross-motions for sanctions arising out of conduct in a deposition, resulting in an order from Judge Albright.
The substance of the motion deals with when a party’s prior contentions and expert reports dealing with the same patents should be produced, but the order comes with a tasty procedural holding dealing with discovery motion practice as well.
Plaintiff moved to compel a narrative response to an interrogatory in a patent case pending before Judge Kernodle in Tyler. The subject matter was revenues and profits, and the order provides an example of when an answer can rely on FRCP 33(d), and when further information is required to be provided.
What we referred to in my time in Waco as the “Baylor Rule” was to ask forgiveness, not permission (this might have had something to do with adult beverages in law school, so “Baylor” really should have a footnote appended in this context). But in case there was ever any doubt, that rule doesn’t apply in federal court, may God have mercy on your soul if you assumed it did, and here’s the citation.
I am asked on a regular basis whether a motion will be granted “automatically” if it is agreed or unopposed. The answer is a lawyerly “it depends”. While judges say that they are in the business of resolving disputes, not agreements, there are exceptions, and as here, they usually seem to deal with moving dates in a docket control order.