Always good to see an order indicating when a subpoena crosses the line. Even if we did have to … wait for it.
Expert witnesses deposed, after which they execute additional declarations. Can the declarations be stricken or the witnesses
I posted a few days ago about a discovery dispute where the Court resolved part and carried part pending a hearing. As expected, the parties resolved the disputes – this sets out what they agreed on.
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.