It is unclear whether the game was inspired by the recurring dispute as over parties’ “right of control” over documents held by third parties. But this opinion is a lot more fun if you assume it is.
The part of this order that deals with amending contentions is not what’s important – it’s the part where Judge Albright sets out how he wants discovery disputes handled.
Rulings are rare because these issues are usually agreed. But here are several that required the court to decide what would be permitted.
Defendants filed a motion to compel seeking damages info in this case dealing with a professional wrestler and an online combat game. Which makes this post both adorable and informative.
Relevance and proportionality play a major role in the Court’s decision, as you might guess.
There is a right way and a wrong way to do this, and this order illustrates both.
a/k/a how not to file a motion to compel.
Although it’s identified as a FAQ, it really is a listing of some recent telephonic rulings on issues in patent cases, with strong emphasis on semiconductor cases. So your mileage (like your case’s facts) may differ.
Motions to compel really are like snowflakes in that no two are alike. This one, like real snowflakes, also involves cutouts.
For those of you that think references to “buckets” in discovery disputes is too informal, see the attached minutes. This is how the pros do it.