You don’t see disputes on discovery orders very often – this one dealt with the cross use of materials from another proceeding.
This order from Austin shows how not to move to compel, and at times how not to respond.
This order actually resolves three motions to compel filed by the parties in this patent infringement case.
The court’s order provides insight into a defendant’s obligations when responding to venue discovery.
This well-organized order addresses three topics, including document requests by both sides.
After five pages of background, the ruling only took one sentence.
Judge Lynn held that the common interest doctrine didn’t apply to the sharing of information with shareholders.
Judge Gilstrap denied this motion which, crucially, sought a broader scope of production.
Judge Eskridge denied the request to amend, and … pretty much everything else the plaintiff asked for in this trademark case.
The court went with the defendants’ proposal (except privileged documents or emails).