The Chicken, The Egg, and the The Frying Pan

You know how parties sometimes get locked into endless discovery loops, whereby a defendant refuses to produce source code of its products without more specific infringement contentions narrowing the list of accused products and services, and the plaintiff refuses to serve more specific infringement contentions without the defendant producing source code that could lead to a more informed narrowing of the contentions? What Judge Gilstrap describes as the “chicken or egg” situation where each side says they can’t move until the other party goes first? Yeah, this is that, and both the chicken and the egg have been threatened with sanctions.

The Lawyers From Monday’s Post Are Okay

On Monday I posted on a case in which Judge Lynn denied the parties’ joint motion to stay this case pending the filing of an application for IPR, noting the case was set for trial in six months. Traumatized readers were anxious to know – what happened next? Well, the case actually settled the very next day, but not for the reason you think – it involves the granting of a motion to compel and something interesting about an award of fees and expenses.

Just A Reminder That If Your Kids’ Birthday Cakes Don’t Look Like This You’re Doing Parenting Wrong. And Motion to Compel Granted on Deficiencies in E-Discovery Production

In a scene reminiscent of any number of Star Trek episodes where the bad guys gain access to sensitive computer data, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant over-accessed plaintiff’s medical imaging systems to generate fake access credentials. The court granted plaintiff’s second motion to compel, requiring defendant to (1) provide “cross-walk” information relating a revised production to the original, (2) fix issues with production of text messages, (3) reproduce documents in the (organizational) form in which they are maintained, and (4) properly mark documents with their confidentiality designations.