In this patent infringement action between Chrimar Systems, Inc. (“Chrimar”) and Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc. (“Lucent”). Lucent sought production of the damages expert report of Plaintiffs’ damages expert, Robert Mills, that was created for a litigation currently pending in the Northern District of California.
Chrimar opposed the request on the ground that the expert report was covered by a protective order issued by another Federal court. The district court in Texas agreed.
The district court explained that the damages expert report “is indisputably subject to a protective order issued by the California court in that case.” The district court then stated that “[b]ecause this document is subject to a protective order issued by the court in California, the appropriate means to obtain the relief sought is to seek the assistance of the California court. For example, Defendants may issue a subpoena for the document they seek that would properly allow the California court to determine its enforceability.”
Finally, the district court concluded that it was not in a “position to interpret another court’s protective order or to order the production of a document that contains confidential information subject to such an order.”
Accordingly, the district court denied the motion to compel the production of the damages expert report.
Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc., Case No. 6:15-cv-163-JDL (E.D. Tex. May 25, 2016)
The authors of www.PatentLawyerBlog.com are patent trial lawyers at Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP. For more information about this case, contact Stan Gibson at 310.201.3548 or SGibson@jmbm.com.