Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_22-cv-00018/USCOURTS-azd-2_22-cv-00018-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

TD Professional Services,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Truyo Incorporated, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-22-00018-PHX-MTL

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is the parties’ Joint Discovery Dispute (Second) (Doc. 

115). Plaintiff summarily asserts that Defendants failed to provide complete responses, 

including adequate document production, to Plaintiff’s various discovery requests. 

Defendants state that they have made a good faith effort to comply with Plaintiff’s requests 

and that their supplemental production is forthcoming on a rolling basis. Defendants assert 

that Plaintiff has failed to meet and confer on some of the issues outlined in their statement, 

including the document production format, alleged inaccurate statements in Defendants’ 

pleadings, and Defendants’ classification of documents under the Protective Order. (Doc. 

115 at 4-5.) Additionally, the parties’ respective statements do not fully address each 

other’s identified issues, so it is unclear to the Court what is still in dispute and what the 

parties have resolved. Accordingly, the Court orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s request for additional briefing in Joint Discovery Dispute (Second) 

(Doc. 115) is granted in part, as discussed herein.

2. The parties are directed to engage in sincere efforts to meet and confer and 

Case 2:22-cv-00018-MTL Document 116 Filed 06/06/23 Page 1 of 2
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

attempt to narrow the outstanding issues no later than Monday, June 12, 2023. The parties 

should also discuss proposed deadlines for Defendants’ additional document production 

and whether discovery in this case would benefit from an ESI Order outlining protocols for 

ESI production, including file formats, metadata, and related dispute resolution.

3. Upon identifying the outstanding issues for the Court, the parties are directed 

to file another joint statement no later than Tuesday, June 20, 2023. The joint statement 

shall specifically identify each outstanding dispute and provide each party’s position and 

any supporting authority. Each party’s respective portion of the statement shall not exceed 

ten (10) pages.

4. The parties shall attach (a) a copy of each disputed RFP and NUI, including 

definitions and subparts; (b) Defendants’ respective objections and responses; and (c) all

the parties’ prior written correspondence on the same.

5. The joint statement shall also include proposed deadlines for Defendants’ 

outstanding production and the parties’ proposed solution to the ESI issues identified in 

the Joint Discovery Dispute (Second).

6. Finally, to the extent the parties are unable to agree on the proper 

classification of Defendants’ document production, Plaintiff is ordered to comply with the 

confidentiality designation challenge procedures outlined in the Protective Order before 

seeking the Court’s intervention. (See Doc. 64, ¶ 16.)

Dated this 5th day of June, 2023.

Case 2:22-cv-00018-MTL Document 116 Filed 06/06/23 Page 2 of 2