Source: https://www.lexislegalnews.com/mealeys-discovery
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 15:07:31+00:00

Document:
CHICAGO — Stating that there has already been “enough discovery . . . to choke a horse” in a dispute over two-way radio technology between Motorola Solutions Inc. and a Chinese firm, an Illinois federal magistrate judge on April 15 denied Motorola’s motion to compel discovery related to a product that he found was outside the scope of the trade secret and copyright claims at issue (Motorola Solutions Inc. v. Hytera Communications Corp., et al., No. 1:17-cv-01973, N.D. Ill.; 20192019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64005).
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — Following an April 11 discovery conference, a Florida federal magistrate judge in a paperless minute entry ordered the parties in a dispute over the ownership of a multibillion dollar bitcoin cache, which belonged to a deceased bitcoin miner, to submit further briefs addressing discovery disputes related to the production of documents and other items (Ira Kleiman, et al. v. Craig Wright, No. 9:18-cv-80176, S.D. Fla.).
DETROIT — A Michigan federal judge on April 10 granted an insurer’s motion to exclude the opinion testimony of a retired judge who presided over an underlying personal injury suit that resulted in a $22.6 million verdict against the insureds because the retired judge’s testimony could be prejudicial to the insurer, which is defending itself against a bad faith claim asserted by the insureds (Reliable Transportation Specialists Inc., et al. v. Wausau Underwriters Insurance Co., No. 15-12954, E.D. Mich., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61537).
SAN JOSE, Calif. — Citing what it calls willful behavior by two of the attorneys representing a putative class of iPhone users, Apple Inc. on April 9 asked a California federal court to sanction the counsel for quoting from documents that which were designated as confidential during discovery at a public hearing on a motion to dismiss the lawsuit alleging degraded performance in the plaintiffs’ mobile devices (In re: Apple Inc. Device Performance Litigation, No. 5:18-md-02827, N.D. Calif.).
SAN FRANCISCO — A California federal judge on April 5 denied and granted motions to dismiss claims for violations of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and other causes of action against cosmetic companies, ordering jurisdictional evidentiary discovery to determine whether one entity was mistakenly listed on another company’s website (Kari Miller, et al. v. Peter Thomas Roth, LLC, et al., No. 19-00698, N.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59420).
OKLAHOMA CITY — A pharmacist accused of submitting fraudulent bills to Medicare for prescriptions filled at two pharmacies he owned and operated was enjoined by a federal judge in Oklahoma March 26 from transferring or dissipating the more than $1 million he earned from the scheme (United States v. Jeffrey Scott Terry, No. 19-cv-250, W.D. Okla.).
BALTIMORE — In an April 8 ruling, a Maryland federal magistrate judge granted in part two discovery motions by the owner of an apartment building at the center of an insurance coverage dispute, limiting the scope of an insurer’s subpoenas on the building owner’s engineering and accounting firms, deeming certain tax information and communications sought to be privileged and private (Jowite Ltd. Partnership v. Federal Insurance Co., No. 1:18-cv-02413, D. Md. 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59726).
OCALA, Fla. — An auto insurer’s communications with its insured regarding a potential settlement of a suit filed against the insured following an auto accident are relevant to a bad faith claim alleged against the auto insurer by the underlying plaintiffs, a Florida federal magistrate judge said April 5 in partially granting the plaintiffs’ motion to compel (Yolanda Aldana, et al. v. Progressive American Insurance Co., No. 18-157, M.D. Fla., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59015).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In its April 5 merits reply brief, a food retailer trade association asks the U.S. Supreme Court to find that a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exemption for confidential trade secret and financial information permits the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to withhold store-specific data from a FOIA request without having to establish that “substantial competitive harm” would occur from disclosure (Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, No. 18-481, U.S. Sup.).
WILMINGTON, Del. — At a March 11 discovery hearing, a Delaware judge granted in part a defendant’s motion to compel an Irish medical imaging company to produce performance audit data from its Dublin, Ireland, plant, while declining to order discovery of similar data from other third-party plants and suppliers, deeming it irrelevant to the parties’ contractual dispute (Guerbet Ireland Unlimited Co., et al. v. SpecGX LLC, No. N18C-05-159, Del. Super.).
MONTGOMERY, Ala. —A majority of the Alabama Supreme Court on April 5 held that a lower court exceeded its discretion when it disregarded the attorney-client privilege in a discovery dispute, vacating the lower court’s orders that denied an errors and omissions insurer’s motion for a protective order and directed the insurer to produce the materials for in camera inspection or discovery (Ex parte Alfa Insurance Corporation, et al., No. 1170804, Ala. Sup., 2019 Ala. LEXIS 30).
LAS VEGAS — At an April 4 hearing, a Nevada federal magistrate judge granted a motion by Oracle USA Inc. to conduct limited discovery into whether Rimini Street Inc. is complying with an injunction in a long-running software copyright infringement lawsuit (Oracle USA Inc., et al. v. Rimini Street Inc., et al., No. 2:10-cv-00106, D. Nev.).
SCRANTON, Pa. — A federal judge in Pennsylvania on March 25 denied a defendant’s motion to suppress the admission of a thumb drive that contains the identifying information of more than 400 people for the purpose of filing federal income tax returns, finding that federal law applies to the charges of insurance fraud and tax fraud against the man and that the warrant that was executed to obtain the drive was not overbroad (United States v. Frank J. Capozzi, No. 16cr347, M.D. Pa., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55075).
CHICAGO — An Illinois federal judge on April 3 denied a managed care organization errors and omissions liability excess insurer’s motion to compel production of an insured’s settlement with its primary insurer in a coverage dispute arising from underlying putative antitrust class actions brought against the insured, finding that the settlement agreement’s relevance is “speculative” (Homeland Insurance Company Of New York v. Health Care Service Corporation, et al., No. 18-6306, N.D. Ill., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56877).
NEW YORK — A consumer talc company is entitled to perform additional testing on the same samples used by plaintiff’s expert William Longo when he found the presence of asbestos, a New York justice confirmed March 20 in adopting a special master’s recommendation (Kim Young v. Avon Products Inc., et al., No. 190383/2016, N.Y. Sup., New York Co., 2019 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1046).
DETROIT — In an insurer’s breach of contract case against a reinsurer over reinsurance billings for asbestos claims, a Michigan federal judge on April 1 issued a stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order regarding confidential proprietary or trade secret information and information about insureds, including health in connection with their alleged asbestos exposure (Amerisure Mutual Insurance Co. v. Transatlantic Reinsurance Co., No. 18-11966, E.D. Mich.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on April 1 granted a motion by the U.S. solicitor general to participate in upcoming oral arguments over the trade secrets and confidential information exemption to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), giving the government 10 minutes to argue as amicus curiae in support of a food retailer trade group opposing the release of certain store-specific data in response to an FOIA request (Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, No. 18-481, U.S. Sup.).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.