United States District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania
MEMORANDUM ORDER RE: DEFEND ANTS' EMERGENCY MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE COURT'S ORDER DATED JULY 25, 2014, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A STAY PENDING A PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (DOC. NO. 74)
Arthur J. Schwab United States District Judge
Presently before this Court is Defendants' Emergency Motion for Relief from the Court's Order Dated July 25, 2014, or in the Alternative, for a Stay Pending a Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Doc. No. 74. Defendants' present Motion is the fifth motion related to Defendants' production of documents:
• Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Initial Disclosure Documents (Doc. No. 41);
• Granted by this Court on July 1, 2014: Defendants ordered to comply on or before July 9, 2014 (Doc. No. 48);
• Defendants' Emergency Motion for Reconsideration of this Court's July 1, 2014 Order (Doc. No. 51);
• Denied by this Court on July 8, 2014 (07/08/2014 Text Order);
• Plaintiffs July 22, 2014 Motion to Compel Defendants to Obey this Court's July 1, 2014 Order (Doc. No. 61);
• Granted in part and denied in part by this Court on July 25, 2014: Defendants given until August 13, 2014 to comply with the July 1, 2014 Order (Doc. No. 63);
• Defendants' Emergency Motion to Modify the Protective Order (Doc. No. 64);
• Denied by this Court (Doc. No. 70);
• Defendants' current Emergency Motion for Relief from the Court's Order Dated July 25, 2014, or in the Alternative, for a Stay Pending a Petition for Writ of Mandamus (Doc. No. 74): filed on August 13, 2014 at 9:01PM - - after the close of regular business hours on the day of the required compliance.
The Parties fundamentally disagree as to both the substantive and procedural discovery obligations at issue. The Court has given the Parties ample opportunity to brief their positions. After extensive review of the record, the Local Patent Rules, and applicable case law, the Court ordered that Defendants must provide "all source code, specifications, schematics, flow charts, and other technical documentation relating to the operation of the accused products (Parrot's AR.Drone, AR.Drone 2.0, MiniDrone, and Bebop Drone) and any associated remote-controlled software applications, including all versions and drafts of Defendants' FreeFlight software app." Doc. No. 48.
Dissatisfied with this Court's ruling, Defendants have repeatedly moved this Court to modify its ruling, arguing that complying with the Order on Motion to Compel would be unduly burdensome (Doc. No. 52, 2) and would expose Defendants to the risk of inadvertent disclosure of confidential information (Doc. No. 52, 3). The Court denied each of Defendants' motions to reconsider its ruling. Doc. No. 48 and 07/08/2014 Text Order. After these rulings, it appeared that Defendants had conceded their position and would comply with their discovery obligations. In response to Plaintiffs Motion to Order Defendants to Comply with the July 1, 2014 Order, Defendants stated that they "ha[ve] produced, or [will] producing imminently, all of the documents necessary to comply with the Court's July 1 Order and more." Doc. No. 62, 1. That has not proved to be true.
Although Defendants are now admittedly "able to comply" with their production obligations, they refuse to do so, and instead, on the very date they were required to fully comply with this Court's Orders, they have filed another motion to impede discovery. See Doc. No. 75, 1 ("Although Parrot is able to comply with the Court's July 25 Order in large part to the extent that Parrot has produced nearly 80, 000 documents (nearly 1 million pages) and is in the process of producing an additional 500GB of data relating to ...