On July 10, 2013, Magistrate Judge Stickney issued a memorandum order (available here) in Comcast Cable v. BT Americas. Comcast had filed a motion to compel BT to produce documents responsive to certain of Comcast’s requests for production, “including core technical documents relating to [BT’s] accused products and services.” “Defendants represent that they are working to collect, process, and produce documents as quickly as possible, but that their efforts have been impaired by Plaintiffs’ failure to clearly articulate their infringement contentions.” BT also argued that the “motion to compel is premature because the deadline for fact discovery does not expire until October 15, 2013.”
Judge Stickney rejected BT’s arguments:
Contrary to [BT’s] assertion, [the] motion is not premature. Nothing in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Scheduling Order entered in this case requires Plaintiffs to wait until after the close of fact discovery to file a motion to compel. Nor is [BT’s] promise to continue to search for documents and supplement [its] responses an adequate response to Plaintiffs’ proper discovery request.
Judge Stickney required the requested documents to by produced by July 31, 2013:
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel is granted. Defendants shall produce documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production Nos. 14-56 no later than July 31, 2013. To the extent Defendants still contend that they do not understand Plaintiffs’ infringement contentions, lead counsel for both parties shall confer by telephone in an attempt to resolve Defendants’ confusion on or before July 17, 2013. The attorneys should focus their discussions on the substantive information and documents requested by Plaintiffs. Defendants should fully answer each discovery request, subject to any objections, and affirmatively indicate whether any responsive information or documents have been withheld. A privilege log must be produced for any documents, communications, or other materials withheld from production on the grounds of attorney-client, work product, or other privilege or immunity. Counsel for both parties are reminded of their obligations under Dondi Props. Corp. v. Commerce Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 121 F.R.D. 284, 289-90 (N.D. Tex. 1988) (en banc), and are admonished to participate in meaningful discussions in an attempt to resolve any future discovery dispute prior to seeking court intervention.
(citations and certain emphases omitted)