Case 2:14-cv-00111-AJS Document 77 Filed 08/14/14 Page 1 of 5
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
`
`
`
`
`
`14cv0111
`ELECTRONICALLY FILED
`
`
`
`DRONE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PARROT S.A., PARROT, INC.,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM ORDER RE: 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)
`
`
`
`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:
`
` Plaintiff’s 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);
`
` Plaintiff’s 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);
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00111-AJS Document 77 Filed 08/14/14 Page 2 of 5
`
` 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 Plaintiff’s 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.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00111-AJS Document 77 Filed 08/14/14 Page 3 of 5
`
`
`
`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 the Accused Products, Parrot seeks to be
`
`excused from complying with the Court’s July 25 Order in its entirety.”).
`
`
`
`Defendants again, for at least the fourth time, contend that compliance would expose
`
`them to the risk of dissemination of confidential information, including documents and source
`
`code related to products that are not commercially available.1 Doc. No. 75. Defendants’ Project
`
`Manager declares, in an attached Affidavit, that unauthorized disclosure “could cause substantial
`
`economic harm.” Doc. No. 75-1, ¶ 8. The Court is sensitive to Defendants’ desire to protect
`
`confidential information. However, as previously stated, Defendants have not demonstrated that
`
`there is anything unique about this case to necessitate a modification of the current Protective
`
`Order and the Court “believes that the Protective Order in place adequately protects Defendants’
`
`business interests.” Doc. No. 70, 2. Defendants have consistently sought to limit their discovery
`
`obligations and to force Plaintiff’s counsel to review documents on Defendants’ own terms.
`
`Defendants’ proposed changes to the existing procedure would place additional burdens on
`
`
`1 Defendants have set forth their purported confidentiality concerns in previous filings, all of which have
`been addressed by this Court. See Doc. No. 52: Defendants’ Emergency Motion to Clarify/Reconsider
`the Court’s July 1, 2014 Order; Doc. No. 62: Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
`Defendants to Obey this Court’s July 1, 2014 Order; and Doc. No. 64: Defendants’ Emergency Motion to
`Modify the Protective Order. The Court has rejected each of these arguments in turn, in light of the
`protections set forth in the existing Protective Order in this case. Doc. Nos. 07/08/2014 Text Order; Doc.
`No. 63; and Doc. No. 70.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00111-AJS Document 77 Filed 08/14/14 Page 4 of 5
`
`Plaintiff and its counsel and may permit Defendants to have a window into Plaintiff’s discovery
`
`and trial strategies. The existing Protective Order protects the Parties’ interests without undue
`
`burdens and increased costs. Therefore, Defendants’ Motion for Relief from the Court’s Order
`
`Dated July 25, 2014 (Doc. No. 74), will be denied.
`
`
`
`Alternatively, Defendants move this Court to stay the litigation pending the resolution of
`
`an application for a writ of mandamus from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
`
`Circuit, which Defendants intend to file “in view of the importance of these issues to the just and
`
`fair prosecution of this lawsuit.” Doc. No. 75, 6. As noted, there is nothing in Defendants’
`
`pending motion that warrants relief from this Court’s Orders. Further, the Court does not believe
`
`that a mandamus would promote the “just and fair prosecution” of Plaintiff’s claims. Rather, it
`
`would further delay the resolution of the claims between the Parties, which may be Defendants’
`
`intended result. Plaintiff opposes any stay because of increased costs associated with such a stay
`
`and because it “intends to continue to vigorously prosecute this case.” Doc. No. 76, 2.
`
`
`
`The Parties have been at loggerheads over initial disclosures since at least early July
`
`2014. Defendants’ position is based on speculation of what may occur if Plaintiff (by all
`
`accounts a company which consists of two individuals) inadvertently disclose documents. As
`
`previously noted, Defendants’ Motions “appear[] to be based upon Defense Counsel’s belief that
`
`Plaintiff’s counsel are incapable of completing routine discovery or conducting themselves in
`
`accordance with the confidentiality and other provisions designed to protect both parties during
`
`the process.” Doc. No. 70. Unsupported conjecture is not a reason to excuse Defendants from
`
`the Local Patent Rules, which have been formulated by experienced patent attorneys and judges
`
`who sit on the Local Patent Rules Advisory Committee and which the Parties and counsel are
`
`bound to follow. These Local Patent Rules have been employed by this Court in each patent
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00111-AJS Document 77 Filed 08/14/14 Page 5 of 5
`
`case it has presided over and serve to protect confidential information.2 This case should be no
`
`different.
`
`
`
`The Court endeavors to provide all Parties with the “just, speedy, and inexpensive
`
`determination” of the claims. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Relieving Defendants from their discovery
`
`obligations or staying this case would not comport with the just, speedy, and inexpensive
`
`resolution of the dispute, but would serve to delay this matter and increase litigation costs to all
`
`Parties. Therefore, the following Order is entered:
`
`
`
`AND NOW, this 14th day of August, 2014, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
`
`1. Defendants’ Motion for Relief from the Court’s Order Dated July 25, 2014 (contained in
`
`Doc. No. 74) is DENIED; and
`
`2. Defendants’ Motion for a Stay Pending a Petition for Writ of Mandamus (contained in
`
`Doc. No. 74) is DENIED.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/ Arthur J. Schwab
`Arthur J. Schwab
`United States District Judge
`
`
`
`cc:
`
`All Registered ECF Counsel and Parties
`
`
`2 The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania was selected to be part of the
`national Patent Pilot Program. The Local Patent Rules are employed by this Court as well as the other
`Designated Patent Judges of this District.
`
`
`
`5