throbber
Case 4:16-cv-00737-ALM Document 61 Filed 03/29/17 Page 1 of 20 PageID #: 1743
`
`United States District Court
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`SHERMAN DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 4:16-CV-00737
`Judge Mazzant
`







`
`
`REALPAGE, INC., REALPAGE VENDOR
`COMPLIANCE LLC
`
`
`v.
`
`ENTERPRISE RISK CONTROL, LLC,
`LONNIE DERDEN
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
`
`
`
`Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Document Production, Motion
`
`to Overrule Objections, and Motion to Compel Document Custodian Deposition (Dkt. #40).
`
`After reviewing the relevant pleadings and motion, the Court finds the motion should be granted
`
`in part and denied in part.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs RealPage, Inc. and RealPage Vendor Compliance LLC (collectively,
`
`“Plaintiffs” or “RealPage”) seek a preliminary injunction against Defendants Enterprise Risk
`
`Control, LLC (“Enterprise”) and Lonnie Derden (“Derden”) (collectively, “Defendants”) from
`
`using or benefiting from any of Plaintiffs’ trade secrets or other confidential or proprietary
`
`information (Dkt. #10 at p. 17–18). At the center of the controversy is the allegation that Derden
`
`and his employees took trade secret and confidential information from Plaintiffs and used it to
`
`create a competing product sold by Enterprise.
`
`
`
`On November 30, 2016, the Court entered an Agreed Order Continuing Preliminary
`
`Injunction Hearing and Setting Discovery and Briefing Schedule (Dkt. #33) and an agreed
`
`Protective Order and Source Code Protocol (Dkt. #34). The agreed discovery schedule set the
`
`week of December 19, 2016 as the time to make Source Code available for inspection in
`
`

`

`Case 4:16-cv-00737-ALM Document 61 Filed 03/29/17 Page 2 of 20 PageID #: 1744
`
`accordance with the agreed protective order, and December 19, 2016 as the deadline for parties
`
`to serve responses to requests for production of documents (“RFPs”).
`
`
`
`On December 2, 2016, Plaintiffs served their first set of requests for production to
`
`Enterprise and Derden (Dkt. #40, Exhibits A, B). On December 19, 2016, Defendants served
`
`their responses to Plaintiffs’ first set of RFPs (Dkt. #40, Exhibits C, D). Between December 19,
`
`2016, and this motion, the parties discussed the allegedly inadequate responses (Dkt. #40,
`
`Exhibits E, F).
`
`
`
`On February 17, 2017, Plaintiffs filed this motion (Dkt. #40). On February 27, 2017,
`
`Defendants filed their response, indicating that certain additional disclosures would be made
`
`later that day (Dkt. #44). On the same day, Plaintiffs filed a reply (Dkt. #47). On February 28,
`
`2017, Plaintiffs filed a supplemental reply, confirming that Defendants produced 7,343 emails
`
`and their attachments the night before (Dkt. #48). On March 1, 2017, Defendants filed a sur-
`
`reply (Dkt. #51).
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`
`
`Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), parties “may obtain discovery regarding
`
`any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense . . . .” Fed. R. Civ.
`
`P. 26(b)(1). Relevance, for the purposes of Rule 26(b)(1), is when the request is reasonably
`
`calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id.; Crosby v. La. Health & Indem.
`
`Co., 647 F.3d 258, 262 (5th Cir. 2011). It is well-established that “control of discovery is
`
`committed to the sound discretion of the trial court.” Freeman v. United States, 556 F.3d 326,
`
`341 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting Williamson v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 815 F.2d 368, 382 (5th Cir.
`
`1987)).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 4:16-cv-00737-ALM Document 61 Filed 03/29/17 Page 3 of 20 PageID #: 1745
`
`Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a discovering party, on notice to
`
`other parties and all affected persons, to “move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery.”
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). The moving party bears the burden of showing that the materials and
`
`information sought are relevant to the action or will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
`
`Export Worldwide, Ltd. v. Knight, 241 F.R.D. 259, 263 (W.D. Tex. 2006). Once the moving
`
`party establishes that the materials requested are within the scope of permissible discovery, the
`
`burden shifts to the party resisting discovery to show why the discovery is irrelevant, overly
`
`broad, unduly burdensome or oppressive, and thus should not be permitted. Id.
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 governs requests for production of documents
`
`(“RFPs”), electronically stored information, and tangible things. Rule 34 requires responses to
`
`“either state that inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested or state with
`
`specificity the grounds for objecting to the request, including the reasons.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`34(b)(2)(B). “An objection [to the entire request] must state whether any responsive materials are
`
`being withheld on the basis of that objection.” Id. 34(b)(2)(C). On the other hand, “[a]n objection
`
`to part of a request must specify the part and permit inspection of the rest.” Id.
`
`
`
`After responding to each request with specificity, the responding attorney must sign their
`
`request, response, or objection certifying that the response is complete and correct to the best of
`
`the attorney’s knowledge and that any objection is consistent with the rules and warranted by
`
`existing law or a nonfrivolous argument for changing the law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g). This rule
`
`“simply requires that the attorney make a reasonable inquiry into the factual basis of his
`
`response, request, or objection.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g) advisory committee note (1983).
`
`
`
`The federal rules follow a proportionality standard for discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`26(b)(1). Under this requirement, the burden falls on both parties and the court to consider the
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 4:16-cv-00737-ALM Document 61 Filed 03/29/17 Page 4 of 20 PageID #: 1746
`
`proportionality of all discovery in resolving discovery disputes. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1),
`
`advisory committee note (2015). This rule relies on the fact that each party has a unique
`
`understanding of the proportionality to bear on the particular issue. Id. For example, a party
`
`requesting discovery may have little information about the burden or expense of responding. Id.
`
`“The party claiming undue burden or expense ordinarily has far better information—perhaps the
`
`only information—with respect to that part of the determination.” Id.
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs ask the Court to overrule Defendants’ objections and to order production of
`
`certain documents. The Court will take each request in turn, beginning with objections to specific
`
`RFPs and then addressing compulsion of documents.
`
`Objections
`
`Plaintiffs argue Enterprise’s objections to RFPs 1–3, 5–7, 9, 11–13, 15, 16, 18, and 19
`
`and Derden’s objections to RFPs 2–5 should be overruled because they are boilerplate and not
`
`stated with specificity. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have not objected to the merits of the
`
`objections, but only the specificity. Defendants further argue that their objections are specific
`
`because they quoted specific portions of the questions that were vague or overbroad. The Court
`
`agrees that Plaintiffs only make specificity arguments in their motion regarding Defendants’
`
`responses to discovery. However, Plaintiffs do address the merits in their request to compel
`
`documents. Therefore, the Court will address specificity here and the merits later.
`
`a. “Subject to” language
`
`
`
`As an initial matter, the Court finds Defendants waived each of their objections, except to
`
`RFP 11, by including “subject to the foregoing” in the response. The practice of including
`
`“subject to” or “without waiving” statements after objections is an age-old habit comparable to
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 4:16-cv-00737-ALM Document 61 Filed 03/29/17 Page 5 of 20 PageID #: 1747
`
`belts and suspenders. This practice is “manifestly confusing (at best) and misleading (at worse),
`
`and has no basis at all in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Keycorp v. Holland, No. 3:16-
`
`cv-1948-D, 2016 WL 6277813, at *11 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 26, 2016) (quoting Carr v. State Farm
`
`Mut. Auto. Ins., 312 F.R.D. 459, 470 (N.D. Tex. 2015)). Such an objection and answer “leaves
`
`the requesting [p]arty uncertain as to whether the question has actually been fully answered,”
`
`Consumer Elecs. Ass’n v. Compras & Buys Magazine, Inc., No. 08-21085-CIV, 2008 WL
`
`4327253, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 18, 2008), and “wondering as to the scope of the documents or
`
`information that will be provided as responsive.” Heller v. City of Dall., 303 F.R.D. 466, 487
`
`(N.D. Tex. 2014).
`
`Rule 34 does not allow this kind of hedging. Rule 34 allows a party either to “state that
`
`inspection and related activities will be permitted as required” or to “state with specificity the
`
`grounds for objecting to the request.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B). If a party chooses to object to
`
`part of a request, the party “must specify the part and permit inspection of the rest.”
`
`Id. 34(b)(2)(C). A response that states “subject to the foregoing” is not specific enough as to
`
`either (1) the completeness of the answer or (2) the availability of documents for inspection. The
`
`Court finds that Defendants’ inclusion of “subject to the foregoing” is not supported by the
`
`federal rules and goes against the purposes of a just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution. See
`
`Carr, 312 F.R.D. at 470.
`
`By answering questions “subject to” Defendants failed to specify the scope of their
`
`answer in relation to the request. This makes it impossible for Plaintiffs or the Court to assess the
`
`sufficiency of the response. Therefore, Defendants have waived each objection, except to RFP
`
`11, by including “subject to” language in their responses. See Carr, 312 F.R.D. at 470.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 4:16-cv-00737-ALM Document 61 Filed 03/29/17 Page 6 of 20 PageID #: 1748
`
`Defendants shall fully supplement their responses to Plaintiffs’ requests, except RFP 11,
`
`consistent with the proper manner of responding or answering as laid out above.
`
`b. Boilerplate Objections
`
`
`
`Further, Defendants waived several objections by making boilerplate objections. It is
`
`well-established that parties cannot make general or boilerplate objections to discovery requests.
`
`Heller, 303 F.R.D. at 483 (N.D. Tex. 2014). Rule 34 requires that a response to an RFP “must
`
`either state that inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested or state an
`
`objection to the request, including the reasons.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B). The party resisting
`
`discovery “must show specifically . . . how each [request] is not relevant or how each question is
`
`overly broad, burdensome or oppressive.” McLeod, Alexander, Powel & Apffel, P.C. v. Quarles,
`
`894 F.2d 1482, 1485 (5th Cir. 1990) (quoting Josephs v. Harris Corp., 677 F.2d 985, 991–92
`
`(3d Cir. 1982)). A party may not “refuse discovery simply by making a boilerplate objection that
`
`it is not proportional.” Rule 26(b)(1), advisory committee note (2015). Because “[i]n the face of
`
`[general] objections, it is impossible to know whether information has been withheld and, if so,
`
`why.” Heller, 303 F.R.D. at 483 (quoting Weems v. Hodnett, No. 10-cv-1452, 2011 WL
`
`3100554, at *1 (W.D. La. July 25, 2011)).
`
`
`
`Nearly all of Defendants’ responses begin with the objection:
`
`[Defendant] objects on the basis that the request is overbroad, unduly
`burdensome, and seeks information that is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the
`scope of admissible discovery considering the proportionality of the needs in this
`case, which includes the Parties’ relative resources vis-à-vis the other and the
`burden/expense if the proposed discovery and likeliness of any benefit.
`
`(Dkt. #40, Exhibit C, D). Defendants argue that their objections, including the one above, are not
`
`boilerplate because they point out specific portions of the request that are objectionable
`
`(Dkt. #44 at p. 17). The Court disagrees.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 4:16-cv-00737-ALM Document 61 Filed 03/29/17 Page 7 of 20 PageID #: 1749
`
`“Boilerplate” means “standardized text” or “ready-made or all-purpose language.”
`
`Boilerplate, Merriam-Webster Collegiate Disctionary (11th ed. 2007); Boilerplate, Black’s Law
`
`Dictionary (10th ed. 2014). Defendants used the above objection on eighteen of their twenty-five
`
`RFP responses. This is the epitome of “standardized text.” Defendants appear to argue that
`
`because they provided slight variations to each RFP, except Enterprise’s RFP 15, that the
`
`objections are therefore specific to the request. The Court disagrees. Simply put, the above
`
`objection does not “state with specificity the grounds for objecting to the request.” Fed. R. Civ.
`
`P. 34(b)(2)(B). Defendants’ additional reasons after the objection, which often begin
`
`“specifically,” address separate concerns such as relevance or ambiguity. However, those
`
`objections stand or fall on their own. Therefore, Defendants’ failure to specify specific grounds
`
`in the above objection results in waiver of the objection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B); Keycorp,
`
`2016 WL 6277813, at *11. The Court will now address the additional reasons that accompany
`
`some of Defendants’ responses.
`
`Enterprise’s responses to RFPs 1, 7, 9, 12, 16, and 18, and Derden’s response to RFP 2
`
`make the same boilerplate objection but add that certain words or phrases are “overbroad, vague,
`
`and ambiguous.” Defendants do not provide specific reasons for how these words are overbroad,
`
`vague, or ambiguous, and therefore Defendants waived their objections. Heller, 303 F.R.D. at
`
`483–93.
`
`Even if Defendants did not waive these objections, Defendants’ objections are overruled.
`
`Defendants have not met their burden to explain the specific and particular way that each request
`
`is overbroad, vague, or ambiguous after exercising reason and common sense to attribute
`
`ordinary definitions to terms and phrases used in the request. Id. at 491. Further, based on the
`
`Court’s review, these requests are not so overbroad, vague, or ambiguous as to be incapable of
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 4:16-cv-00737-ALM Document 61 Filed 03/29/17 Page 8 of 20 PageID #: 1750
`
`reasonable interpretation and to prohibit Defendants’ responses. Thus, these objections are
`
`overruled.
`
`Apart from the boilerplate objections, Enterprise objects to RFP 2 because documents
`
`referring to products and services to the “now unlimited marketplace” of single-family and
`
`multi-family marketplace is too broad. However, Enterprise also objects to RFPs 7 and 12
`
`because they ask for documents that ask for more than the single-family and multi-family real
`
`estate management areas because only the single-family and multi-family markets were
`
`restricted. Enterprise explains that it does work for commercial tenants as well, but that was
`
`never restricted and therefore not part of the claims before the Court. The Court finds that the
`
`responses to RFPs 7 and 12 are inconsistent with the response to RFP 2. If Enterprise does
`
`business in three areas, two of which are part of the suit, the Court does not see how a request for
`
`documents relating to the two areas that are part of the suit is overbroad. Therefore, the Court
`
`overrules Enterprise’s objection that the “unlimited” marketplace is overbroad. However, the
`
`Court sustains Enterprise’s objections to documents encompassing commercial tenants in RFPs 7
`
`and 12.
`
`c. Relevance Objections
`
`Enterprise objects to RFPs 2, 6 and 12, and Derden objects to RFP 3 because requests for
`
`documents about activities in the single-family or multi-family rental property markets after
`
`restrictions in Derden’s Employment Agreement expired are not relevant to the claims or
`
`defenses raised in this case. Plaintiffs do not respond to the merits of these objections. The Court
`
`finds these objections sufficiently specific and agrees with Defendants. The Court sustains the
`
`objections with modification.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 4:16-cv-00737-ALM Document 61 Filed 03/29/17 Page 9 of 20 PageID #: 1751
`
`The Employment Agreement expressly states that the Significant Owner Agreement’s
`
`(“SOA”) restrictive period controls noncompetitive activities (Dkt. #1, Exhibit C at p. 6). The
`
`SOA’s period is for five years after the date of Compliance Depot’s sale to Plaintiffs.1 The
`
`Employment Agreement only restricted competition for three years after Derden’s termination.
`
`The SOA’s period ended on May 5, 2016, after the Employment Agreement would have ended.
`
`Therefore, Derden was restricted from competing until May 5, 2016. The Court sustains
`
`Defendants’ objections to documents relating to the development or provision of products or
`
`services offered by Defendants after the restrictions in the SOA expired.
`
`Enterprise also objects to RFP 11 because documents showing payments to persons who
`
`were involved in the development of Enterprise’s risk management application is not relevant.
`
`Enterprise has agreed to produce documents that it relied upon in requesting a preliminary
`
`injunction bond and has produced those documents. Based on Enterprise’s agreement, the Court
`
`finds Enterprise has waived its objection on relevance grounds.
`
`d. Privilege & Confidentiality
`
`Enterprise also objects to RFPs 3 and 13 for privilege concerns and 7, 9, 11, and 13 for
`
`confidentiality or proprietary issues. Derden objects to RFPs 3 and 4 on privilege grounds. On
`
`February 27, 2017, Enterprise produced documents responsive to RFP 11, which contained
`
`employee information. Based on Enterprise’s response and disclosure of information, the Court
`
`finds Defendants waived the objection to RFP 11.
`
`Regarding confidential and proprietary objections, Plaintiffs note that a protective order
`
`already governs this case. To the extent that Enterprise is withholding any documents or
`
`
`1 Compliance Depot, L.L.C. is a predecessor RealPage Vendor Compliance LLC. A more detailed factual history of
`the Compliance Depot—RealPage transaction is available in the Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order
`(Dkt. #39)
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 4:16-cv-00737-ALM Document 61 Filed 03/29/17 Page 10 of 20 PageID #: 1752
`
`information based on a confidentiality objection, those objections are overruled, and any
`
`responsive documents should be produced subject to the protective order.
`
`Finally, a privilege log must be produced for any documents, communications, or other
`
`materials withheld from production on privilege grounds. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5). Neither
`
`party addresses whether Defendants produced such a log. To the extent that Defendants have not
`
`done so, the Court orders Defendants to produce a privilege log for each assertion of privilege
`
`within seven (7) days of this order.
`
`e. Harassing and Fishing Expedition
`
`
`
`Enterprise objects to RFPs 5–7, 13, and 19, and Derden objects to RFPs 3 and 5 as
`
`harassing and a fishing expedition. Defendants’ only reason for this objection is that Plaintiffs
`
`are Defendants’ competitors. Considering the claims made in this case, the Court finds
`
`Defendants’ reasoning is insufficient to explain the basis for these objections. Fed. R. Civ.
`
`P. 34(b)(2)(B). Therefore, the Court overrules Defendants’ objections on these grounds.
`
`Document Production
`
`
`
`For the Court to order production, Plaintiffs must show that Defendants failed to produce
`
`documents or to permit the appropriate inspection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B). An evasive or
`
`incomplete response suffices to show a failure to respond. Id. 37(a)(4). When some documents
`
`have been produced in response to a request, Courts have interpreted “evasive or incomplete” to
`
`place a modest burden on the requesting party to support, with existing documents, a reasonable
`
`deduction that other documents may exist or did exist but have been destroyed. See Zubulake v.
`
`UBS Warburg LLC, 217 F.R.D. 309, 313 (S.D.N.Y. 2003); see also Hubbard v. Potter,
`
`247 F.R.D. 27, 29 (D.D.C. 2008).
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 4:16-cv-00737-ALM Document 61 Filed 03/29/17 Page 11 of 20 PageID #: 1753
`
`a. Communications Regarding Development
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs argue that Defendants should produce “[c]ommunications between and among
`
`employees or representatives or [Enterprise] and any third party related to the development of
`
`[Enterprise’s] vendor compliance application” because they are directly relevant to the claim that
`
`Enterprise’s application was developed using RealPage’s trade secrets. Defendants argue that
`
`this request is overbroad because it asks for every work-related communication between
`
`Enterprise’s employees and third parties.
`
`
`
`The Court has already determined that Enterprise’s overbreadth objection was waived as
`
`it was boilerplate and followed by “subject to” language. However, a party will still not be
`
`compelled to produce documents if the request is overbroad or unduly burdensome on its face.
`
`E.g., Aikens v. Deluxe Fin. Servs., Inc., 217 F.R.D. 533, 537–38 (D. Kan. 2003). The federal
`
`rules follow a proportionality standard for discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Under
`
`Rule 26, a request must be proportional to the needs of the case when considering, “the
`
`importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative
`
`access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in
`
`resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its
`
`likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs’ request is proportional. Defendants’ development of its vendor compliance
`
`application is very important to the issues at stake in the action. Plaintiffs’ claim centers on the
`
`development of the vendor compliance application. This discovery may turn the case for either
`
`side. The amount in controversy is large. Defendants’ own alleged harm from an injunction
`
`against the application is $12 million. Only Defendants have access to the communications
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 4:16-cv-00737-ALM Document 61 Filed 03/29/17 Page 12 of 20 PageID #: 1754
`
`requested. Finally, the burden is small because Defendants’ company is a small, relatively new
`
`company and only a handful of people worked on the application.
`
`
`
`On February 27, 2017, Defendants produced 7,343 emails and their attachments. It is not
`
`clear whether these emails are responsive to this request, but it is clear that none of the emails are
`
`dated before July 3, 2013.
`
`Plaintiffs contend this production is still not enough. Plaintiffs argue that Defendants
`
`should be compelled to produce additional emails regarding Bean’s assignment from when
`
`Derden and Bean left RealPage in June 2012 to when Bean joined Defendants as a full-time
`
`employee on July 3, 2013. The Court agrees.
`
`Derden and Tom Bean (“Bean”) were RealPage employees until June 2012. In June
`
`2012, Derden and Bean left RealPage and began their own companies. Derden began Enterprise,
`
`and Bean began a software consulting company called IDC Software LLC (“IDC”). At some
`
`point between June 2012 and July 2013, Bean asked Derden to see if Enterprise needed IDC’s
`
`services. Ultimately, Bean developed a credentialing application based on Derden’s instruction.
`
`In July 2013, Bean uploaded the code that he had created onto Enterprise’s server.
`
`Defendants have not produced any emails for the period before Bean uploaded his code
`
`to Enterprise’s server. Clearly, these would be relevant. Therefore, the Court orders Defendants
`
`to provide all communications between and among employees or representatives or Enterprise
`
`and any third party related to the development of Enterprise’s vendor compliance application for
`
`the period between June 2012 and July 3, 2013, or to certify that all responsive emails have been
`
`produced.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 4:16-cv-00737-ALM Document 61 Filed 03/29/17 Page 13 of 20 PageID #: 1755
`
`b. Email Attachments
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs argue that the Court should compel production of attachments to two emails.
`
`While this motion was pending, Defendants produced one of the attachments. Plaintiffs now
`
`appear only to complain about the email labelled ERC000404. In their sur-reply, Defendants
`
`assert that no document is being withheld (Dkt. #51 at p. 2). Assuming that Defendants have
`
`produced the other attachment, the Court will only address the email labeled ERC000404.
`
`
`
`The attachment to ERC00404 is discoverable because it is relevant to Plaintiffs’ trade
`
`secret claim. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Defendants hardly dispute this point (See Dkt. #44 at p. 9).
`
`Defendants have located the powerpoint, but have not produced it apparently because it was
`
`never distributed in written form, but only shown during an in-person presentation. The
`
`powerpoint supposedly “illustrate[s] the new look and feel of [Enterprise’s] application” (Dkt.
`
`#40, Exhibit G). The Court finds that the powerpoint, if it exists, should be produced. Plaintiffs
`
`have shown evidence that suggests the powerpoint exists and Defendants have not provided a
`
`valid reason for withholding it. Defendants shall certify in their amended response whether the
`
`powerpoint referenced in the email labelled ERC000404 was used during the in-person
`
`presentation. If Defendants cannot faithfully certify that the powerpoint was not used,
`
`Defendants shall produce the powerpoint because it is relevant and responsive to requests asking
`
`for communications relating to any products or services offered by Defendants to potential
`
`customers. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel is granted on this ground.
`
`c. Product Data, Design Specifications, Operations Specifications, and Related Documents
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs argue that the Court should compel production of documents that Defendants
`
`said they would produce in their initial disclosures. Specifically, Defendants stated that they
`
`would produce “product data for [Enterprise’s] vendor compliance software, Indexer and Vendor
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 4:16-cv-00737-ALM Document 61 Filed 03/29/17 Page 14 of 20 PageID #: 1756
`
`Services, which includes highly confidential and attorneys’ eyes only protected source code,
`
`product design specifications, operation specifications, and related documents” as documents
`
`that Defendants have in their possession, custody, or control and may support their claims.
`
`Defendants argue that the source code satisfied this disclosure. Plaintiffs acknowledge that
`
`Defendants produced source code, but argue that Defendants have not completely disclosed its
`
`source code because there is a gap between June 2012 and July 2013 that Defendants do not
`
`adequately explain.
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs provided a declaration from their forensic investigator, David Cowen
`
`(“Cowen”), to prove that material information is missing from the source code that Defendants
`
`produced. In his declaration, Cowen identifies facts that suggest significant edits to the source
`
`code occurred between July 2012 and July 2013. Notably, Cowen states that “ERC
`
`Development” made a comment on July 23, 2012. Cowen also states that other employees at
`
`Enterprise used their real names when making comments and that Bean used his real name as
`
`early as October 23, 2012 when making comments. This suggests the “ERC Development” is not
`
`necessarily Bean or that Bean was not working completely independently from Enterprise when
`
`developing code. Further, Bean added a comment on April 28, 2013 in the files “notcontrol.cs”
`
`and “othercontrol.cs”. The Court finds that the comments are enough to suggest that significant
`
`changes were made to the source code between July 2012 and July 2013.
`
`Defendants explain this gap in their response. Defendants produced affidavits by
`
`Enterprise’s software developer, Bean, and Chief Financial Officer, Gary Hofer (“Hofer”)
`
`recounting the events from Bean’s development of the application in 2012 all the way up to this
`
`litigation. According to Bean’s affidavit, IDC developed code for Enterprise before July 2013. In
`
`July 2013, Enterprise hired Bean as a full-time employee. At that time, Bean transferred his code
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 4:16-cv-00737-ALM Document 61 Filed 03/29/17 Page 15 of 20 PageID #: 1757
`
`onto Enterprise’s computers and removed the previous work from IDC’s computer, well before
`
`either Bean or Enterprise anticipated litigation. Further, Enterprise certifies by Bean’s and
`
`Hofer’s affidavit that all the code in their possession, custody, and control has been produced.
`
`The Court is in a tough position. Plaintiff has produced evidence that significant changes
`
`were made. However, Defendants have explained that the code containing those changes was
`
`destroyed in good faith before this litigation. Even though evidence may suggest that more code
`
`existed at one time, the Court cannot order a party to produce what it does not have. Orix USA
`
`Corp. v. Armentrout, No. 3:16-mc-63-N-BN, 2016 WL 4095603, at *5 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 1, 2016).
`
`Plaintiffs are entitled to an unequivocal representation, under oath, that Defendants have
`
`produced all source code that they have in their possession, custody, and control, and that they
`
`are not withholding any responsive code based on their objections or otherwise. Plaintiffs have
`
`received that representation in Bean’s and Hofer’s affidavit, as well as Defendants’ responses to
`
`this motion. The Court declines to order anything further from Defendants on this issue at this
`
`time.
`
`
`
`Under the same heading, Plaintiffs complain that Enterprise’s responses to RFPs 1 and 8
`
`are insufficient because the requests sought documents referred to in Defendants’ initial
`
`disclosures and Daniel Millstone’s November 7, 2016 declaration (Dkt. #21, Exhibit B) that were
`
`not provided. Defendants respond that they have produced all documents and that there simply
`
`are not as many documents as Plaintiffs believe there to be. The Court agrees with Defendants.
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs cite the Joseph Regan letter dated February 10, 2017 (Dkt. #40, Exhibit F) as
`
`evidence that Defendants have not responded to repeated efforts to obtain the information. The
`
`Court disagrees. The Regan letter specifically responds to Plaintiffs’ letter requesting documents.
`
`Defendants explain that (1) it could not locate the “piece of paper” referenced in Millstone’s
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 4:16-cv-00737-ALM Document 61 Filed 03/29/17 Page 16 of 20 PageID #: 1758
`
`declaration; (2) it admitted that the source code itself represents Millstone’s vision;
`
`(3) Enterprise could not locate documents that evidence the “original design”; and (4) Enterprise
`
`produced some Jira work order documents documenting corrections for “bugs” (Dkt. #40,
`
`Exhibit F at p. 4). Further, in response to this motion, Defendants provide the affidavit of their
`
`CFO, Hofer. Hofer clarifies that Jira is the only program Enterprise has used and that all Jira
`
`documents, not just “bug fixes” have been produced. Thus, the Court finds that Defendants have
`
`adequately responded to these requests. Plaintiffs’ motion on this ground is denied.
`
`d. Project Management Software
`
`
`
`Next, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants should be compelled to produce the content of any
`
`project management software Enterprise used to develop its vendor compliance application
`
`(Dkt. #40 at p. 9). Plaintiffs cite RFPs 1 and 8 as the relevant requests. The same reasoning
`
`applies as it did for documents showing product data, design specifications, operations
`
`specifications, and related documents above. Defendants have sworn under penalty of perjury
`
`that Enterprise only used Jira and has produced those documents. Plaintiffs’ motion on this
`
`ground is denied.
`
`e. Evidence of Payments for Design and Development
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs argue that Defendants should be compelled to produce documents showing the
`
`$3.3 million in expenses, including payroll and overhead, to create the vendor compliance
`
`application as requested in RFPs 9 and 11. Defendants respond that this information is
`
`confidential as it relates to the individual employees’ compensation. Before this motion,
`
`Defendants produced a summary sheet of compensation for six employees with the names
`
`redacted. On February 27, 2017, Defendants produced a seventeen-page document showing
`
`payroll expenses for 2013 through 2016. In their supplemental reply, Plaintiffs complain that this
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 4:16-cv-00737-ALM Document 61 Filed 03/29/17 Page 17 of 20 PageID #: 1759
`
`is still not enough because it does not contain any payments to Bean from Ju

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket