Teradata Corporation v. SAP SE

Background

Teradata Corporation, Teradata US, Inc., and Teradata Operations, Inc. asked the court to issue letters of request under the Hague Convention so they could seek discovery in Germany from nonparty Infolytics AG and certain Infolytics employees. SAP SE, SAP of America, Inc., and SAP Labs, LLC asked the court to revise the proposed letters. SAP argued that Teradata’s case synopsis was biased and that SAP should receive equal time to question witnesses during depositions conducted under the letters.

The proposed synopsis described Teradata’s claims for federal and state trade-secret misappropriation, copyright infringement, unlawful tying, and attempted monopolization. It also described SAP’s counterclaims alleging infringement of five SAP patents. The synopsis stated that the parties had entered a joint venture involving SAP’s Business Warehouse product and Teradata’s Teradata Database product, that SAP later released its competing HANA product, and that the parties disputed the use of intellectual property and alleged anticompetitive conduct. It also described Infolytics’s work developing software integrating SAP’s Business Warehouse with the Teradata Database and identified Thomas Anhaus and Fekke Fekkes as Infolytics employees who received SAP email addresses.

Court’s Analysis and Ruling

The court explained that letters of request are requests for assistance from the court, not from a party, so the case synopsis should be neutral and should not suggest that the court had already reached factual conclusions. The court agreed that Teradata’s synopsis was not neutral, but concluded that SAP’s proposed revisions would overcorrect by favoring SAP.

The court therefore stated that, unless the parties agreed to different language, the letters would use the court’s proposed synopsis. SAP’s request for equal time to question witnesses during depositions was granted and had to be included in the letters of request. The court did not address SAP’s remaining proposed changes because they were not discussed in the parties’ briefs and appeared minor. For unresolved non-substantive language, Teradata’s preference as the requesting party would control.

Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero ordered the parties to meet and confer by telephone or electronic means to resolve outstanding issues. If the parties resolved all issues, Teradata was directed to file an amended certification stating that the proposed letters complied with the order. If substantive issues remained, the parties were directed to file a joint letter brief of no more than five single-spaced pages by the same date.