Rogers v. Bellerose

Background

William E. Rogers sued his former employer and several of its officers and directors. He alleged that, after defendants terminated his employment, they hacked into his private email accounts and other accounts and devices to obtain information related to his patents and gain leverage against him. The opinion describes the alleged conduct as “crude corporate espionage and spite.”

Rogers sought discovery concerning alleged access to his personal devices and accounts during December 2019. He disputed defendants’ statements that they did not possess responsive documents and argued that the absence of documents was not credible. He also sought a privilege and withholding log, identifying documents defendants were allegedly withholding.

Discovery disputes

The court addressed an Updated Joint Discovery Letter Brief and a Supplemental Discovery Letter Brief after earlier directing the parties to meet and confer and narrow their disputes. The court stated that Rogers’s remaining requests to compel discovery were denied.

First, the court denied Rogers’s request to require a privilege or withholding log, or a similar log identifying nonresponsive or irrelevant materials. The court held that Rogers had not shown enough to reject opposing counsel’s representation that defendants had no responsive documents in their possession. The court also declined to impose a retroactive requirement that defendants review their documents again to create such a log.

Second, the court denied Rogers’s request to treat discovery served on individually named defendants as though it had been included in a Rule 45 subpoena previously served on Red Cloud. The subpoena was issued before Red Cloud became a party, and Red Cloud stated that it had produced all responsive documents in its possession. The court directed Rogers to serve discovery requests directly on Red Cloud if he wanted formal party discovery from that defendant.

Finally, the court denied Rogers’s request for formal supplemental responses from all defendants. It rejected both the effort to place party discovery directed to Nancy Bellerose into the earlier third-party subpoena to Red Cloud and the request for supplemental responses based only on Rogers’s refusal to accept defense counsel’s representations that defendants possessed no properly requested responsive documents.

Disposition

Judge Robert M. Illman denied Rogers’s remaining requests to compel discovery. The order addressed discovery procedures and did not decide the merits of Rogers’s underlying allegations.