Crescent Point Energy Corp. v. Tachyus Corporation
- Maxine Chesney
- 3:20-cv-06850
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Crescent Point Energy Corp. v. Tachyus Corporation, Judge Tse declined to compel discovery because seven requests were overbroad and not tied to remaining claims.
Crescent Point Energy Corp. may serve new discovery requests targeted to the remaining claims. Tachyus Corporation need not respond further to the seven requests for production as written.
What happened
Crescent Point Energy Corp. v. Tachyus Corporation concerned Crescent Point’s request for documents responding to seven requests for production. The requests were served before an earlier ruling narrowed the claims in the case.
The court found that the requests were not focused on the remaining central issue: whether Tachyus’s software successfully completed the Backtesting phase and could provide financial opportunities for Crescent Point. The court also found the requests overbroad and not proportional to the case, even though Tachyus had not timely objected.
Judge Tse excused Tachyus’s late objections because the mistake was not in bad faith, Crescent Point was not prejudiced, and some requests concerned claims that had been dismissed. Tachyus did not have to respond further to the requests as written, although Crescent Point could serve narrower requests aimed at the remaining claims.
The detailed version
- Crescent Point Energy Corp. v. Tachyus Corporation · No. 3:20-cv-06850
- Maxine Chesney
- Mar. 27, 2023
Background
Crescent Point asked the court to compel Tachyus Corporation to produce documents responsive to seven requests for production: Nos. 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, and 11. Crescent Point had served those requests before Judge Maxine Chesney ruled on Tachyus’s motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. Judge Chesney’s ruling substantially narrowed the case.
The court explained that the remaining case centered on whether Tachyus’s “Backtesting” phase—when Tachyus attempted to adapt its software to Crescent Point’s business needs—was successful. More specifically, the key issue was whether that phase showed that Tachyus’s software could provide “feasible opportunities for financial upside for Crescent Point.”
Discovery Requests
The disputed requests sought information about software development and functionality, errors Tachyus encountered while implementing its software, and Tachyus’s progress-reporting obligations. The court recognized that some of these subjects might produce relevant documents, but found that the requests were not tailored to the Backtesting phase or to issues bearing on whether that phase succeeded. The court found the requests overbroad and was not satisfied that they were proportional to the needs of the case.
Untimely Objections
Crescent Point acknowledged, and Tachyus did not dispute, that Tachyus had failed to timely object to the requests for production and an accompanying set of interrogatories. The court found good cause to excuse the late response. It explained that Tachyus’s assumption that Crescent Point would amend or reissue the discovery after the motion-to-dismiss ruling was mistaken but did not reflect bad faith. The court also found that Crescent Point was not prejudiced because fact discovery would remain open until July 14, 2023, giving Crescent Point time to pursue needed discovery. Finally, some requests concerned claims that Judge Chesney had dismissed, making it unproductive to require Tachyus to produce discovery unrelated to the remaining claims.
Ruling
The court declined to require Tachyus to respond further to the requests as written. Crescent Point was permitted to serve new discovery requests targeted to the remaining claims. The order does not state an express disposition using the words “granted” or “denied”; it states instead that Tachyus need not respond further to the existing requests and that Crescent Point may serve narrower ones.
Judge
The order was signed by Alex G. Tse, United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.