CPI Card Group, Inc. v. Dwyer
- Susan Nelson
- 0:17-cv-03983
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 11
In CPI Card Group v. Dwyer, Magistrate Judge Thorson granted and denied parts of several discovery motions, ordered supplements, struck an errata sheet, and denied sanctions.
CPI Card Group, Inc., CPI Card Group-Minnesota, Inc., Multi Packaging Solutions, Inc., John Dwyer, John Searfoss, and Ken Glinert.
What happened
CPI Card Group, Inc. and CPI Card Group-Minnesota, Inc. asked the court to require Multi Packaging Solutions, Inc. and others to provide additional documents. The MPS Defendants asked CPI to provide more information about its alleged trade secrets and damages and to address confidential-document designations. John Dwyer also sought additional discovery-related relief.
The court ordered the parties to provide or supplement various discovery, including documents about transaction-card business, communications, sales, forecasts, alleged trade secrets, and damages. It limited some requests, denied others without prejudice, required the parties to discuss confidential-document designations, and struck an errata sheet submitted for CPI’s deposition witness. The court also set deadlines and procedures for resolving electronic-document disputes.
In CPI Card Group, Inc. v. Dwyer, Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson granted in part and denied in part CPI’s motion, granted in part and denied in part the MPS Defendants’ motion, granted in part Dwyer’s motion, and denied the parties’ sanctions motions.
The detailed version
- CPI Card Group, Inc. v. Dwyer · No. 0:17-cv-03983
- Susan Nelson
- Oct. 4, 2018
Background
The court addressed three motions to compel discovery: CPI Card Group, Inc. and CPI Card Group-Minnesota, Inc.’s motion against the MPS Defendants; Multi Packaging Solutions, Inc., John Searfoss, and Ken Glinert’s motion against the CPI Plaintiffs; and John Dwyer’s motion against the CPI Plaintiffs. The court held a hearing on October 3, 2018.
CPI Plaintiffs’ Motion
The court granted in part and denied in part CPI’s motion to compel discovery from the MPS Defendants.
- MPS had to supplement responses to Requests 15 and 16 with documents generated in 2018 by October 31,
- - CPI’s request concerning Request No. 2 was satisfied by supplementation of initial disclosures, due October 5,
- - The request concerning Request No. 3 was denied without prejudice because CPI had not shown that discoverable documents were withheld or identified disputes about privilege logs. - The requests concerning Requests Nos. 5 and 6 were granted. MPS had to produce relevant and proportional discovery by October 31,
- CPI could identify no more than five email custodians, and MPS could use search terms along with other methods to locate electronically stored information. - The request concerning the Third Set, Request No. 1, was granted in part and denied in part. MPS had to produce communications after January 1, 2017, concerning potential work on transaction cards with the specified parties. - The request concerning Third Set, Request No. 2, was granted in part and denied in part. MPS had to produce responsive documents for the nine identified accounts by October 10, 2018, and remaining documents by October 31,
- - The request concerning Third Set, Request No. 3, was granted in part and denied in part. MPS had to produce documents showing sales in dollars and units involving the specified parties and transaction cards since January 1,
- MPS did not have to create documents containing manufacturing costs or gross profits if those documents did not already exist. The nine-customer documents were due October 10, 2018, and the remaining documents were due October 31,
- - The request concerning Third Set, Request No. 4, was granted in part and denied in part. MPS had to produce sales forecasts concerning transaction-card business with the specified parties from January 1, 2017, through the present. The court did not require production of all documents relating to sales forecasts because that portion was too broad and insufficiently tailored. - Requests Nos. 6 and 7 were granted as to the specified parties, with production due October 31,
- - The request concerning Request No. 5 was denied without prejudice because CPI had not shown relevance. - Searfoss and Glinert had agreed to supplement their responses, and those supplements were due October 31,
- - CPI’s request concerning documents obtained through MPS’s acquisition of Catalyst Card Company was denied without prejudice, except for documents MPS had agreed to produce. The parties were required to meet and confer about any additional Catalyst documents.
MPS Defendants’ Motion
The court granted in part and denied in part the MPS Defendants’ motion to compel.
The court found that CPI had identified its alleged trade secrets with enough detail for discovery to continue, but required CPI to supplement its interrogatory answers by October 31, 2018. CPI had to identify the facts it knew, designate the information it claimed was covered by its trade-secret-misappropriation claims, and identify information connecting each defendant to the alleged misappropriation, disclosure, or misuse of particular trade secrets or confidential information. The court rejected CPI’s objection that this required an improper legal conclusion and stated that these types of questions were permitted during discovery.
CPI also had to provide a summary list by October 10, 2018, for use in the settlement conference, identifying additional known trade secrets or confidential information believed to have been misappropriated, disclosed, or misused. CPI had to supplement its damages interrogatory responses by October 31, 2018 and provide a settlement demand and explanation before the settlement conference.
Regarding documents marked “Attorney’s Eyes Only,” CPI had to begin discussions with all defendants and propose a definition, including time limits, for material eligible for that designation. The parties had to submit joint or separate proposals for an amended protective order by October 19, 2018. They also had to identify documents that should be redesignated for the settlement conference.
Dwyer’s Motion
Dwyer’s motion sought, among other things, identification of the alleged trade secrets, review and correction of Attorney’s Eyes Only designations, and withdrawal of an errata sheet signed by CPI’s deposition witness, Peggy O’Leary. The court had addressed the trade-secret-identification request above and granted the request to strike the errata sheet at the hearing. The court stated that CPI’s attempt to incorporate all interrogatory answers into all deposition answers had no merit. Dwyer’s motion was therefore granted in part at this time.
Other Rulings and Procedures
The court denied the parties’ motions for sanctions. It also denied without prejudice CPI’s request for an order requiring defendants to search for all responsive 2018 documents. The parties had to meet and confer and submit proposals about supplementation.
The court also established a process for disputes about electronically stored information. The parties first had to meet and confer and jointly email the court about any unresolved dispute. If they did not agree to informal dispute resolution, they had to file simultaneous motions by October 19, 2018, with proposed electronic-discovery protocols.
Result
The order resolved discovery disputes and set production, supplementation, meet-and-confer, and filing deadlines. It did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.