Jenny Yoo Collection, Inc. v. David's Bridal, Inc.

Background

The order addressed several letters from the parties in this patent case. The defendants sought permission to file a partial summary-judgment motion before the deadline in the case-management and scheduling order. They also sought to prevent testimony from Jeffrey Trexler, whom Jenny Yoo identified as an expert witness, and Kay Chin, whom Jenny Yoo identified as both an expert and fact witness.

The parties also asked whether testimony could be presented at the scheduled claim-construction hearing, commonly called a Markman hearing. If testimony were allowed, both sides requested a 30-day postponement. The defendants separately asked the court to prevent Chin’s deposition from going forward on November 7 and 8, 2019, arguing in part that Jenny Yoo had not produced required discovery. Jenny Yoo stated that it had produced all relevant, nonprivileged materials concerning Chin.

Rulings

The court denied the defendants’ request to file a partial summary-judgment motion. It declined to change the existing schedule and stated that it would not consider summary-judgment motions filed in separate, successive parts.

The court denied the defendants’ request to preclude Trexler’s and Chin’s testimony without prejudice to renewal after expert discovery was complete. “Without prejudice” means the request could be made again later.

The court allowed both parties to present testimony and other evidence at the claim-construction hearing. It postponed that hearing from November 13, 2019, to January 3, 2020, at 9:30 a.m.

The court stated that it was not clear whether Jenny Yoo had properly claimed attorney-client privilege for communications with Chin. It also stated that direct communications between Jenny Yoo and Chin did not appear to be privileged and that, even if otherwise privileged, communications could lose protection if Jenny Yoo called Chin as an expert witness. If Jenny Yoo continued to assert privilege, the court ordered it to submit by November 12, 2019, an explanation supported by legal authority, a privilege log, and copies of relevant withheld documents for private court review. If it did not continue to assert privilege, it had to produce all relevant, responsive documents concerning Chin by that date. Chin’s deposition was not to proceed until the discovery issues concerning those materials were resolved.

Finally, the court extended the deadline for completing fact discovery, including depositions, from November 22, 2019, to December 23, 2019. The clerk was directed to terminate docket numbers 80, 81, 92, and 94.