Joint Stock Company Channel One Russia Worldwide v. Infomir LLC

Background

The parties disclosed their expert witnesses and served their initial expert reports on February 5, 2020. Infomir disclosed Christopher Rucinski and William Rosenblatt as its experts. Rebuttal reports were initially due February 25, 2020, and expert depositions were initially to be completed by March 24, 2020. Those deadlines were extended six times, largely because the parties had agreed to inspect set-top boxes and other equipment used or tested by their experts but could not complete the inspections during public-health restrictions related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The then-current deadline for rebuttal reports was August 7, 2020, and expert depositions were due to be completed by September 30, 2020. On July 1, 2020, the plaintiffs served Infomir with additional document requests under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34. They also served a subpoena under Rule 45 on Stroz Friedberg, Rucinski’s employer. The requests and subpoena sought, among other things, communications between Infomir’s experts and its counsel, communications between Rucinski and Rosenblatt, and documents concerning expert reports Rucinski prepared in 2018 for a sanctions motion that had since been resolved.

Parties’ Positions

Infomir asked the court to disallow the new discovery because it was untimely, could further delay the equipment inspections and August 7 rebuttal-report deadline, and sought information that was irrelevant or disproportionate to the expert issues. Infomir also asked the court to direct the plaintiffs to proceed with the remaining expert discovery as previously ordered.

The plaintiffs argued that the requests and subpoena were served before the September 30 close of expert discovery. They accused Infomir of concealing relevant, non-privileged information and argued that deposing Rosenblatt would be impossible without the requested documents and information. The plaintiffs did not seek an extension of the August 7 rebuttal-report deadline, but they acknowledged that they were unwilling to proceed with the planned equipment inspection while the discovery dispute was unresolved.

Ruling

Judge Barbara Moses stated that courts have broad discretion over the timing, sequence, limits, and conditions of discovery. Applying that discretion and considering the need for a just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution, the court granted Infomir’s letter-application in part.

The court ordered that:

- The August 7, 2020 deadline for the parties’ expert rebuttal reports remained in place. - The parties had to promptly finalize arrangements for inspecting their set-top boxes. The inspections had to occur by July 31, 2020, unless the parties mutually agreed to a later date that would not jeopardize the August 7 deadline. - Infomir could file a reply letter brief supporting its request for relief from the document requests and subpoena by August 14, 2020. - The court would hold a discovery teleconference on August 18, 2020, to resolve any remaining issues concerning the requests and subpoena.

The opinion did not finally resolve all disputes concerning the document requests or subpoena.