Perry Street Software, Inc. v. Jedi Technologies, Inc.
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-04539
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Perry Street v. Jedi, Judge McMahon limited discovery to an optional one-hour deposition before deciding Perry Street’s motion to compel arbitration.
Perry Street Software, Inc. and Jedi Technologies, Inc.; the order also limits the discovery involving Mr. Haan and directs counsel regarding briefing.
What happened
Perry Street Software, Inc. v. Jedi Technologies, Inc. concerns discovery needed for the court to decide a motion to compel arbitration. The court said the only potentially necessary discovery was a deposition of Mr. Haan about statements in his affidavit.
If Perry Street chose to take the deposition, it could last no longer than one hour. The court barred all other discovery, including discovery about the underlying patent-infringement issues and document discovery, and said no additional briefing was needed.
Judge McMahon said the deposition transcript would provide the additional information needed to decide the motion to compel. She also said issues first raised in a reply brief would not be considered and directed the Clerk to remove the motion at Docket Number 55 from the list of open motions.
The detailed version
- Perry Street Software, Inc. v. Jedi Technologies, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-04539
- Colleen McMahon
- Oct. 23, 2020
Background
The court received letters from counsel about the discovery needed in the case. The open dispute included whether Jedi Technologies, Inc. was bound by an arbitration clause in the terms of service. The court referred to an affidavit submitted by Mr. Haan and said that, if the affidavit were credited, it could support following decisions concluding that Jedi was not bound by the arbitration clause.
Discovery Allowed
The court limited discovery to one possible deposition. If Perry Street Software, Inc. chose to take it, Mr. Haan’s deposition could last no longer than one hour and could address the statements in his affidavit. The questioning could also examine Mr. Haan’s general practices in patent-infringement cases, whether his conduct in this case followed those practices, and whether he received special instructions from his client.
The court prohibited all other discovery. It specifically barred discovery concerning the merits of the underlying patent-infringement issues and said that no document discovery was needed. The court also said it did not need or want additional briefing.
Other Directions and Status
The court stated that the deposition transcript would provide the additional information needed to decide the motion to compel. It said issues raised for the first time in a reply brief would not be considered under the usual rule that such issues are waived. The Clerk was directed to remove the motion at Docket Number 55 from the list of open motions. The order does not state that the motion to compel was granted or denied.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.