Automated Management Systems, Inc. v. Rappaport Hertz Cherson Rosenthal, P.C.

Background

Automated Management Systems, Inc. (AMSI) sued Rappaport Hertz Cherson Rosenthal, P.C., several individuals associated with the firm, Branko Rakamaric, and Ben Wachter. AMSI’s Third Amended Complaint sought damages for copyright infringement, breach of contract, unfair competition, trade-secret misappropriation, and interference with a contract.

The Law Firm Defendants served requests for admission on AMSI on June 1, 2020. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36, a party generally must answer or object within 30 days; otherwise, the requested matters are treated as admitted. AMSI served responses on September 8, 2020, after the July 6 deadline. AMSI asked the court either to extend the deadline retroactively or to withdraw and amend the resulting admissions.

The Law Firm Defendants separately sought a protective order barring further discovery and asked the court to quash, or cancel, a subpoena that AMSI served on Krantz Secure Technologies. The subpoena sought copies of the RHCR-APPSRV server from specified dates and related tickets, work orders, and instructions.

AMSI’s Motion Regarding the Requests for Admission

The court explained that it could allow late responses if doing so would help present the case’s merits and would not unfairly prejudice the requesting party’s ability to litigate the case. The court said it did not need to decide whether AMSI had shown excusable neglect.

The court allowed AMSI’s September 8 responses to requests for admission 2, 8, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 32. Requests 2 and 8 concerned the source code and files covered by AMSI’s copyright registration. Requests 25 and 26 concerned whether AMSI’s itemized list identified every disputed or allegedly copied part of its software. Requests 28 and 29 concerned whether all relevant intellectual property was located on the RHCR-APPSRV server. Request 32 concerned whether the Law Firm Defendants continued to have access to AMSI’s Landlord & Tenant System after June 9, 2016.

For these requests, the court found that allowing AMSI’s responses would assist presentation of the case and that the defendants had not shown resulting prejudice. The court noted, among other things, that some issues concerned information on the defendants’ network and that the itemized list described “some” disputed programs and scripts rather than necessarily all of them.

The court treated all other requests for admission as admitted because AMSI did not address them in its motion. The court also treated request 6 as admitted because AMSI raised arguments about it for the first time in its reply brief.

Protective Order and Subpoena

The court denied the request for a protective order because the Law Firm Defendants did not include the required certification that they had tried in good faith to resolve the dispute with the affected parties before seeking court intervention.

The court also denied the motion to quash the subpoena. It had previously ruled that the RHCR-APPSRV server was discoverable. The Law Firm Defendants did not provide evidence supporting their assertion that the server contained privileged or confidential material, and they did not establish that complying with the subpoena would impose an undue burden on Krantz. Krantz also did not submit evidence showing that compliance would be burdensome.

Disposition

The court granted AMSI’s motion to amend its responses to requests for admission 2, 8, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 32, and denied the motion as to all other requests for admission. The court denied the Law Firm Defendants’ cross-motion, including both the request for a protective order and the request to quash the subpoena.