Bytemark, Inc. v. Xerox Corp.
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:17-cv-01803
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In Bytemark v. Xerox, Judge Fox denied both sides’ discovery motions with prejudice and found related filings moot because they missed court-ordered deadlines.
Bytemark, Inc. and the defendants were affected: both sides’ motions were denied with prejudice, and the court did not decide the underlying discovery disputes.
What happened
Bytemark, Inc. and the defendants filed competing motions about discovery. The defendants asked Bytemark to identify its trade secrets more specifically and sought an order limiting Bytemark’s access to confidential information; Bytemark asked the defendants to produce documents and information.
The court had ordered the parties to file these motions by December 28, 2020, and set deadlines for responses and replies. Instead, the parties initially filed certificates saying that papers had been served by email, while the motions and other papers were filed later through the court’s electronic filing system. The court found that the parties did not follow the filing deadlines or the court’s electronic-filing rules.
In Bytemark, Inc. v. Xerox Corp., Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox denied the defendants’ motion to compel and for a protective order and Bytemark’s motion to compel, both with prejudice. He found Bytemark’s motion to strike and the defendants’ related letter-motion moot.
The detailed version
- Bytemark, Inc. v. Xerox Corp. · No. 1:17-cv-01803
- Paul Gardephe
- Jan. 13, 2021
Background
The court had previously directed the parties to make any motions limited to issues in their December 10, 2020 joint letter by December 28, 2020. It also stated that the local rules would govern oppositions and replies and that extensions would not be granted absent extraordinary circumstances.
The defendants sought an order compelling Bytemark to identify its trade secrets with reasonable particularity and a protective order preventing Bytemark from pursuing the defendants’ confidential information until that identification was made. Bytemark separately sought an order compelling the defendants to produce documents and information responsive to specified document requests.
The parties filed certificates of service on December 28, 2020, stating that papers had been served by email. They filed the notices of motion, supporting materials, and other motion papers through the court’s electronic filing system on January 6, 2021. Bytemark also moved to strike the defendants’ reply because it exceeded the page limit. The defendants later asked the court to accept a shorter replacement reply and disregard the longer one.
Court’s Analysis
The court held that neither side made its motion by December 28, 2020. Under the local rules and the court’s electronic-filing instructions, filing a certificate of service or emailing papers to opposing counsel did not constitute filing the motions or generate the court’s electronic filing notice. The court also found that the parties did not timely file their oppositions and replies.
The court emphasized that the parties did not seek additional time, claim that the December 14 order was unclear, acknowledge that their motions were untimely, or explain the delays. The court concluded that they had waived any opportunity to ask the court to consider the reasons for the late filings after the fact.
Disposition
Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox denied the defendants’ motion to compel and motion for a protective order, docket entry 115, and Bytemark’s motion to compel document production, docket entry 119, with prejudice. The court found Bytemark’s motion to strike docket entry 118, docket entry 125, and the defendants’ letter-motion, docket entry 127, moot. The order addressed filing and deadline compliance rather than the merits of the parties’ discovery disputes.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.