CG3 Media, LLC v. Belleau Technologies, LLC

Background

Belleau Technologies, LLC served CG3 Media, LLC with interrogatories, which are written questions used in discovery. CG3 objected that, because discovery had just begun, it was not required under Southern District of New York Local Rule 33.3 to provide substantive answers to the interrogatories at that stage. Belleau asked the court to overrule CG3’s objections and compel complete answers to non-contention Interrogatories 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 11. Belleau also asked the court to compel CG3 to identify a date for responding to contention Interrogatories 2 and 3, which sought CG3’s positions on noninfringement and patent invalidity.

Court’s analysis

Local Rule 33.3 generally limits interrogatories at the beginning of discovery to information such as witness identities, document custodians, damages, and insurance. The rule allows broader interrogatories when they are a more practical way to obtain the information than a document request or deposition.

The court found that Belleau had not shown that written interrogatories were the most efficient method here. Interrogatories 1 and 10 concerned the development and operation of CG3’s accused product. The court said Belleau could obtain that information more efficiently by deposing a witness designated to testify for CG3. Interrogatories 5, 7, and 9 concerned CG3’s awareness of Belleau’s patented product and efforts to avoid infringement; the court likewise found those subjects better suited to a deposition, where Belleau could ask follow-up questions.

Interrogatories 4, 6, and 11 sought financial information, including costs and revenues connected to the allegedly infringing products, the plaintiffs’ assets and liabilities, and transfers between the plaintiffs. The court noted that CG3 had produced financial records and represented that it would supplement its responses with document identification numbers to assist with depositions. The court stated that Belleau could seek additional documents, information, or relief from the court if depositions showed that the financial production was incomplete.

The court also found it premature to require CG3 to set a response date for contention Interrogatories 2 and 3. Such interrogatories are generally served after substantial fact discovery and are intended to narrow and clarify disputed issues, not to develop new information at the beginning of discovery. No depositions or expert discovery had occurred.

Disposition

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil denied Belleau’s request to overrule CG3’s objections to non-contention Interrogatories 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 11 and to compel complete answers. She also denied Belleau’s request to compel CG3 to identify a date for responding to contention Interrogatories 2 and 3. The order concerned discovery only and did not resolve the parties’ underlying patent claims.