Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 10, 2022

Network Data Rooms, LLC v. Saulrealism LLC

Judge
Lorna Schofield
Docket
1:22-cv-02299
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureEvidencePreliminary Injunction
In one sentence

In Network Data Rooms v. Saulrealism, Judge Schofield appointed Terry Patterson as an independent expert while reserving decision on a preliminary injunction.

Who this affects

Network Data Rooms, LLC, Saulrealism LLC and the other defendants, and Terry Patterson. Network Data Rooms agreed to pay Patterson’s $195-per-hour fee, and the parties were subject to the order’s communication and report procedures.

What happened

In Network Data Rooms, LLC v. Saulrealism LLC, the court had not yet decided Network Data Rooms’ request for a preliminary injunction. It had reserved that decision while awaiting an independent expert’s report.

The court appointed Terry Patterson under a federal evidence rule that permits courts to appoint experts to help evaluate technical or scientific issues. Patterson was to review the matter independently, prepare a report, and provide information about NDR Microsoft Azure users during the period specified by the court. Network Data Rooms agreed to pay Patterson $195 per hour.

Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered the expert appointment and set procedures for the review. The parties generally could not communicate directly with Patterson before the report was completed, and they could later propose additional questions. The opinion does not decide the preliminary-injunction motion.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Network Data Rooms, LLC v. Saulrealism LLC · No. 1:22-cv-02299
Judge
Lorna Schofield
Date
May 10, 2022

Background

An April 26, 2022, order reserved decision on Network Data Rooms’ motion for a preliminary injunction while the court considered obtaining an independent expert’s report. On May 6, 2022, the parties jointly proposed three potential experts.

Court’s Action

The court appointed Terry Patterson as an independent expert under Federal Rule of Evidence 706. That rule allows a court, either on its own initiative or at a party’s request, to appoint an expert. The court explained that appointing an expert is discretionary and is intended to help the fact-finder understand technical or scientific issues, rather than to advance either party’s interests.

Patterson was appointed at a rate of $195 per hour. Network Data Rooms agreed to pay the cost and was ordered to coordinate payment directly with Patterson. Patterson was ordered to conduct an independent review and produce a report for the parties and the docket. The order adopted the review scope proposed in the parties’ joint letter, including the defendants’ request for a list of all NDR Microsoft Azure users from September 26, 2021, through February 15, 2022.

Until the report was completed, the parties were prohibited from communicating directly with Patterson except as needed to coordinate payment and review logistics. After the report was published, the parties could submit a letter proposing additional questions by June 14, 2022; the court would then decide whether a supplemental report was necessary.

Disposition and Significance

The court ordered the appointment and independent review. It did not decide the pending preliminary-injunction motion. The order states that Patterson’s report was due June 7, 2020, a date that predates the May 10, 2022, order; the opinion does not explain or correct that apparent date inconsistency.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.