Sportvision, Inc v. MLB Advanced Media L.P.

Background

Sportvision, Inc. and Sportsmedia Technology Corporation, together called “Sportvision,” filed a motion to compel discovery from MLB Advanced Media, L.P. (“MLBAM”). Sportvision asked for additional documents, responses to certain written discovery requests, and more testimony from MLBAM’s corporate representatives. The order addressed Sportvision’s requests for additional financial documents and to reopen depositions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), which concerns testimony from an organization through designated representatives.

Financial documents

Sportvision sought financial records for the accused products from 2015 through 2021, including revenue, expenses, profits, and forecasts or projections. It also sought MLBAM’s consolidated income statements for those years. The court explained that financial information relevant to calculating patent damages—such as a reasonable royalty or lost profits—is generally discoverable.

The court granted Sportvision’s request for financial documents related to the accused products. It concluded that the requested information was relevant to damages and that MLBAM had not shown sufficient justification for limiting discovery. The court rejected MLBAM’s position that license agreements were enough to determine the relevant revenue, explaining that other financial information could also matter.

The court denied Sportvision’s request for MLBAM’s consolidated income statements. Sportvision had not shown that those statements were relevant and proportionate to the needs of the case, particularly because it already had MLBAM’s audited financial statements and was receiving other financial information focused on the accused products. The request for audited financial statements was moot because MLBAM had already produced them.

Corporate depositions and email search

Sportvision sought five additional hours of testimony on 17 deposition topics. The court denied the request to reopen the Rule 30(b)(6) depositions. It found that Sportvision had not adequately explained why it waited until near the end of fact discovery to raise its concerns, and had not shown that MLBAM failed to prepare its witnesses adequately or interfered with Sportvision’s questioning. The court also found that the narrowed topics concerning graphical aspects of the accused products appeared to overlap with other topics for which MLBAM had provided witnesses.

Sportvision identified email threads referring to missing emails and attachments. The court declined to require MLBAM to conduct a broad new search for two emails from Kevin Prince because the available information did not identify their dates or subject lines and locating them would require guesswork. But the court ordered MLBAM to search for, collect, and produce one specific email from Sandy Zinn to Cory Schwartz and Kevin Prince, sent November 23, 2015, at 10:43 a.m., with the subject line “RE: Another question — Pitch-f/x for broadcast.” The court found that this search was sufficiently specific and would not appear particularly burdensome.

Disposition

The court’s conclusion states that Sportvision’s request for additional financial information was GRANTED in part and its request to reopen Rule 30(b)(6) witness depositions was DENIED. MLBAM was directed to produce complete financial documents concerning the accused products from 2015 until the present and to search for the specified missing Zinn email and attachment.