Bytemark, Inc. v. Xerox Corp.
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:17-cv-01803
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Bytemark, Inc. v. Xerox Corp., Judge Gardephe granted a stay with limited discovery, stayed some discovery, denied sealing, and denied striking.
Bytemark, Inc., New Jersey Transit Corp., Xerox Corp., Conduent Inc., and the other defendants were affected by the stay, discovery limits, sealing ruling, briefing schedule, and related procedural directions.
What happened
In Bytemark, Inc. v. Xerox Corp., the court addressed several pretrial disputes involving New Jersey Transit’s proposed summary-judgment motion, discovery, a subpoena, sealing, and a discovery letter.
The court granted New Jersey Transit’s motion to stay, except for discovery limited to its sovereign-immunity issue. That discovery had to finish within 60 days, and the court set dates for briefing the proposed summary-judgment motion. The court also granted Bytemark’s motion to quash to the extent that discovery concerning alleged misconduct underlying two of the defendants’ defenses was stayed while another motion was pending.
Judge Paul G. Gardephe denied Xerox and Conduent’s motion to seal without prejudice, allowing them to file it again with additional support. The court directed the parties to discuss the remaining discovery disputes and denied the defendants’ motion to strike Bytemark’s discovery letter.
The detailed version
- Bytemark, Inc. v. Xerox Corp. · No. 1:17-cv-01803
- Paul Gardephe
- July 21, 2022
Rulings on New Jersey Transit’s Stay and Proposed Summary Judgment
The court granted New Jersey Transit Corp.’s motion to stay, with one exception: discovery on the limited issue of New Jersey Transit’s sovereign immunity was permitted. That discovery had to conclude within 60 days, no later than September 23, 2022.
The court set the following schedule for New Jersey Transit’s proposed motion for summary judgment:
- New Jersey Transit’s motion: October 14, 2022 - Bytemark’s opposition: November 4, 2022 - New Jersey Transit’s reply, if any: November 11, 2022
The order did not decide the proposed summary-judgment motion itself.
Motion to Quash and Related Discovery
Bytemark’s motion to quash the defendants’ third-party subpoena was granted to the extent that all discovery concerning Bytemark’s alleged inequitable conduct underlying the defendants’ Counterclaim V and Twelfth Affirmative Defense was stayed pending the court’s decision on Bytemark’s motion at Docket Number 161.
Motion to Seal
Xerox and Conduent’s motion to seal Exhibit 3 to their opposition to Bytemark’s motion to quash was denied without prejudice. The court permitted Xerox and Conduent to refile the motion by July 27, 2022, with an attorney declaration describing the particularized allegations supporting sealing. The renewed application also had to include applicable legal authority, including citations to Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119–20 (2d Cir. 2006).
Remaining Discovery Disputes and Motion to Strike
Regarding the remaining discovery issues raised in Bytemark’s July 8, July 11, and July 20, 2022 letters, the court directed the parties to meet and confer about possible resolutions. If they could not resolve the disputes, they had to submit a jointly composed letter of no more than five pages by July 28, 2022. The court denied the defendants’ motion to strike Bytemark’s July 8 discovery letter.
Judge Paul G. Gardephe directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motions at Docket Numbers 170, 173, 175–76, 179, and 181.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.