Symphony Investment Partners, Inc. v. Keeco, LLC

Background

On November 17, 2022, the parties jointly raised three issues: a correction to the transcript of a November 10, 2022 case-management conference; Plaintiff’s renewed request for an unredacted version of the sale or merger agreement underlying the litigation; and Plaintiff’s request to reopen discovery for limited expert discovery about damages.

Transcript

The court agreed that the transcript incorrectly identified Plaintiff’s counsel, Mr. Brickel, as the speaker of a statement on page 13, lines 7–8. The court relied on its notes, recollection, and the conversation’s context and found that the statement was made by Mr. Brunner, counsel for Defendant Keeco LLC. Plaintiff was directed to contact the transcription service to request the correction.

Sale Agreement

Plaintiff sought an unredacted sale agreement so it could determine the transaction price. Defendants argued that the price was disputed, that Plaintiff had to prove it, that the agreement was confidential, and that Plaintiff had not obtained the information while discovery was open. The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), which permits discovery of nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense. Because Defendants acknowledged that the transaction price was material to Plaintiff’s case, the court ordered Defendants by December 8, 2022, either to produce an unredacted version of the agreement under a confidentiality agreement with Plaintiff or to provide a mutually agreeable stipulation stating the transaction price.

Reopening Discovery

Plaintiff requested limited expert discovery concerning damages. Defendant Richard Platt argued that reopening discovery would prejudice him, and Defendant Keeco LLC argued that Plaintiff had not shown good cause for failing to conduct the discovery earlier. The court stated that district courts have discretion to manage and reopen discovery. It concluded that expert discovery could benefit all parties by clarifying the damages, assisting settlement discussions, and avoiding surprise at trial.

The court therefore granted Plaintiff’s request to reopen discovery for the limited purpose of damages-related expert discovery. Plaintiff’s expert report was due December 12, 2022; Defendants’ rebuttal expert reports were due January 9, 2023; and expert depositions were to be completed by January 13, 2023. The court also directed the parties to submit joint letters addressing any requested deadline extensions or discovery disputes.

Disposition

The court ordered correction of the transcript, required Defendants to provide the sale price through one of two specified means, and granted the request to reopen discovery for limited damages expert discovery. Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker signed the order.