Genetec, Inc. v. PROS, Inc

Background

Genetec filed a letter-motion seeking an extension of time to complete fact discovery. Fact discovery had closed on December 2, 2022, and expert discovery was scheduled to close on February 3, 2023. Genetec had not taken any depositions and had received PROS’s last document production, consisting of seven documents, on December 2.

Genetec sought to reopen fact discovery through February 3 and to depose Sunil John under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), as well as Matthew McClung as an individual witness. Genetec said it had timely noticed the depositions and tentatively proposed November 17, 2022, but PROS told Genetec that the witnesses were unavailable. Genetec later acknowledged that follow-up emails seeking to reschedule were not sent because of a technical problem.

The parties’ arguments

PROS argued that Genetec had not shown the extraordinary circumstances required to reopen discovery after the deadline. PROS characterized Genetec’s failure to schedule and pursue the depositions as part of a dilatory approach to discovery. PROS also argued that the deposition notices were deficient because they sought in-person depositions on short notice after the parties had agreed to remote depositions, and because Genetec sought to depose McClung without a subpoena.

PROS did not dispute that it knew before the fact-discovery deadline that Genetec intended to depose John and McClung. PROS also stated that John had already prepared for the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that reopening discovery is discretionary and requires good cause. The court’s individual rules also require extraordinary circumstances for extension requests made after the original deadline.

The court found good cause and sufficient circumstances to reopen discovery for the limited purpose of conducting the two requested depositions. Genetec had noticed and tentatively scheduled both depositions before fact discovery closed. Although Genetec could have been more diligent in confirming the schedule, the deadline had closed less than three weeks earlier. Expert discovery remained open, so allowing two fact depositions would not prolong the overall discovery period. The court also found that the burden on PROS would be minimal because the depositions had previously been scheduled, John had prepared, and Genetec had not taken other depositions.

The court rejected PROS’s argument concerning a subpoena for McClung at this stage because the parties’ correspondence showed that PROS had previously indicated it would make McClung available without a subpoena.

Ruling

The court granted in part and denied in part Genetec’s letter-motion. It reopened fact discovery until January 20, 2023, solely to allow Genetec to depose PROS’s Rule 30(b)(6) representative or representatives and McClung. The depositions were to take place in Texas or remotely, based on PROS’s preference. The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF No. 59.