Molnlycke Health Care US, LLC v. Greenwood Marketing, LLC

Background

Molnlycke asked Magistrate Judge Judith C. McCarthy to order an inspection of Greenwood’s electronic devices under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a). The request arose during discovery in a patent-infringement case between competitors. Judge McCarthy denied the request in an oral order on February 23, 2024.

Plaintiff’s Objections

Molnlycke did not dispute that Judge McCarthy applied the general standard that forensic examination of electronic devices is usually appropriate only when produced documents contain discrepancies or inconsistencies, or when there is reason to believe relevant evidence was tampered with or concealed. Molnlycke argued that metadata from documents produced by Greenwood showed inconsistencies suggesting that the documents might have been edited.

Judge McCarthy considered that argument but concluded that Molnlycke had not shown that the drastic and highly intrusive inspection was justified. The record included a declaration from Greenwood’s principal, deposition testimony from the employee who created the documents, and an expert declaration. That evidence supported the conclusions that Molnlycke had misread the metadata, that the native files contained the information Molnlycke sought, and that further forensic examination would not reveal other versions.

District Court’s Ruling

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), a district court may modify or set aside a magistrate judge’s order on a nondispositive matter only when the order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The court explained that discovery decisions receive substantial deference and may be overturned only for an abuse of discretion.

Judge Seibel held that Judge McCarthy’s conclusion was not clearly erroneous or an abuse of discretion. The evidence provided innocent explanations for the suspicious data and indicated that the requested examination would not be fruitful, while the inspection would be intrusive. Judge Seibel therefore overruled Molnlycke’s objections and affirmed Judge McCarthy’s February 23, 2024 decision.

Judge Seibel also declined to consider Molnlycke’s argument that Judge McCarthy should have allowed a response to Greenwood’s expert declaration. Molnlycke had not requested that relief before the magistrate judge, and the argument was therefore unpreserved for review.