287 F.R.D. 268
D. Del.2012Background
- HRD filed a motion to reopen discovery in a long-running case; discovery deadline was February 6, 2009.
- Dow challenged Interrogatory No. 4 as overbroad beyond the JDA/Supply Agreement scope; Dow limited production to 14 patent applications related to PE wax within the agreements’ scope.
- HRD argued Dow used an artificially narrow definition of “made from or containing a Polyethylene Wax” and that ~100 responsive applications were omitted.
- Special Master ruled in HRD’s favor on the term’s plain meaning; Dow filed an Exception arguing the term has a technical definition tied to the JDA/Supply Agreement.
- Court sustained Dow’s interpretation and denied HRD’s motion to reopen discovery, finding no good cause; trial date remains scheduled for January 2013, not to be delayed by reopening discovery.
- HRD’s request would require eight-year-old case to delay trial; the court determined Dow’s production obligations were limited to the JDA/Supply Agreement scope and HRD failed to show good cause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dow’s interpretation of PE wax scope is correct | HRD urged plain meaning for PE wax scope | Dow urged JDA/Supply Agreement definition | Dow’s interpretation sustained |
| Whether HRD showed good cause to reopen discovery | HRD showed discovery was incomplete | No good cause given delay and scope limits | Motion to reopen discovery denied |
| Whether Dow violated discovery obligations by not producing ~100 apps | Dow failed to produce all responsive applications | Production limited to JDA-scope applications | No violation; production within scope |
| Impact on trial schedule and prejudice | Reopening discovery would not prejudice | Reopening would delay nearly eight-year-old case | Trial date not moved; no good cause to reopen discovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Sempier v. Johnson & Higgins, 45 F.3d 724 (3d Cir. 1995) (broad discretion to manage discovery; good cause standard for scheduling changes)
- Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992) (prejudice may include trial delay; good cause required)
- Redhead v. U.S., 686 F.2d 178 (3d Cir. 1982) (prejudice includes potential trial delay in scheduling orders)
- Hyatt v. Boone, 146 F.3d 1348 (Fed.Cir.1998) (actual vs. constructive reduction to practice; scope of rights in developments)
- Slip Track Sys., Inc. v. Metal-Lite, Inc., 304 F.3d 1256 (Fed.Cir.2002) (defines actual reduction to practice standard for inventions)