4:21-cv-01279
E.D. Mo.Sep 30, 2024Background
- LST is a software company that developed the virtual patient care platform m.Care, which Mercy used and later sought to replace.
- In 2018, Mercy began working with Myia, another healthcare software company that initially lacked its own virtual care platform.
- LST alleges Mercy and Myia misappropriated LST’s trade secrets by allowing Myia access to LST’s m.Care platform to help develop Myia’s competing product.
- The present opinion resolves three discovery disputes: (1) LST’s motion to compel ESI from two additional Myia employees, (2) Mercy’s motion to strike late-disclosed LST witnesses, and (3) Mercy’s motion to deem certain Requests for Admission (RFAs) admitted due to late or insufficient responses.
- Discovery in the case has been contentious, leading to multiple conferences and motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compel ESI from two additional custodians (Abeln, Parsons) | Additional ESI is relevant as both were involved in Myia platform development and prior ESI was lost or incomplete. | Parties already produced cumulative ESI; new discovery is unnecessary and burdensome; LST should pay. | Motion to compel granted. |
| Strike and exclude newly disclosed LST witnesses | Amended disclosures were timely, based on new information recently obtained within discovery period. | Disclosures were untimely and prejudicial; unable to conduct discovery or depositions of new witnesses. | Motion to strike denied. |
| Deem LST’s late or insufficient RFA responses as admitted | RFAs seek contested legal/factual conclusions; any supplementation was reasonably delayed and later cured. | Responses were late and non-compliant, warranting admissions; claimed prejudice to defense preparation. | Motion denied as moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- Phil Crowley Steel Corp. v. Macomber, Inc., 601 F.2d 342 (8th Cir. 1979) (courts have broad discretion in discovery supplementation)
- Rodrick v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., 666 F.3d 1093 (8th Cir. 2012) (lists factors for excluding evidence for late disclosure)
- ELCA Enters. v. Sisco Equip. Rental & Sales, 53 F.3d 186 (8th Cir. 1995) (exclusion of evidence is a harsh penalty, to be used sparingly)
- Davis v. U.S. Bancorp, 383 F.3d 761 (8th Cir. 2004) (burden on party to justify late witness disclosure)
- Doe v. Young, 664 F.3d 727 (8th Cir. 2011) (discovery deadlines must prevent unfair surprise)
- Wegener v. Johnson, 527 F.3d 687 (8th Cir. 2008) (district courts have wide discretion in crafting discovery remedies)