U, Incorporated v. Shipmate, Inc.
2:14-cv-02287
D. Kan.Jun 19, 2015Background
- U, Inc. sued ShipMate and CCAR alleging misappropriation of confidential/customer data from U’s LMS, claims including CFAA, trade-secret misappropriation, false advertising, interference, and trademark infringement; U also sued CCAR on contract counts.
- ShipMate answered with affirmative defenses (unclean hands, fair use, laches, estoppel, license) and denied CCAR had authority to act for it; ShipMate later brought a separate California action asserting copyright/trademark claims against U.
- U served 31 interrogatories and 23 document requests on ShipMate (requests dated back to 2007); ShipMate objected to virtually all requests and produced minimal documents only after court order.
- U moved to compel under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37; the magistrate judge held an expedited briefing schedule, reviewed the parties’ arguments, and considered whether the requested discovery was relevant and discoverable.
- The court found broad relevance under Rule 26(b)(1) to issues raised (including defenses like fair use and unclean hands) and rejected ShipMate’s boilerplate and “conditional” objections, ordering ShipMate to produce many categories of documents and answers within 14 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relevance of discovery generally | Requests relate to U’s claims and ShipMate defenses; discovery should be broad | Much requested material irrelevant; scope should be limited to alleged misconduct period | Discovery relevant and reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence; requests upheld |
| Conditional/boilerplate objections | ShipMate’s "subject to" responses are improper and waive objections | Responses were meant to define scope, not waive objections | Court found responses classic conditional objections, waived many objections and ordered answers |
| Timeframe back to 2007 | U needs documents from 2007 onward because CCAR had LMS access since 2007 | Requests before 2013 are irrelevant/unduly burdensome | Court overruled relevance and burden objections; ordered production from Jan 1, 2007 onward |
| Post‑May 2014 documents (after competing product launch) | Post‑launch materials are relevant to liability and damages (use of misappropriated data) | Post‑2014 materials are proprietary and irrelevant to pre‑launch misappropriation | Court ordered production of post‑May 2014 documents as relevant to liability/damages |
| Documents about GHS Hazard Communication Course (competing product) | Course materials directly relate to alleged use of U’s trade secrets | Course is unrelated to U’s claims | Court found course materials relevant and ordered production |
| Request for "Attorney’s Eyes Only" protection | U opposes more restrictive protection; needs access for in‑house expert and counsel | ShipMate seeks AEO to prevent competitive harm | Court denied AEO request; existing protective order adequate and AEO would hamper U’s ability to litigate |
Key Cases Cited
- McBride v. Medicalodges, Inc., 250 F.R.D. 581 (D. Kan. 2008) (relevancy standard for discovery; broad scope)
- Gen. Elec. Cap. Corp. v. Lear Corp., 215 F.R.D. 637 (D. Kan. 2003) (burden on resisting party to show lack of relevancy)
- Evolution, Inc. v. SunTrust Bank, 342 F. Supp. 2d 943 (D. Kan. 2004) (discussion of fair use as an equitable doctrine relevant to discovery)
- Admin. Comm. of Wal‑Mart Assocs. Health & Welfare Plan v. Willard, 302 F. Supp. 2d 1267 (D. Kan. 2004) (unclean hands doctrine explained)
- Layne Christensen Co. v. Purolite Co., 271 F.R.D. 240 (D. Kan. 2010) (standards for protective orders and Attorney’s Eyes Only limitations)