Delaware Display Group LLC  et al. v. Lenovo Group Ltd., et al.,  C.A. Nos. 13-2108 – RGA: 13-2109 – RGA; 13-2112 - RGA, February 23, 2016

Andrews, J. Defendants’ motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part.  Plaintiffs’ motion to amend the complaint is denied.

Defendants move to compel compliance with subpoenas directed to a non-party. The court relieved the non-party from any obligation to produce documents since the contested documents were also in the possession of plaintiffs. Plaintiffs resist the production of teardown reports on the basis of work product protection. However, neither the third-party nor the entity who acquired the patents from the non-party are parties to this lawsuit, and the plaintiffs cannot claim work production protection.  Nor are the teardown reports protected on the basis of non-testifying expert protection. The common interest privilege likewise does not apply. Plaintiffs have produced redacted royalty reports. The court finds that a party may not redact information it unilaterally deems sensitive, embarrassing or irrelevant.  If the protective order in the case were inadequate, plaintiffs could have moved to modify it.  Defendants also seek emails relating to the teardown work, which are in the possession of Plaintiffs.  Defendants must use the court’s discovery dispute procedure to acquire such documents and the present motion is denied on that basis.  Plaintiffs seek to amend to complaint to add willfulness, the motion filed on the last day of fact discovery. The motion to amend is denied due to plaintiffs’ undue delay in filing the motion.