Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Vesta Corp. v. AMDOCS Management Ltd.

United States District Court, D. Oregon

February 23, 2017

VESTA CORPORATION, Plaintiff,
v.
AMDOCS MANAGEMENT LIMITED and AMDOCS, INC., Defendants.

          Erick J. Haynie Daniel T. Keese Joanna T. Perini-Abbott Joseph Mais Stephen English Julia E. Markley Meredith M. Price PERKINS COIE, LLP

          Karen B. Bloom William K. Miller PERKINS COIE, LLP, Michael A. Oblon PERKINS COIE, LLP Nathan R. Kassebaum PERKINS COIE, LLP Andrew S. Ong ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP

          Clayton C. James HOGAN LOVELLS U.S. LLP, Scott Eads Jason A. Wrubleski SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, Attorneys for Plaintiff

          Andrew G. Klevorn Bruce G. Vanyo Yonaton M. Rosenzweig Christina Lucen Costley KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN, LLP Kristin J. Achterhof Meegan I. Maczek Richard H. Zelichov KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN, LLP Joshua L. Ross Robert A. Shlachter Timothy S. DeJong Jennifer S. Wagner STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER, PC Attorneys for Defendants

          OPINION & ORDER

          MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ United States District Judge

         In this discovery dispute, Plaintiff Vesta Corporation seeks to compel Defendants Amdocs Management Limited and Amdocs, Inc. to produce source code responsive to Plaintiff's Request for Production 37. The Court orders Defendants to produce the requested source code.

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff Vesta, an electronic payments and fraud prevention technology company, has sued Defendants Amdocs Management Limited and Amdocs, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”), telephone billing software and services companies, for breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets. Third Am. Compl. (“TAC”) Intro, ECF 222. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that in the course of jointly collaborating on marketing and the possibility of acquisition of Plaintiff by Defendants, Plaintiff shared “highly confidential and proprietary information, ” which Defendants used and relied upon improperly to “create, price and sell a competing product in order to increase its profits.” Id.

         On May 19, 2015, Plaintiff served Defendants its First Requests for Production of Documents and Things, which included Request for Production (“RFP”) 37:

A copy of the source code for the current and any previous version of Amdocs's Payment Solution.

Perini-Abbott Decl. Ex. 1 at 10, ECF 359-1. The parties have engaged in multiple conversations and email exchanges over the past year and a half regarding various issues related to discovery requests, including Plaintiff's RFP 37. Most recently, the Court discussed the issue with the parties during a November 29, 2016, informal discovery conference. Hr'g Tr., Nov. 29, 2016, ECF 343. The Court ordered the parties to formally brief the issue, including a discussion regarding how the parties' Stipulated Protective Order should be modified if the Court orders Defendants to respond to RFP 37. Id. at 80:6-16.

         STANDARD

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides in relevant part:

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.