United States District Court, D. Oregon
J. Haynie Daniel T. Keese Joanna T. Perini-Abbott Joseph Mais
Stephen English Julia E. Markley Meredith M. Price PERKINS
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
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
A. HERNÁNDEZ United States District Judge
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.
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.”
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.
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 ...