Originally published by David Coale.
- Discovery. In its order, the district court should have addressed a late-arriving discovery motion filed by the non-movant: “. Brand Services claims it moved to compel immediately after discovering the responsive documents in the Pennsylvania litigation. There is some indication that Brand Services could not have reasonably discovered these documents sooner: Irex’s initial blanket objections to Brand Services’s discovery request were grossly improper, and thereafter Irex did little to comply with Brand Services’s requests. Therefore, Brand Services was arguably diligent in seeking these documents even though it did not discover them until after the discovery deadline had passed. At a minimum, Irex’s conduct in this discovery proceeding is highly questionable and bears further examination in light of the exemplar documents.”
- Damages. “Although Brand Services provided little in the way of detail about its claim that it spent ‘millions’ to design the software allegedly stolen, it has, at a minimum, provided some evidence from which a jury could reasonably estimate unjust enrichment damages. For example, it demonstrated that Irex’s use of the
allegedly stolen information saved Irex at least two to three days a month in time spent invoicing. Even assuming that Irex’s administrative personnel worked only an eight-hour day for minimum wage during those two to three days saved, this is a reasonable inference of unjust-enrichment damages.”
No. 17-30660 (Oct. 17, 2018).
Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.
from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/2Sfvz9w
via Abogado Aly Website
No comments:
Post a Comment