![]() Defendants, on the other hand, assert that K2MD is the functional equivalent of an Edge Endo employee, and they therefore have not waived entitlement to attorney-client privilege. Plaintiffs assert that because Defendants shared the communications with an outside third-party (K2MD), they have waived any attorney-client privilege. Tina Dunk is an Account Executive with K2MD, a marketing and advertising agency that Defendant Edge Endo, LLC worked with. Those specific documents are communications either to or from Tina Dunk, which Defendants describe as “communication reflecting legal advice regarding” advertising, trademarks, or marketing campaign. Specifically, on August 24, 2018, Defendants served Plaintiffs with a privilege log of documents they withheld from Plaintiffs based on attorney-client privilege and work product. In the instant motion, Plaintiffs seek production of certain documents withheld by Defendants. 205, and issued a Markman Order on August 29, 2019, Doc. Bataillon, held a Markman hearing on June 17, 2019, Doc. The presiding judge, the Honorable Joseph F. After hearing arguments from the parties regarding proposed dates, the Court advised the parties that it would enter a scheduling order after reviewing any renewed discovery motions and after conferring with the presiding judge. The Court held a status conference on Februto discuss remaining scheduling order dates. 177, and subsequently lifted the stay on January 23, 2019, Doc. The Court granted the stay on October 3, 2018, Doc. On July 10, 2018, Defendants moved to stay the case pending inter partes review by the United States Patent Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board. On January 16, 2018, the Court held a scheduling conference and entered a Scheduling Order. 27, and a Second Amended Complaint on March 27, 2018, Doc. 1, an Amended Complaint on November 16, 2017, Doc. Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on October 16, 2017, Doc. Both parties design and sell endodontic drill files. Background Plaintiffs bring this patent infringement case alleging that Defendants infringed upon four published patents. Having considered the parties’ arguments and all relevant authority, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel as untimely. ![]() ![]() MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel the Production of Documents Withheld by Defendants Based Upon Their Improper Claims of Attorney-Client Privilege, filed Augand fully briefed September 26, 2019. 17-1041 JFB/SCY EDGE ENDO, LLC and US ENDODONTICS, LLC Defendants. 260 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO DENTSPLY SIRONA INC and TULSA PRODUCTS LCCS d/b/a DENTSPLY SIRONA ENDODONTICS, Plaintiffs, v. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |