Court declines to reopen fact discovery
Acceleron, LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Co. and Intel Corp., Civ. No. 10-128-SLR, December 16, 2010.
Robinson, J. Plaintiff’s motion to complete Rule 56(f) discovery is denied. Its motion to compel documents and testimony is also denied as moot.
This case began in Texas where defendants produced substantial documents before this case was transferred to Delaware. Defendant objects to producing the contested documents at this time because they relate to damages, which has been bifurcated from this first trial. Plaintiff argues that by withholding customer data defendants have prevented it from acquiring evidence of customer configurations of the accused products. The court finds that additional discovery under Rule 56(f) is not justified because plaintiff did not diligently pursue discovery necessary to prove the elements of its claims. The court reserves the right to review this matter again in the context of summary judgment briefing.
