govinfo:USCOURTS-moed-4_19-cv-00011-1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI 
 EASTERN DIVISION 
  
LADS NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC., ) 
 ) 
Plaintiff, ) 
 ) 
v. )  No. 4:19-cv-00011-AGF 
 ) 
AGILIS SYSTEMS, LLC, et al.,  ) 
 ) 
Defendants. ) 
 
 MEMORANDUM & ORDER 
 This matter comes before the Court on the motions of Plaintiff LADS Network 
Solutions, Inc. (“LADS”) to compel the production of documents (ECF No. 46) and to 
amend or correct the Case Management Order (ECF No. 53).  For the reasons set forth 
below, the Court will defer ruling on the motion to compel, and the motion to amend or 
correct the Case Management Order will be granted. 
BACKGROUND 
 LADS filed this copyright infringement  action, alleging that Defendants used, 
without the permission or consent of LADS, certain copyrighted logistic software.  
Defendants filed a counterclaim for breach of contract, asserting that LADS is barred 
from asserting its copyright infringement claims pursuant to the terms of a separate 
settlement agreement.  Defendants also assert a claim for breach of contract regarding a 
November 1, 2007 license agreement and a claim for abuse of process. 
 The current discovery dispute arises out of three requests for production directed 
at Defendants seeking the production of: (1) database schema relevant to the litigation; 
Case: 4:19-cv-00011-SEP     Doc. #:  56     Filed: 11/04/19     Page: 1 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>
2 
 
(2) certain indemnification agreements; and (3) documents to support Defendants’ claims 
of damages in their counterclaim.1   
Defendants oppose the production of source code due to its highly sensitive and 
confidential nature.  ECF No. 55.  Defendants believe that a neutral third party should be 
retained to host the data and “compare the dueling source codes.”  Defendants also argue 
that the remainder of LADS’s motion to compel is moot in light of Defendants’ recent 
production.  Lastly, Defendants express concerns that LADS will not comply with any 
protective order governing the confidentiality of the source code and reiterate the 
necessity of a third party protocol. 
LADS in its reply concedes that the only issue remaining before the Court is the 
production of Defendants’ database schema.  LADS emphasizes its discovery request 
seeks only Defendants’ “database schema,” which it asserts is a small portion of the 
computer source code.  ECF No. 55 at 3.  In response to Defendants’ concerns regarding 
the disclosure of confidential information, LADS states that the stipulated protective 
order agreed by the parties provides for a protocol for the exchange of “highly 
confidential information,” including database schema.  LADS states that “if the 
remainder of the source code must be eventually produced, the necessary additional 
protocol can be put into place.”  Id. 
                                                 
1  LADS also asks the Court to strike Defendants’ objections to LADS’s discovery 
requests and order Defendants to provide properly signed and sworn answers to 
Interrogatories.   However, based on the representations of Defendants’ counsel, it 
appears that these issues have been resolved. 
Case: 4:19-cv-00011-SEP     Doc. #:  56     Filed: 11/04/19     Page: 2 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>
3 
 
On October 1, 2019, LADS filed a motion to amend the Case Management Order.  
ECF No. 53.  Specifically, LADS maintains that it was unable to comply with the expert 
disclosure deadline because Defendants had not yet produced the source code.  
Defendants did not file any opposition to the motion. 
The Parties’ Protective Order and Defendants’ Responses 
As further background, the Court notes that LADS first served its first requests for 
production of documents and interrogatories on April 30, 2019.   LADS agreed to give 
Defendants additional time to respond, and also complied with Defendants’ request for 
separate requests for each Defendant. 
Prior to any responses, counsel began negotiating the terms of a protective order.  
In an email dated June 19, 2019, counsel for Defendants advised LADS’ attorney he 
would have responses and objections to Plaintiff’s counsel on or before June 28.  He 
further stated:   
I will have revisions to the protective order for our mutual review and discussion 
and subject to our clients (sic) further input.  Please pay particular attention to the 
definition of “Highly Confidential Information”.  My intention is to capture source 
code type information but the language may well be improved by the clients.  As I 
stated, my contact is out until Tuesday.   
 
One item I intended to address earlier today:  When we spoke on May 30 you 
pitched the idea of a joint inspection protocol.  I expressed reservations, which I 
still have.  However, you were going to forward a proposal for review.  Are you 
still intending to send over a protocol or have you moved on from that idea?” 
 
ECF No. 46-4. 
 On June 28, 2019, Defenda nts served written responses to the discovery requests, 
but did not produce any actual documents.  In their response to the production of 
Case: 4:19-cv-00011-SEP     Doc. #:  56     Filed: 11/04/19     Page: 3 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>
4 
 
documents, Defendants interposed more than three pages of boilerplate “General 
Objections,” in 17 numbered paragraphs, and thereafter preceded many of its responses 
with objections which stated, “Defendant incorporates by reference its General 
Objections as set forth above.”  ECF No. 46-6.  With respect to the request for database 
schema still at issue, Request No. 13, Defendants likewise incorporated by reference their 
General Objections.  Defendants further objected on the ground that the request sought 
highly confidential information and trade secretes without the benefit of a protective 
order, and on the further ground that the request “is overly broad, unduly burdensome, 
not limited in scope, and seeks information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the 
discovery of admissible evidence.”  Subject to these objections, and without waiving 
them, Defendants stated that they would “produce documents response (sic) to the 
request on the condition that an agreeable protocol regarding the exchange of high 
confidential information is attained.”  Id.  
On July 18, 2019, the parties filed a joint motion for protective order, which sets 
forth procedures for designating and treating “Confidential Information” and “Highly 
Confidential Information.”   Defendants produced some, but not all, documents on 
August 7, 2019.  LADS thereafter continued to attempt to get additional production, and 
in particular attempted to get the information in Request No. 13 and a few other 
categories covered by the motion to compel, prior to the parties’ early mediation.  The 
parties conducted a mediation conference on August 21, 2019, that was not successful.   
On August 29, 2019, LADS filed the instant motion to compel.  Defendants 
obtained two extensions of time to respond to the motion to compel, and it appears that 
Case: 4:19-cv-00011-SEP     Doc. #:  56     Filed: 11/04/19     Page: 4 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>
5 
 
Defendants continued thereafter to produce some of the requested documents during this 
time period.  In the second Order granting additional time, Defendants were given until 
September 20, 2019, to respond.  No response was filed by September 20, and on 
September 23, LADS filed a supplemental memorandum in support of its motion to 
compel, detailing the developments that occurred in September, including what 
production had since been made and what still had not been produced.  Still having no 
response from Defendants to the motion to compel, the Court issued an Order to Show 
Cause on September 27, 2019, giving Defendants until October 4, 2019, to show cause 
why the motion to compel should not be granted.  (ECF No. 52.)  Thereafter, on October 
4, 2019, Defendants filed their response to the Order to Show Cause.   
DISCUSSION 
As an initial matter, the Court observes that Defendants’ objections to the 
discovery requests are improper and fail to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil 
Procedure as amended in 2015.  Rule 34(b)(2)(B) as amended explicitly requires a party 
to “state with specificity the grounds for objecting to the request, including the reasons.”  
Rule 34(b)(2)(C) further requires that “[an] objection must state whether any responsive 
materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection.”  As the Advisory Notes make 
clear, if objected to as overbroad, the response must identify any scope of the request that 
is not overbroad.  Counsel’s signature on the response certifies, in part, that to the best of 
that person’s “knowledge, information and belief formed after a reasonable inquiry” the 
response is consistent with the rules.  Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 26(g).  And Rule 26(g)(3) 
Case: 4:19-cv-00011-SEP     Doc. #:  56     Filed: 11/04/19     Page: 5 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>
6 
 
provides that if a certification violates the rule without substantial justification the court 
must impose an appropriate sanction on the signer, the party, or both.    
Thus, Defendants’ incorporation of their 17 boilerplate General Objections is 
improper, and the Court will disregard those objections.  See, e.g., Michael Kors, L.L.C. 
v. Su Yan Ye, 1:18-CV-2684 (KHP), 2019 WL 1517552, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. April 8, 2019) 
(noting, “Plaintiff’s objections were boilerplate and its description of the documents it 
would produce vague... .  A number of courts have held that an objection that does not 
appropriately explain its grounds is forfeited.” (citing cases)); Gabiola v. Mugshots.com, 
LLC, Case No. 16 C 2076, 2019 WL 426143, at *2 (N.D. IL Feb. 4, 2019) (striking as 
improper the defendants’ responses that incorporate their general objections).  Further, 
the Court finds no basis for Defendants’ additional boilerplate objection in its response to 
Request No. 13, that the request “is overly broad, unduly burdensome, not limited in 
scope, and seeks information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 
admissible evidence.”  Indeed, there is nothing in Defendants’ response suggesting that 
the information is not relevant, or that it is either overbroad or unduly burdensome.  
Instead, Defendants argue only that a protocol to assure confidentiality is appropriate.    
It is time, nearly four years after the effective date of the amendments to the 
discovery rules, for counsel to properly take note of the amendments and conduct 
themselves in accordance with the amendments.  Boilerplate objections or responses that 
do not identify whether documents have been withheld pursuant to the objections are no 
Case: 4:19-cv-00011-SEP     Doc. #:  56     Filed: 11/04/19     Page: 6 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>
7 
 
longer proper.2  As such, both parties are directed to review their responses to the 
opposing parties’ discovery requests, and to supplement their responses to state whether 
any responsive documents have been withheld on the basis of any objection.   
With respect to the request for the database schema, the parties have not provided 
the Court with enough information for an informed determination of the dispute.  LADS 
states that it requests only the database schema, suggesting that it is more narrow than 
and only a portion of the source code, but does not explain what database schema is; what 
type of information would be produced in response to the request; why it is relevant; or 
why the protections offered by the protective order are sufficient for this information, 
while perhaps insufficient for the source code as a whole.  And Defendants do not discuss 
the distinction between source code and the database schema at all, merely discussing the 
need to protect its source code.  As such, the Court will require the parties to provide 
more information. 
Further, in light of Defendants’ delay in producing documents responsive to 
Plaintiff’s motion to compel, the Court will grant LADS’s motion to extend its expert 
witness disclosure deadline by thirty (30) days after any further disclosure.  The Court 
will further direct the parties to meet and confer regarding the current Case Management 
Order and submit a joint proposed scheduling plan for the remainder of the litigation. 
                                                 
2 The 2015 amendments likewis e impose proportionality and sp ecificity requirements on 
requesting parties.  However, no issues with respect to the Plaintiff’s requests or Plaintiff’s 
own responses to Defendants’ discovery requests have been presented to the Court.   
Case: 4:19-cv-00011-SEP     Doc. #:  56     Filed: 11/04/19     Page: 7 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>
8 
 
Lastly, upon due consideration, the Court will deny LADS’s request that 
Defendants reimburse LADS for the expenses incurred in pursing its motion to compel, 
but cautions Defendants that going forward, they must respond to discovery requests and 
motions in a timely manner and consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.   
CONCLUSION 
 Accordingly,  
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED  that within fourteen (14) days of the date of this 
Order, Plaintiff and Defendants must supplement their responses to all document requests 
to identify whether documents were withheld pursuant to any objections. 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED  that the parties shall promptly meet and confer 
with respect to request for production of th e database schema, and attempt to reach an 
agreement with respect to th e manner of production.  If th e parties are unable to reach 
agreement, each party shall file a supplemental memorandum on or before November 8, 
2019, detailing the difference between the databa se schema and source code in general, 
it relevance, and why the terms of the protective order in place in the case are sufficient 
or insufficient to address a ny confidentiality concerns.  Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ 
supplemental memoranda may not exceed thr ee (3) pages, double-spaced.  Each party 
may file a response on or before November 14, 2019, which may not exceed three (3) 
pages.   
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that LADS’s motion to amend or correct the Case 
Management Order is GRANTED.  ECF No. 53. 
Case: 4:19-cv-00011-SEP     Doc. #:  56     Filed: 11/04/19     Page: 8 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>
9 
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, on or before November 18, 2019, the parties 
shall meet and confer about the remaining case deadlines  and submit a joint proposed 
scheduling plan for the remainder of the litigation. 
 
 Dated this 4th day of November, 2019. 
 
  
AUDREY G. FLEISSIG  
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
Case: 4:19-cv-00011-SEP     Doc. #:  56     Filed: 11/04/19     Page: 9 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight