Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States District Court for the District of Delaware
March 4, 2020, Decided; March 4, 2020, Filed
Civil Action No. 18-366-WCB
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant Match Group Inc. and Match Group, LLC's Motion for Protective Order, Dkt. No. 169. The motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Plaintiff British Telecommunications PLC ("BT") has served seven notices of deposition, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), on defendants Match Group Inc. and Match Group, LLC (collectively, [*2] "Match Group") that contained 134 deposition topics. Match Group has objected to the number of topics as "facially excessive," and in some instances to the subject matter of particular topics set forth in the notices. In addition, Match Group has objected to BT's Rule 30(b)(1) notices of deposition for Match Group Inc.'s (now-former) chief executive officer, Amanda Ginsberg, and Match Group America's chief executive officer, Amarnath Thombre.
1. The Rule 30(b)(6) Topics
The seven Rule 30(b)(6) notices of deposition set forth a number of topics for examination. Pursuant to the provisions of the Rule, Match Group is required to designate one or more persons to testify on its behalf about each topic. The persons so designated "must testify about information known or reasonably available to the organization." Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6). The topics designated by BT can be broken down into six general categories:
(1) The operation of Match Group's accused products: Match.com, Tinder, and OK Cupid;
(2) The source code for the three products;
(3) The way in which each witness prepared for the deposition;
(4) The efforts made by Match Group to collect documents for the document production demanded by BT;
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37271 *; 2020 WL 1043974
BRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLC, Plaintiff, v. IAC/INTERACTIVECORP, MATCH GROUP, INC., MATCH GROUP, LLC, and VIMEO, INC., Defendants.
Prior History: British Telecomms. PLC v. IAC/InterActiveCorp, 381 F. Supp. 3d 293, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17269, 2019 WL 438335 (D. Del., Feb. 4, 2019)
Match, source code, deposition, documents, damages, deposition notice, discovery, notices, designated, features, preparation, algorithms, specificity, burdensome, courts, protective order, witnesses, products, royalty, reasonably available, details, inquire, cases, functionalities, responds, produce a witness, witness testimony, interrogatories, questions, requests