Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States District Court for the District of Arizona
January 27, 2020, Decided; January 27, 2020, Filed
Defendants have filed a motion to compel the disclosure of information related to litigation funding agreements in this case. The Court held a conference call with the parties on December 4, 2019 (Doc. 334), and the issues have now been briefed by the parties (Docs. 344, 349, 360). The [*1018] Court will grant in part and deny in part Defendants' request.1
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' products infringe several patents Plaintiff owns related to manufactured circuit boards. Plaintiff does not manufacture the products addressed in its patents or license its patents to others. Plaintiff has no business operations other than owning the patents and asserting claims for their infringement.
Defendants' motion seeks production of what Defendants describe as "three narrowly-tailored categories of documents and information relating to [Plaintiff's] third-party litigation funding" — (1) any final litigation funding agreements between Plaintiff and any third-party funders; (2) the identities of all persons or entities [**3] (other than counsel) with a fiscal interest in the outcome of the litigation; and (3) the identities of any potential litigation funders who declined to provide funding after being approached by Plaintiff or its founder, Peter Trzyna. Doc. 344 at 2.2 The Court will confine its analysis to these three requests. The first request seeks the production of specific documents — litigation funding agreements. The second and third requests seek information rather than documents. Plaintiff resists disclosure on the basis of the work product doctrine. Plaintiff does not argue that the discovery is barred by the attorney-client privilege. Because the work product doctrine applies differently to documents than to intangible information, the Court will address the first request separately from the second and third requests. Before doing so, however, the Court will address the parties' relevancy arguments.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
435 F. Supp. 3d 1014 *; 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12698 **; 2020 WL 416109
Continental Circuits LLC, Plaintiff, v. Intel Corporation, et al., Defendants.
Prior History: Cont'l Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23842 (D. Ariz., Feb. 21, 2017)
funding agreement, documents, work product protection, work product, discovery, funders, disclosure, patents, work product doctrine, funding, parties, confidential, entities, waived, intangible, requests, courts, mental impressions