Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Leader Techs., Inc. v. Facebook, Inc.

United States District Court for the District of Delaware

June 24, 2010, Decided; June 24, 2010, Filed

Civil Action No. 08-862-JJF

Opinion

 [*375]  MEMORANDUM OPINION

Joseph J. Farnan, Jr., District Judge.

Presently before the Court are Plaintiff Leader Technologies, Inc.'s Objections to The March 12, 2010 Order Of Magistrate Judge Stark (D.I. 309), and Defendant Facebook, Inc.'s Motion For Objection To Magistrate Judge Stark's April 27, 2010 Order (D.I. 378). For the reasons to be discussed, both parties' Objections will be overruled.

I. Background

This is a patent infringement case brought by Plaintiff Leader Technologies, Inc. ("Leader") against Defendant Facebook, Inc. ("Facebook") alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 7,139,761 (the "'761 patent" or the "patent-in-suit"). The patent-in-suit relates to the "management and  [**2] storage of electronic information," and specifically relates to "new structures and methods for creating relationships between users, applications, files and folders." '761 patent, col. 1:20-24.

II. Legal Standard

] Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), non-dispositive pre-trial rulings made by Magistrate Judges on referred matters should only be set aside if clearly erroneous or contrary to law. A finding is clearly erroneous if the determination "(1) is completely devoid of minimum evidentiary support displaying some hue of credibility, or (2) bears no rational relationship to the supportive evidentiary data . . ." Haines v. Liggett Group Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 92 (3d Cir. 1992) (citations omitted). Further, a reviewing district court may not consider evidence and materials not before the magistrate judge. Id.

III. Plaintiff's Objections To The March 12, 2010 Order (D.I. 309)

On March 12, 2010, Magistrate Judge Stark conducted a hearing with respect to Leader's letter brief asking the Court to compel production of technical documents (D.I. 285). By Order issued that date, Judge Stark found: (1) Leader did not establish the existence of the common interest  [**3] privilege between itself and the litigation financing companies, and accordingly, Leader was ordered to produce documents withheld under that privilege (D.I. 310, Caire Decl., Ex. 1, Hearing Tr. 71:23-72:6); (2) Leader was entitled to very limited relief on its request to compel production of additional technical documentation, and Facebook was ordered to produce updated Wiki data points (Tr. 72:9-24); and (3) Facebook needed access to Leader's source code, and Leader was ordered to produce that source code (Tr. 74:3-20).

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

719 F. Supp. 2d 373 *; 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63507 **

LEADER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff, v. FACEBOOK, INC., Defendant.

Subsequent History: Motion granted by, in part, Motion denied by, in part, Request denied by, As moot Leader Techs., Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25308 (D. Del., Mar. 14, 2011)

Prior History: Leader Techs., Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63493 (D. Del., June 24, 2010)

CORE TERMS

documents, discovery, clearly erroneous, contends, contrary to law, magistrate judge, common interest privilege, legal interest, source code, third party, demonstration, infringement, financing

Civil Procedure, Judicial Officers, Magistrates, Pretrial Referrals, Standards of Review, Evidence, Privileges, Attorney-Client Privilege, Waiver