V5 Techs. v. Switch, Ltd.

V5 Techs. v. Switch, Ltd.

Opinion

 [*300]  ORDER

[Docket No. 133]

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to interrogatories. Docket No. 133. Defendant filed a response in opposition. Docket No. 139. Plaintiff filed a reply. Docket No. 144. The motion is properly resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff's motion to compel is hereby GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

This case involves claims that Defendant engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to high-end colocation data centers within the Las Vegas area. See Compl. (Docket No. 1) at ¶ 3. Although some state law claims are also brought, at its heart this case involves claims that Defendant's alleged conduct violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act by monopolizing, attempting to monopolize, and engaging in unlawful restraints of trade. See, e.g., id. at ¶¶ 147-171. In particular, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant unlawfully stifled competition in an effort to maintain its monopoly in high-end colocation data centers in the Las Vegas metropolitan [**3]  area through a variety of means, including reliance on exclusive-dealings agreements, threats of refusals to deal, predatory pricing, and a campaign of disparagement of Defendant's competitors (including Plaintiff). See id. at ¶¶ 44, 73; see also id. at ¶¶ 95-120 (providing product and geographic market definition).

One aspect of the allegedly anti-competitive conduct involves Defendant's requirement that customers, carriers, vendors, and other third parties agree to "Acceptable Use Policies" (AUPs) through which they were forbidden from dealing with competing data centers within 50 miles. See id. at ¶ 48. The 2013 AUP specifically prohibited business dealings with Plaintiff. See id. at ¶ 50. Defendant attempts to justify this exclusionary provision on the basis that it was necessary to "protect [its] intellectual property" given a settlement agreement in a case in which Plaintiff's CEO was alleged to have had unauthorized possession of Defendant's "intellectual property and confidential information." Id. at ¶¶ 86-87.

The parties are now before the Court on a discovery dispute with respect to two interrogatories propounded by Plaintiff aimed at testing the basis for Defendant's justification. [**4]  Plaintiff seeks identification of the specific trade secrets (Interrogatory 16) and the specific intellectual property (Interrogatory 17) that Defendant contends had been misappropriated by Plaintiff's CEO. See Docket No. 133-2 at 6.

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