Dexon Comp., Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.
Dexon Comp., Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.
2023 WL 5166371 (E.D. Tex. 2023)
June 23, 2023
Baxter, James B., United States Magistrate Judge
Summary
The Court denied Cisco System, Inc.'s Motion to Compel Production of Missing Dexon Documents, noting that the E-Discovery Order omitted the word “relevant” and that certain emails referencing “Cisco” were irrelevant and not produced. The Court granted Cisco System, Inc.'s Motion for Leave to File a Reply.
Additional Decisions
DEXON COMPUTER, INC.
v.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. and CDW Corporation
v.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. and CDW Corporation
Case No. 5:22-cv-53-RWS-JBB
United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Texarkana Division
Signed June 23, 2023
Counsel
David Reichenberg, Matthew F. Bruno, Pro Hac Vice, Tina Lapsia, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, New York, NY, William Ellsworth Davis, III, The Davis Firm, PC, Longview, TX, for Dexon Computer, Inc.Aaron M. Panner, Law Office of Aaron M. Panner, PLLC, Washington, DC, Alex Atticus Parkinson, Andrew Goldsmith, Caroline Schechinger, Chiseul Kylie Kim, Hilary Weaver, Pro Hac Vice, Leslie V. Pope, Pro Hac Vice, Ryan M. Folio, Daniel V. Dorris, Pro Hac Vice, Donald Chanslor Gallenstein, Geoffrey Block, Pro Hac Vice, Jonathan Liebman, Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick, P.L.L.C., Washington, DC, Deron R. Dacus, The Dacus Firm, PC, Tyler, TX, Louis Feuchtbaum, Lyndsey C. Heaton, Pro Hac Vice, Richard J. Nelson, Sideman & Bancroft LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Cisco Systems, Inc.,
Danielle Leneck, Pro Hac Vice, Jones Day, Los Angeles, CA, James Arthur Reeder, Jr., Jones Day, Houston, TX, Cole Alan Riddell, Jennifer Haltom Doan, Mariah Leigh Hornok, Haltom & Doan, Texarkana, TX, Thomas York, Jones Day, Dallas, TX, for CDW Corporation.
Baxter, James B., United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER
*1 The above-referenced cause of action was referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for pretrial purposes in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636. The following pending motions are before the Court:
Cisco System, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Production of Missing Dexon Documents (Dkt. No. 201); and
Cisco System, Inc.’s Motion for Leave to File a Reply (Dkt. No. 241).
For the reasons below, Cisco's Motion to Compel is DENIED and Cisco's Motion for Leave is GRANTED.
Cisco's motion generally asks the Court to compel Dexon to (1) produce approximately 100 documents containing search terms “Dexon agreed to or was ordered to run” that Cisco identified from emails produced by Dexon's third-party customers, (2) produce any similar documents that have been improperly withheld, and (3) explain why the documents were not produced earlier. See Dkt. No. 201 at 1, 7.
Dexon made additional productions and filed an opposition providing some explanations concerning its production efforts before ultimately claiming the issue moot. Dkt. No. 238. Cisco filed leave for a reply indicating the explanations were not sufficient and again asked for confirmation concerning Dexon's productions. Dkt. Nos. 241, 242. The Court borrowed language from Cisco's reply and offered Dexon the choice of either (1) providing an explanation “that Dexon has produced all non-privileged emails in its possession, custody, or control containing the word ‘Cisco’ and provided an explanation as to why certain documents from its two recent productions were not produced earlier, to the extent further explanation is necessary;” or (2) filing a surreply, responding to the statements in Cisco's reply, no longer than three pages. Dkt. No. 243 at 2-3.
Dexon's surreply suggests it cannot comply with the first option because the Court omitted the word “relevant” from the E-Discovery Order. See Dkt. No. 247 at 1 (quoting Dkt. No. 66 at 6 (“Dexon shall produce all relevant documents referencing Cisco or CDW.”)). That point is well taken. Dexon also explained why certain e-mails referencing “Cisco” were irrelevant and not produced (id. at 1-2) and why certain relevant emails were only recently produced (id. at 2-3). Given that Cisco has not shown a deficiency in Dexon's production, if any, that has prejudiced or would prejudice Cisco,[1] the Court denies Cisco's requests. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Cisco System, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Production of Missing Dexon Documents (Dkt. No. 201) is DENIED and Cisco System, Inc.’s Motion for Leave to File a Reply (Dkt. No. 241) is GRANTED.
Footnotes
Cisco's motion and reply do not claim Dexon is refusing to produce documents based on an improper view of “relevance.” Given the stage of the case, and the significant production from Dexon and from its third-party customers, any dispute making that allegation could and should have been previously raised.