Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 106 Filed 03/20/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 3539
`
`
`
`
`
`March 20, 2020
`
`Re: University of Massachusetts, et al. v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 17-868-CFC-SRF
`
`
`The Honorable Sherry R. Fallon
`J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building
`844 N. King Street
`Room 3124, Unit 14
`Wilmington, DE 19801-3555
`
`
`
`Dear Judge Fallon:
`
`We write in response to Defendant’s letter seeking production of broad categories of
`
`financial, corporate, and other documents from Teresian Carmelites, a non-party to this case.1
`D.I. 104. The Federal Rules’ standard for relevant discovery is discovery that is “relevant to any
`party’s claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (emphasis added). “When a party objects to
`discovery requests, the burden falls on the party seeking the discovery to show the relevance of
`the information requested.” Invensas Corp. v. Renesas Elec. Corp., 2013 WL 12146531, at *2
`(D. Del. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). Defendant has not explained why any of the
`discovery it seeks would be relevant, particularly in light of the substantial number of documents
`produced in response to these requests insofar as they pertain to Carmel Labs, and in light of
`Plaintiffs’ confirmation that they will not be seeking damages based on a lost profits theory of
`recovery or asserting financial harm to Teresian Carmelites.
`
`Several of the disputed Requests for Production seek information related to specific
`
`allegations in Plaintiffs’ complaint concerning Teresian Carmelites. Request No. 30 seeks “[a]ll
`Documents concerning Your contentions in paragraph 29 of the FAC that ‘Teresian Carmelites’
`plummeting funds left it unable to pay the monastery’s mortgage, and to lapse payments on
`obligations it undertook to finance the launch of Easeamine”; Request No. 32 seeks “[a]ll
`Documents and Communications Concerning Teresian Carmelites’ sale of ‘certain properties it
`owned to prevent foreclosure on the monastery’ and its inability to maintain health insurance for
`its members, as alleged in paragraph 29 of the FAC”; and Request No. 33 seeks “[a]ll
`Documents and Communications Concerning Teresian Carmelites’ inability to use ‘the projected
`Easeamine profits to fund its charitable works, including efforts to benefit the underprivileged
`through educational and outreach programs,’ as alleged in paragraph 29 of the FAC.” D.I 104,
`Ex. A. Other disputed Requests seek information exclusively about Teresian Carmelites—not
`either of the Plaintiffs. For example, Request No. 11 seeks “[a]ll Documents Concerning
`Teresian Carmelites”; Request No. 31 seeks “[a]ll Documents and Communications Concerning
`the obligations undertaken by Teresian Carmelites” to finance Carmel Labs’ Easeamine
`products; Request No. 45 seeks “Documents and Things sufficient to show Teresian Carmelites’
`annual, quarterly, and monthly profits and losses”; Request No. 84 seeks “[a]ll Documents and
`Things in Your possession or control, regarding the formation of Teresian Carmelites”; Request
`No. 87 seeks “[a]ll Documents and Things Concerning all agreements between You and Teresian
`Carmelites”; Request No. 92 seeks “[a]ll Documents and Things Concerning Teresian
`
`1 Teresian Carmelites is the parent company of Carmel Labs, one of the two Plaintiffs.
`
`9 1 9 N . M A R K E T S T R E E T , 1 2 T H F L O O R , W I L M I N G T O N , D E 1 9 8 0 1
`P H O N E : ( 3 0 2 ) 7 7 7 – 0 3 0 0 · F A X : ( 3 0 2 ) 7 7 7 – 0 3 0 1 · W W W . F A R N A N L A W . C O M
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 106 Filed 03/20/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 3540
`
`Carmelites’ document retention policies”; and Request No. 95 seeks “[a]ll Documents and
`Things Concerning all agreements between You and any Person Concerning their ownership
`interest or potential ownership interest in Teresian Carmelites.” Id.
`
`On November 15, 2019, Plaintiffs served supplemental objections and responses in which
`
`Plaintiffs stipulated that “they will not seek to introduce evidence or argument at summary
`judgment or trial regarding the leveraging of property owned by Teresian Carmelites, Teresian
`Carmelites’ inability to pay the monastery’s mortgage, Teresian Carmelites’ sale of property to
`prevent foreclosure on the monastery, Teresian Carmelites’ inability to maintain health insurance
`for its members, or Teresian Carmelites’ inability to use projected Easeamine profits to fund its
`charitable works.” Id. This made clear that Plaintiffs would not introduce evidence of Teresian
`Carmelites’ financial condition, nor evidence related to the specific allegations that Defendant
`referenced in its Requests. Accordingly, documents that are responsive only to those allegations
`in the First Amended Complaint, or to Teresian Carmelites’ financial condition are irrelevant.
`Defendant did not object to Plaintiffs’ supplemental objections and responses, or request an
`additional meet and confer, so Plaintiffs proceeded with their document collection and
`production in line with their stated objections.
`
`For the first time, on March 10, 2020—over a month after the document production
`
`deadline, and only in response to Plaintiffs’ repeated requests to discuss Defendant’s own
`production deficiencies—Defendant voiced a concern with the scope of Plaintiffs’ production.
`See D.I. 103, Ex. B, at 6-7. Defendant asserted that documents responsive to the above requests
`are relevant because they “relate directly to the allegations in Plaintiffs’ FAC”—even though
`Plaintiffs already stipulated that they would not introduce evidence regarding any of the
`allegations Defendant cited. Id. Defendant did not, and has not, explained how these documents
`are relevant to any actual claim or defense in this case, as required by the Federal Rules.
`Defendant suggested that the documents would be relevant if Plaintiffs intend to introduce any
`evidence regarding Teresian Carmelites at trial, and asked Plaintiffs to execute an overbroad
`stipulation that would preclude Plaintiffs from introducing any evidence of or even reference to
`Teresian Carmelites; any evidence of or reference to Carmel Labs except for its development of
`Easeamine; and any evidence of or reference to any witness’s affiliation with the Teresian
`Carmelites. D.I. 104, Ex. B. This stipulation goes far beyond the disputed requests about
`Teresian Carmelites’ financial situation and corporate status and would preclude basic
`background narrative about the parties. Furthermore, as Plaintiffs observed in a subsequent meet
`and confer, Plaintiffs have produced many documents involving the Teresian Carmelites that go
`to its relationship with the Plaintiffs, and Defendant has not cited any specific deficiencies.
`Plaintiffs’ objection is to producing irrelevant information about Teresian Carmelites’ financial
`and corporate records that have no bearing on this case.
`
`Two other disputed Requests seek documents that involve both Carmel Labs and
`Teresian Carmelites. Request No. 94 asks for “[a]ll Documents and Things Concerning all
`agreements between You and any Person Concerning their ownership interest or potential
`ownership interest in Carmel Labs.” D.I. 104, Ex. A. Plaintiffs agreed to produce any agreements
`that would be relevant to their claims or potential defenses, and have done so, producing, for
`example, documents related to business plans and potential investors for Carmel Labs and
`Easeamine. Defendant has not suggested that this production is deficient, or identified any reason
`why agreements related only to Teresian Carmelites would be relevant, except to the extent that
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 106 Filed 03/20/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 3541
`
`Carmel Labs’ ownership is referenced in the FAC. See D.I. 103, Ex. B, at 7. Request No. 100
`seeks “[a]ll Documents Concerning Dennis Wyrzykowski’s employment at Carmel Labs and/or
`Teresian Carmelites, including but not limited to Mr. Wyrzykowski’s separation from Teresian
`Carmelites and/or his decision to cease monastic life.” D.I. 104, Ex. A. Again, Plaintiffs
`responded that they would produce documents relevant to their claims or potential defenses, and
`have in fact produced these documents, such as communications and documents concerning Mr.
`Wyrzykowski’s work at Carmel Labs, communications and document regarding the relevant
`licenses, and financial records for Carmel Labs. Defendant has never identified why other
`documents covered by this Request—for example, documents related to Mr. Wyrzykowski’s
`involvement with the Teresian Carmelites monastery that are unrelated to Carmel Labs or the
`Patents-in-Suit—would be relevant to the case, and said only that Requests No. 98-101 go to
`“the financial health of the Teresian Carmelites and Carmel Labs” and “the financial success of
`the Easeamine products.” D.I. 103, Ex. B, at 7. Request No. 100 goes well beyond these financial
`matters, however, seeking deeply personal—and
`irrelevant—information such as Mr.
`Wyrzykowski’s “decision to cease monastic life.”
`
`Plaintiffs have withdrawn their claim for any damages based on lost profits, see Ex. M,
`and months ago agreed that they will not introduce evidence or argument regarding Teresian
`Carmelites’ financial health. Defendant’s letter does not give any reason whatsoever why each
`disputed Request seeks relevant information. The only potential basis for relevance even hinted
`at consists of the FAC’s allegations regarding financial harm to Teresian Carmelites. But because
`of Plaintiffs’ position with respect to lost profits and financial harm, the Requests cannot
`possibly be relevant to any claim or defense remaining in this case. In the absence of a relevance
`showing, Defendant is not entitled to the discovery it seeks. See, e.g., In re Wilmington Trust
`Sec. Litig., 2017 WL 2457456, at *4 (D. Del. 2017) (denying motion to compel because
`Defendant “provide[d] no substantive argument in support of their contention” that the discovery
`sought relevant information).
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court deny Defendant’s
`
`motion.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Michael J. Farnan
`
`Michael J. Farnan
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`cc: Counsel of Record (via E-File)
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`