Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 66 Filed 03/15/16 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 1586
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`SIPCO, LLC, and IP CO, LLC
`(d/b/a INTUS IQ),
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
` v.
`
` Civil Action No. 6:15-cv-907
`
`EMERSON ELECTRIC CO., EMERSON
`PROCESS MANAGEMENT LLLP, FISHER-
`ROSEMOUNT SYSTEMS, INC.,
`ROSEMOUNT INC., BP, p.l.c., BP
`AMERICA, INC., and BP AMERICA
`PRODUCTION COMPANY,
`
`Defendants.
`
`DISCOVERY ORDER FOR PATENT CASES
`
`After a review of the pleaded claims and defenses in this action, in furtherance of the
`
`management of the Court’s docket under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, and after receiving
`
`the input of the parties to this action, it is ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:
`
`1.
`
`Initial Disclosures. In lieu of the disclosures required by Federal Rule of Civil
`
`Procedure 26(a)(1), each party shall disclose to every other party the following
`
`information:
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`the correct names of the parties to the lawsuit;
`
`the name, address, and telephone number of any potential parties;
`
`the legal theories and, in general, the factual bases of the disclosing party’s claims
`
`or defenses (the disclosing party need not marshal all evidence that may be
`
`offered at trial);
`
`(d)
`
`the name, address, and telephone number of persons having knowledge of
`
`relevant facts, a brief statement of each identified person’s connection with the
`
`Page 1 of 7
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 66 Filed 03/15/16 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 1587
`
`case, and a brief, fair summary of the substance of the information known by any
`
`such person;
`
`(e)
`
`any indemnity and insuring agreements under which any person or entity carrying
`
`on an insurance business may be liable to satisfy part or all of a judgment entered
`
`in this action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the
`
`judgment;
`
`(f)
`
`(g)
`
`any settlement agreements relevant to the subject matter of this action; and
`
`any statement of any party to the litigation.
`
`2.
`
`Disclosure of Expert Testimony. A party must disclose to the other parties the identity
`
`of any witness it may use at trial to present evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702,
`
`703 or 705, and:
`
`(a)
`
`if the witness is one retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony in
`
`the case or one whose duties as the party’s employee regularly involve giving
`
`expert testimony, provide the disclosures required by Federal Rule of Civil
`
`Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) and Local Rule CV-26; and
`
`(b)
`
`for all other such witnesses, provide the disclosure required by Federal Rule of
`
`Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(C).
`
`3.
`
`Additional Disclosures. Without awaiting a discovery request,1 each party will make the
`
`following disclosures to every other party:
`
`(a)
`
`provide the disclosures required by the Patent Rules for the Eastern District of
`
`Texas with the following modifications to P.R. 3-1 and P.R. 3-3:
`
`1 The Court anticipates that this disclosure requirement will obviate the need for requests
`for production.
`
`Page 2 of 7
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 66 Filed 03/15/16 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 1588
`
`P.R. 3-1(g): If a party claiming patent infringement asserts that a
`claim element is a software limitation, the party need not comply
`with P.R. 3-1 for those claim elements until 30 days after source
`code for each Accused Instrumentality is produced by the opposing
`party. Thereafter, the party claiming patent infringement shall
`identify, on an element-by-element basis for each asserted claim,
`what source code of each Accused Instrumentality allegedly
`satisfies the software limitations of the asserted claim elements.
`
`P.R. 3-3(e): If a party claiming patent infringement exercises the
`provisions of P.R. 3-1(g), the party opposing a claim of patent
`infringement may serve, not later than 30 days after receipt of a
`P.R. 3-1(g) disclosure, supplemental “Invalidity Contentions” that
`amend only those claim elements identified as software limitations
`by the party claiming patent infringement.
`
`(b)
`
`produce or permit the inspection of all documents, electronically stored
`
`information, and tangible things in the possession, custody, or control of the party
`
`that are relevant to the pleaded claims or defenses involved in this action, except
`
`to the extent these disclosures are affected by the time limits set forth in the Patent
`
`Rules for the Eastern District of Texas; and
`
`(c)
`
`provide a complete computation of any category of damages claimed by any party
`
`to the action, and produce or permit the inspection of documents or other
`
`evidentiary material on which such computation is based, including materials
`
`bearing on the nature and extent of injuries suffered, except that the disclosure of
`
`the computation of damages may be deferred until the time for Expert Disclosures
`
`if a party will rely on a damages expert.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Protective Orders. The Court will enter the parties’ Agreed Protective Order.
`
`Discovery Limitations. The discovery in this cause is limited to the disclosures
`
`described in Paragraphs 1-3 together with:
`
`a.
`
`For the purposes of this paragraph, the term “side” means a party or group of
`
`parties with a common interest;
`
`Page 3 of 7
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 66 Filed 03/15/16 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 1589
`
`b.
`
`Each side will be allowed to take up to 15 depositions, excluding depositions
`
`taken pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) and excluding expert depositions;
`
`c.
`
`Each side will be limited to 28 hours of Rule 30(b)(6) depositions of the other
`
`side;
`
`d.
`
`Each side will be limited to 20 joint interrogatories of the opposing side and 10
`
`individual interrogatories of the opposing party. For the purposes of this sub-paragraph
`
`the parties are as follows: (1) SIPCO, LLC; (2) IP CO, LLC (d/b/a INTUS IQ); (3)
`
`Emerson Electric Co., Emerson Process Management LLLP, Fisher-Rosemount Systems,
`
`Inc. and Rosemount, Inc.; and (4) BP, p.l.c., BP America, Inc. and BP America
`
`Production Company.
`
`e.
`
`Any party may later move to modify these limitations for good cause.
`
`6.
`
`Privileged Information. There is no duty to disclose privileged documents or
`
`information. However, the parties are directed to meet and confer concerning privileged
`
`documents or information after the Status Conference. By the deadline set in the Docket
`
`Control Order, the parties shall exchange privilege logs identifying the documents or
`
`information and the basis for any disputed claim of privilege in a manner that, without
`
`revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable the other parties to assess
`
`the applicability of the privilege or protection. Any party may move the Court for an
`
`order compelling the production of any documents or information identified on any other
`
`party’s privilege log. If such a motion is made, the party asserting privilege shall respond
`
`to the motion within the time period provided by Local Rule CV-7. The party asserting
`
`privilege shall then file with the Court within 30 days of the filing of the motion to
`
`compel any proof in the form of declarations or affidavits to support their assertions of
`
`Page 4 of 7
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 66 Filed 03/15/16 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 1590
`
`privilege, along with the documents over which privilege is asserted for in camera
`
`inspection.
`
`7.
`
`Signature. The disclosures required by this Order shall be made in writing and signed by
`
`the party or counsel and shall constitute a certification that, to the best of the signer’s
`
`knowledge, information and belief, such disclosure is complete and correct as of the time
`
`it is made. If feasible, counsel shall meet to exchange disclosures required by this Order;
`
`otherwise, such disclosures shall be served as provided by Federal Rule of Civil
`
`Procedure 5. The parties shall promptly file a notice with the Court that the disclosures
`
`required under this Order have taken place.
`
`8.
`
`Duty to Supplement. After disclosure is made pursuant to this Order, each party is
`
`under a duty to supplement or correct its disclosures immediately if the party obtains
`
`information on the basis of which it knows that the information disclosed was either
`
`incomplete or incorrect when made, or is no longer complete or true.
`
`9.
`
`Discovery Disputes.
`
`(a)
`
`Except in cases involving claims of privilege, any party entitled to receive
`
`disclosures (“Requesting Party”) may, after the deadline for making disclosures,
`
`serve upon a party required to make disclosures (“Responding Party”) a written
`
`statement, in letter form or otherwise, of any reason why the Requesting Party
`
`believes that the Responding Party’s disclosures are insufficient. The written
`
`statement shall list, by category, the items the Requesting Party contends should
`
`be produced. The parties shall promptly meet and confer. If the parties are
`
`unable to resolve their dispute, then the Responding Party shall, within 14 days
`
`after service of the written statement upon it, serve upon the Requesting Party a
`
`Page 5 of 7
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 66 Filed 03/15/16 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 1591
`
`written statement, in letter form or otherwise, which identifies (1) the requested
`
`items that will be disclosed, if any, and (2) the reasons why any requested items
`
`will not be disclosed. The Requesting Party may thereafter file a motion to
`
`compel.
`
`(b)
`
`In addition to the requirements of Local Rule CV-7(h) and (i), an opposed
`
`discovery-related motion must
`
`include a certification
`
`that an
`
`in-person
`
`conference involving lead and local counsel for all parties to the discovery dispute
`
`was held.
`
`(c)
`
`Counsel are directed to contact the chambers of the undersigned for any “hot-line”
`
`disputes before contacting the Discovery Hotline provided by Local Rule CV-
`
`26(e). If the undersigned is not available, the parties shall proceed in accordance
`
`with Local Rule CV-26(e).
`
`
`
`10.
`
`No Excuses. A party is not excused from the requirements of this Discovery Order
`
`because it has not fully completed its investigation of the case, or because it challenges
`
`the sufficiency of another party’s disclosures, or because another party has not made its
`
`disclosures. Absent court order to the contrary, a party is not excused from disclosure
`
`because there are pending motions to dismiss, to remand or to change venue.
`
`11.
`
`Filings. Only upon request from chambers shall counsel submit to the court courtesy
`
`copies of any filings.
`
`12.
`
`Proposed Stipulations by the Parties Regarding Discovery: The parties hereby
`
`incorporate the terms of the E-Discovery Order issued or to be issued by this Court.
`
`Page 6 of 7
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 66 Filed 03/15/16 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 1592
`
`Page 7 of 7
`
`So ORDERED and SIGNED this 15th day of March, 2016.
`
`