ORDER DENYING RELIEF SOUGHT IN THE 10/17/19 JOINT DISCOVERY LETTER

Re: Dkt. No. 93

KANDIS A. WESTMORE, Magistrate Judge.

On October 17, 2019, the parties filed a joint discovery letter regarding the sufficiency of Legacy Plaintiffs Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc Luxenbourg, S.A., Inc.'s responses to Defendant Apple, Inc.'s Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 51, 72, and 96. (Joint Letter, Dkt. No. 93.) After the responses were served, the parties stipulated to substitute Uniloc 2017, LLC as the plaintiff, because it had obtained the rights to the patent-in-suit. (Dkt. No. 79.) There is no indication that discovery was propounded on Uniloc 2017, and, to the undersigned's knowledge, Uniloc 2017 has not adopted the Legacy Plaintiffs' objections and responses.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Apple's request to require Uniloc 2017 to supplement the Legacy Plaintiffs' responses to the selected requests.

Notwithstanding, the Court did perform a cursory review of the joint letter to assist the parties with their future meet and confer efforts. Based on that review, the Court is not persuaded by Uniloc's objection that Request No. 51 seeks cloned discovery, since the cases involve the same asserted patent, and the deposition transcripts may be relevant to noninfringement and damages. (See Joint Letter at 1.) As to Request Nos. 72 and 96, Uniloc is reminded that relevancy under Rule 26 is a broad standard despite the requirement that discovery be proportional to the needs of the case. That said, the Court appreciates the parties' willingness to narrow the scope of the existing disputes, and encourages them to resolve any similar disputes should they arise in connection with the forthcoming responses, so that they need not resort to court intervention.

IT IS SO ORDERED.