Medidata Solutions, Inc. v. Veeva Systems Inc., 17-cv-00589 (LGS) (RWL). (2020)
Court: District Court, S.D. New York
Number: infdco20200316739
Visitors: 32
Filed: Mar. 11, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 11, 2020
Summary: ORDER ROBERT W. LEHRBURGER , Magistrate Judge . This Order resolves the letter motions at Dkt. 275 and 279, addressing Medidata's requests to exclude certain opinions of expert Andrew Crain, and to compel production of deposition transcripts of Veeva witnesses and materials pertaining to a motion for spoliation sanctions from the separate IQVIA trade secret litigation against Veeva. Dkt. 275 and 279. 1. Medidata's letter opinions of expert Andrew Crain pertaining to the File Lists is DENIE
Summary: ORDER ROBERT W. LEHRBURGER , Magistrate Judge . This Order resolves the letter motions at Dkt. 275 and 279, addressing Medidata's requests to exclude certain opinions of expert Andrew Crain, and to compel production of deposition transcripts of Veeva witnesses and materials pertaining to a motion for spoliation sanctions from the separate IQVIA trade secret litigation against Veeva. Dkt. 275 and 279. 1. Medidata's letter opinions of expert Andrew Crain pertaining to the File Lists is DENIED..
More
ORDER
ROBERT W. LEHRBURGER, Magistrate Judge.
This Order resolves the letter motions at Dkt. 275 and 279, addressing Medidata's requests to exclude certain opinions of expert Andrew Crain, and to compel production of deposition transcripts of Veeva witnesses and materials pertaining to a motion for spoliation sanctions from the separate IQVIA trade secret litigation against Veeva. Dkt. 275 and 279.
1. Medidata's letter opinions of expert Andrew Crain pertaining to the File Lists is DENIED. The parties shall (1) meet and confer to discuss a schedule for Medidata's expert Julian Ackert to supplement or amend his expert report based on the File Lists, and whether there is any resulting need for extending completion of expert discovery (including expert depositions); and (2) if so, apply to the Court for said extension by March 18, 2020.
2. Medidata's request to compel production of Veeva witness transcripts from the IQVIA litigation is DENIED given the dissimilarity in subject matter and nature of the claims. That both actions involve trade secret claims is not sufficient and does not make production of the materials proportional to this litigation.
3. Medidata's request for production of the IQVIA spoliation briefing materials is DENIED for similar reasons.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
