Boston Scientific Corp. v. Nevro Corp.

D. Delaware

Boston Scientific Corp. v. Nevro Corp.

DecidedApril 21, 2021

Docket1:16-cv-01163

StatusUnknown

This text of Boston Scientific Corp. v. Nevro Corp. (Boston Scientific Corp. v. Nevro Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Boston Scientific Corp. v. Nevro Corp., (D. Del. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORP. and _) BOSTON SCIENTIFIC ) NEUROMODULATION CORP., __) Plaintiffs, v. Civ. No. 16-1163-CFC NEVRO CORP., Defendant. MEMORANDUM ORDER Pending before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Objections (D.I. 569) to the Magistrate Judge’s February 24, 2021 Order (D.I. 545). Plaintiffs object specifically to the Magistrate Judge’s decision to limit the trade secret discovery sought by Plaintiffs to the alleged misappropriation of trade secrets by James Thacker. “Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), non-dispositive pre-trial rulings made by magistrate judges on referred matters should only be set aside if clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Masimo Corp. v. Philips Electronics North America Corporation, 2010 W1 2836379, at *1 (D. Del. July 15, 2010). “A finding is clearly erroneous if the determination “(1) is completely devoid of minimum evidentiary support displaying some hue of

credibility, or (2) bears no rational relationship to the supportive evidentiary data . . .” Id. (quoting Haines v. Liggett Group Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 92 (3d Cir.1992)). Applying this standard to the Magistrate Judge’s Order, the Court finds no

error in his decision. Decisions regarding the scope of discovery permitted under Rule 26(b)(1) are discretionary. Wisniewski v. Johns—Manville Corp., 812 F.2d 81, 90 (3d Cir.1987). It is apparent from the transcript of the hearing held by the Magistrate Judge to address Plaintiffs’ discovery requests and the content of the February 24, 2021 Order that the Magistrate Judge thoughtfully considered the

arguments raised by Plaintiffs in support of their discovery requests. The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge did not abuse his discretion in concluding that the discovery Plaintiffs seek by way of their Objections is not sufficiently related to the trade secret misappropriation claim they have alleged in Count IX. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Objections (D.I. 569) are OVERRULED.

&f-214- 24 ( Po — Date United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORP. and _) BOSTON SCIENTIFIC ) NEUROMODULATION CORP., __) Plaintiffs, v. Civ. No. 16-1163-CFC NEVRO CORP., Defendant. MEMORANDUM ORDER Pending before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Objections (D.I. 569) to the Magistrate Judge’s February 24, 2021 Order (D.I. 545). Plaintiffs object specifically to the Magistrate Judge’s decision to limit the trade secret discovery sought by Plaintiffs to the alleged misappropriation of trade secrets by James Thacker. “Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), non-dispositive pre-trial rulings made by magistrate judges on referred matters should only be set aside if clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Masimo Corp. v. Philips Electronics North America Corporation, 2010 W1 2836379, at *1 (D. Del. July 15, 2010). “A finding is clearly erroneous if the determination “(1) is completely devoid of minimum evidentiary support displaying some hue of

credibility, or (2) bears no rational relationship to the supportive evidentiary data . . .” Id. (quoting Haines v. Liggett Group Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 92 (3d Cir.1992)). Applying this standard to the Magistrate Judge’s Order, the Court finds no

error in his decision. Decisions regarding the scope of discovery permitted under Rule 26(b)(1) are discretionary. Wisniewski v. Johns—Manville Corp., 812 F.2d 81, 90 (3d Cir.1987). It is apparent from the transcript of the hearing held by the Magistrate Judge to address Plaintiffs’ discovery requests and the content of the February 24, 2021 Order that the Magistrate Judge thoughtfully considered the

arguments raised by Plaintiffs in support of their discovery requests. The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge did not abuse his discretion in concluding that the discovery Plaintiffs seek by way of their Objections is not sufficiently related to the trade secret misappropriation claim they have alleged in Count IX. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Objections (D.I. 569) are OVERRULED.

&f-214- 24 ( Po — Date United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Boston Scientific Corp. v. Nevro Corp., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boston-scientific-corp-v-nevro-corp-ded-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack