Datto, LLC v. Project Orca d/b/a Slide

• Court: Court of Chancery of Delaware
• Decided: January 21, 2026
• Docket: 2025-0975-LWW
• Status: Published

Opinion

COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE LORI W. WILL LEONARD L. WILLIAMS JUSTICE CENTER VICE CHANCELLOR 500 N. KING STREET, SUITE 11400 WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801-3734

January 21, 2026

Daniel A. Mason, Esquire Elena C. Norman, Esquire Miranda N. Gilbert, Esquire Richard J. Thomas, Esquire Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton Alex B. Haims, Esquire & Garrison LLP Young Conaway Stargatt 1313 North Market Street, Suite 806 & Taylor, LLP Wilmington, Delaware 19801 1000 North King Street Wilmington, Delaware 19801

RE: Datto, LLC v. Project Orca d/b/a Slide, C.A. No. 2025-0975-LWW

Dear Counsel,

I write regarding the various motions pending on the docket. The pending

motions include the defendant’s motion to compel depositions,1 the plaintiff’s

emergency motion for expedited briefing,2 the defendant’s motion to strike trade

secret claims,3 and the defendant’s request for leave to move for summary

judgment.4 For efficiency’s sake, I have endeavored to resolve these matters below.

This expedited action involves claims by plaintiff Datto, LLC alleging trade

secret misappropriation by defendant Project Orca, Inc. d/b/a Slide. The parties

1 Dkts. 98, 109, 119. 2 Dkts. 102, 117; see also Dkt. 105. 3 Dkts. 80, 104. 4 Dkts. 83, 101. C.A. No. 2025-0975-LWW January 21, 2026 Page 2 of 4

previously stipulated to an expedited case schedule culminating in a trial beginning

April 20, 2026.5 Recently, though, a dispute has arisen over Datto’s intention to

amend its complaint to add claims related to employee restrictive covenants, which

Datto reveals came to light during discovery. Slide intends to oppose the amendment

and a related request to extend the schedule, arguing that the trial date must be

preserved to limit any reputational harm. This disagreement has resulted in a

standoff with Datto refusing to produce fact witnesses for deposition until the scope

of its claims is resolved.

Specifically, after learning of the potential amendment, Slide noticed seven

fact depositions to occur before the January 23 discovery cutoff. Datto declined to

produce those witnesses while its motion to amend remained pending, citing the risk

of duplicative discovery. This impasse precipitated the filing of competing motions

to compel and for emergency relief in rapid succession.

After considering the relevant filings, I conclude that a modest reset of the

schedule is needed to ensure the efficient administration of this case. Proceeding

with depositions or requiring the conclusion of fact discovery before the pleadings

are settled risks duplicative discovery and wasted resources. Thus, to resolve the

5 Dkt. 63. C.A. No. 2025-0975-LWW January 21, 2026 Page 3 of 4

pending procedural disputes and allow for a resolution on the merits, we will proceed

as follows.

1. Motion to Amend: Datto’s request for expedited briefing on its motion

for leave to file an amended complaint is granted. Prompt briefing on the motion is

necessary to define the scope of the operative pleading and allow discovery to

proceed without further delay. The motion to amend was filed on January 9.6 Unless

the parties agree otherwise, Slide must file its opposition to the motion to amend by

January 26 and Datto must file its reply by January 29, 2026. I expect to resolve the

motion on the papers.

2. Discovery Stay: Datto’s request for an interim extension of the fact

discovery deadline is granted. The January 23 deadline is vacated. Depositions are

stayed pending the resolution of the motion to amend. Slide’s motion to compel

depositions is denied as moot. Once the pleadings are settled, the parties must meet

and confer to schedule depositions as promptly as practicable.

3. Motion to Strike: Slide’s motion to strike Datto’s identification of trade

secrets will be resolved concurrently with the motion to amend. Any reply in support

of the motion to strike must be filed by January 26. I expect to resolve the motion

on the papers.

6 Dkt. 96. C.A. No. 2025-0975-LWW January 21, 2026 Page 4 of 4

4. Summary Judgment: Slide’s request for leave to move for summary

judgment is denied without prejudice. It is inefficient to entertain summary

judgment on the original complaint while a motion to amend that pleading is

pending. Slide may raise its legal arguments on preemption and non-actionable

statements in response to the amended complaint, in pre-trial briefing, or in a future

request for leave to move for summary judgment, as appropriate.

5. Trial Date: The trial set for April 20, 2026 will be adjourned to May or

June 2026. This brief extension accommodates the resolution of the pleadings while

respecting Slide’s interest in a prompt trial. Counsel must confer with chambers to

secure specific dates.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Lori W. Will

Lori W. Will Vice Chancellor