UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION CAROLYN W. HAFEMAN, an Individual Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:21-cv-00696-ADA-DTG v.
LG ELECTRONICS INC., Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S DISCOVERY REQUEST
BEFORE THE COURT is Defendant LG Electronics Inc.’s request to compel Plaintiff Carolyn Hafeman to amend her responses to Defendant’s Requests for Admission Nos. 15, 16, and 37 in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36. On January 9, 2023, Defendant LG Electronics, Inc. submitted the following discovery dispute to the Court pursuant to Section IV of the Standard Order Governing Proceedings 4.2—Patent Cases. Issue Requesting Party’s Position Responding Party’s Position RFAs 15-16: Admissions Plaintiff’s untimeliness OGP 4.2 provides that the regarding whether certain argument is a red herring and requesting party shall submit a features of the accused not relevant here. Defendant discovery dispute to the Court functionality are covered acted diligently in meeting and “[o]nce the opposing party by the Asserted Claims conferring promptly after provides its response.” Instead receiving Plaintiff’s initial of doing so, Defendant responses on November 23. improperly made futile revisions Plaintiff then served amended to its incorrect position more responses on December 20, than a week after Plaintiff after which we promptly served her response. started this dispute exchange. Any delay is a Defendant’s motion would be direct result of Plaintiff taking untimely under Local Rule CV- nearly a month to serve 16(e) because well more than 14 amended responses. days have elapsed since the relevant discovery deadline, i.e., These requests seek basic the close of fact discovery on admissions about the accused November 23, 2022. See, e.g., features of the accused CliniComp Int’l, Inc. v. products. Plaintiff has an Athenahealth, Inc., 2020 WL obligation under FRCP 11 to 4934460, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Aug. inform Defendant to what 24, 2020) (treating “the close of extent certain features infringe fact discovery” as the relevant the Asserted Claims. This is “discovery especially so where fact deadline”). Defendant has not discovery is complete. Notably, shown, and cannot show, that plaintiff waited to amend her exceptional circumstances responses until the day she excuse its failure to seek relief served her infringement expert earlier. Defendant’s assertion report. She therefore must be that the Local Rules of the able to admit or deny these Western District of Texas are RFAs. As the parties head into “not relevant here” is summary judgment motions, baffling. And Defendant’s lack these admissions are essential of diligence is demonstrated by, to narrowing the case to only among other things, Defendant’s those issues in dispute. decision to change positions a Plaintiff’s suggestion, with fact week after it should have discovery complete and her submitted its (already untimely) infringement expert report request to the Court. served, that she lacks sufficient information to respond is In any event, Defendant’s entirely inappropriate and is motion would be untenable at this stage of the meritless. Plaintiff properly case. “state[d] that [she] . . . made a reasonable inquiry and that the Plaintiff cites an out of context information [she] kn[ew] or snippet from a third-party c[ould] readily obtain [was] deposition that does not relate insufficient to enable [her] to to the requests at issue, admit or deny” these apparently in an effort to requests. Fed. R. Civ. P. justify plaintiff’s alleged 36(a)(4). Contrary to “reasonable Defendant’s suggestion, efforts.” Plaintiff’s case law Plaintiff was not obligated to also ignores the plain language explain in detail why she lacked of the Rule, which explicitly sufficient information. See, e.g., requires that “if a matter is not VeroBlue Farms USA Inc. v. admitted, the answer must Wulf, 2021 WL 5176839, at *20 ‘state in detail why the (N.D. Tex. Nov. 8, 2021) answering party cannot (“[W]hen an answering party truthfully admit or deny it.’” asserts lack of knowledge or Ledet v. Perry Homes, 2021 information as a reason for WL 2879290, at *4 (W.D. Tex. failing to admit or deny, and May 18, 2021) (quoting Fed. states that it has made a R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4). reasonable inquiry and that the information known or readily Relief: Order that Plaintiff available to it is insufficient to respond to RFAs 15-16 in enable it to admit or deny, it has accordance with FRCP 36. stated in sufficient detail why it cannot truthfully admit or deny the matter.” (emphasis added)). The case cited by Defendant does not say otherwise. Illustrating its incorrect reading of Rule 36, Defendant previously took the position that Plaintiff was required to specify “exactly what information” she needed to admit or deny these requests, before revising its position to request that the Court order Plaintiff to respond “in accordance with FRCP 36.” Plaintiff has already done so.
RFAs 15 and 16 asked Plaintiff to admit that the “remote locking functionality” in the Accused Products can be used without remotely initiating or changing return information to be displayed on the screen of the device. Plaintiff’s response to Defendant’s RFA 26 admitted that the Asserted Claims “do not cover remotely locking a device without displaying Return or Recovery Information.” Plaintiff’s expert report likewise stated that “remotely locking . . . does not appear in the asserted claims.” Thus, these requests do not seek information about “accused features of the accused products,” as Defendant claims, and Defendant has been fully “inform[ed] . . . to what extent certain features infringe the Asserted Claims.”
Finally, Plaintiff notes that her lack of sufficient information is illustrated by the testimony of Microsoft’s corporate representative, who was unable to answer a similar question during his deposition, despite having overseen the creation of Microsoft’s Find My Device software. Andersen Tr. at 22:7– 11 (“Q. Would it be possible for a user to send a custom message to a lost device without utilizing the location tracking functions of Find My Device? . . . The Witness: I don’t know. I don’t know.”). If Defendant wanted an answer to RFAs 15 and 16, it should have asked those with sufficient information: Microsoft and Google.
Relief: deny Defendant’s requested relief
RFA 37: Admission Defendant incorporates the Plaintiff incorporates her regarding whether feature same response as above arguments above regarding (1) depicted is covered by a regarding plaintiff’s red herring Defendant’s improper revisions limitation of the Asserted timeliness argument. to its position, (2) the Claims untimeliness of Defendant’s RFA 37’s screenshot is clear. It proposed motion, and (3) states that the device has been Plaintiff’s compliance with her lost, and if found, please obligations under Rule 36(a)(4). contact the name listed at the email address or phone number. There can be no RFA 37 asked Plaintiff to admit legitimate dispute that this that “the following screenshot screenshot shows return or shows Return or Recovery recovery information. No other Information.” Defendant’s information is required to make RFAs provided no information that determination.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION CAROLYN W. HAFEMAN, an Individual Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:21-cv-00696-ADA-DTG v.
LG ELECTRONICS INC., Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S DISCOVERY REQUEST
BEFORE THE COURT is Defendant LG Electronics Inc.’s request to compel Plaintiff Carolyn Hafeman to amend her responses to Defendant’s Requests for Admission Nos. 15, 16, and 37 in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36. On January 9, 2023, Defendant LG Electronics, Inc. submitted the following discovery dispute to the Court pursuant to Section IV of the Standard Order Governing Proceedings 4.2—Patent Cases. Issue Requesting Party’s Position Responding Party’s Position RFAs 15-16: Admissions Plaintiff’s untimeliness OGP 4.2 provides that the regarding whether certain argument is a red herring and requesting party shall submit a features of the accused not relevant here. Defendant discovery dispute to the Court functionality are covered acted diligently in meeting and “[o]nce the opposing party by the Asserted Claims conferring promptly after provides its response.” Instead receiving Plaintiff’s initial of doing so, Defendant responses on November 23. improperly made futile revisions Plaintiff then served amended to its incorrect position more responses on December 20, than a week after Plaintiff after which we promptly served her response. started this dispute exchange. Any delay is a Defendant’s motion would be direct result of Plaintiff taking untimely under Local Rule CV- nearly a month to serve 16(e) because well more than 14 amended responses. days have elapsed since the relevant discovery deadline, i.e., These requests seek basic the close of fact discovery on admissions about the accused November 23, 2022. See, e.g., features of the accused CliniComp Int’l, Inc. v. products. Plaintiff has an Athenahealth, Inc., 2020 WL obligation under FRCP 11 to 4934460, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Aug. inform Defendant to what 24, 2020) (treating “the close of extent certain features infringe fact discovery” as the relevant the Asserted Claims. This is “discovery especially so where fact deadline”). Defendant has not discovery is complete. Notably, shown, and cannot show, that plaintiff waited to amend her exceptional circumstances responses until the day she excuse its failure to seek relief served her infringement expert earlier. Defendant’s assertion report. She therefore must be that the Local Rules of the able to admit or deny these Western District of Texas are RFAs. As the parties head into “not relevant here” is summary judgment motions, baffling. And Defendant’s lack these admissions are essential of diligence is demonstrated by, to narrowing the case to only among other things, Defendant’s those issues in dispute. decision to change positions a Plaintiff’s suggestion, with fact week after it should have discovery complete and her submitted its (already untimely) infringement expert report request to the Court. served, that she lacks sufficient information to respond is In any event, Defendant’s entirely inappropriate and is motion would be untenable at this stage of the meritless. Plaintiff properly case. “state[d] that [she] . . . made a reasonable inquiry and that the Plaintiff cites an out of context information [she] kn[ew] or snippet from a third-party c[ould] readily obtain [was] deposition that does not relate insufficient to enable [her] to to the requests at issue, admit or deny” these apparently in an effort to requests. Fed. R. Civ. P. justify plaintiff’s alleged 36(a)(4). Contrary to “reasonable Defendant’s suggestion, efforts.” Plaintiff’s case law Plaintiff was not obligated to also ignores the plain language explain in detail why she lacked of the Rule, which explicitly sufficient information. See, e.g., requires that “if a matter is not VeroBlue Farms USA Inc. v. admitted, the answer must Wulf, 2021 WL 5176839, at *20 ‘state in detail why the (N.D. Tex. Nov. 8, 2021) answering party cannot (“[W]hen an answering party truthfully admit or deny it.’” asserts lack of knowledge or Ledet v. Perry Homes, 2021 information as a reason for WL 2879290, at *4 (W.D. Tex. failing to admit or deny, and May 18, 2021) (quoting Fed. states that it has made a R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4). reasonable inquiry and that the information known or readily Relief: Order that Plaintiff available to it is insufficient to respond to RFAs 15-16 in enable it to admit or deny, it has accordance with FRCP 36. stated in sufficient detail why it cannot truthfully admit or deny the matter.” (emphasis added)). The case cited by Defendant does not say otherwise. Illustrating its incorrect reading of Rule 36, Defendant previously took the position that Plaintiff was required to specify “exactly what information” she needed to admit or deny these requests, before revising its position to request that the Court order Plaintiff to respond “in accordance with FRCP 36.” Plaintiff has already done so.
RFAs 15 and 16 asked Plaintiff to admit that the “remote locking functionality” in the Accused Products can be used without remotely initiating or changing return information to be displayed on the screen of the device. Plaintiff’s response to Defendant’s RFA 26 admitted that the Asserted Claims “do not cover remotely locking a device without displaying Return or Recovery Information.” Plaintiff’s expert report likewise stated that “remotely locking . . . does not appear in the asserted claims.” Thus, these requests do not seek information about “accused features of the accused products,” as Defendant claims, and Defendant has been fully “inform[ed] . . . to what extent certain features infringe the Asserted Claims.”
Finally, Plaintiff notes that her lack of sufficient information is illustrated by the testimony of Microsoft’s corporate representative, who was unable to answer a similar question during his deposition, despite having overseen the creation of Microsoft’s Find My Device software. Andersen Tr. at 22:7– 11 (“Q. Would it be possible for a user to send a custom message to a lost device without utilizing the location tracking functions of Find My Device? . . . The Witness: I don’t know. I don’t know.”). If Defendant wanted an answer to RFAs 15 and 16, it should have asked those with sufficient information: Microsoft and Google.
Relief: deny Defendant’s requested relief
RFA 37: Admission Defendant incorporates the Plaintiff incorporates her regarding whether feature same response as above arguments above regarding (1) depicted is covered by a regarding plaintiff’s red herring Defendant’s improper revisions limitation of the Asserted timeliness argument. to its position, (2) the Claims untimeliness of Defendant’s RFA 37’s screenshot is clear. It proposed motion, and (3) states that the device has been Plaintiff’s compliance with her lost, and if found, please obligations under Rule 36(a)(4). contact the name listed at the email address or phone number. There can be no RFA 37 asked Plaintiff to admit legitimate dispute that this that “the following screenshot screenshot shows return or shows Return or Recovery recovery information. No other Information.” Defendant’s information is required to make RFAs provided no information that determination. Plaintiff’s whatsoever about the suggestions that she needs to screenshot, including what know the operating system operating system it depicted and depicted or who included the whether the information information on the screenshot included in the screenshot was are stall tactic provided by the owner as roadblocks. Plaintiff’s refusal required by the Court’s to clearly respond with an construction. In addition, admission lacks a legitimate Plaintiff notes that she was basis and is a delay tactic unable to truthfully admit or intended to hamper the deny similar questions during summary judgment process. her deposition about a similar Plaintiff similarly attempted to screenshot depicted in RFA avoid answering this question 22. In its initial version of this during her deposition, which is discovery dispute, Defendant why defendant served this also challenged Plaintiff’s simple RFA. response that she lacked sufficient information to Relief: Order that Plaintiff truthfully admit or deny RFA respond to RFA 37 in 22. Defendant has now accordance with FRCP 36. withdrawn its objection to Plaintiff’s response to RFA 22, effectively conceding that Plaintiff also lacks sufficient information to truthfully admit or deny RFA 37 as written (a request that Defendant falsely implies was served after Plaintiff’s deposition).
On January 11, 2023, the Court held a hearing on Defendant’s motion. After due consideration of the discovery responses and arguments made at the hearing, the Court finds that the request should be and hereby is GRANTED. The Court finds that Defendant’s requests are timely, as amended contentions were not submitted until December 20, 2022. The Court finds that Plaintiff's Responses to the Requests for Admissions lack sufficient detail as required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a)(4). That rule requires that “[i]f a matter is not admitted, the answer must specifically deny it or state in detail why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny it...The answering party may assert lack of knowledge or information as a reason for failing to admit or deny only if the party states that it has made reasonable inquiry and that the information it knows or can readily obtain is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny.” This Court is of the opinion that the requests for admission should contain additional detail about why the Plaintiff is unable to admit or deny the requests. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s request and ORDERS that within ten (10) days of this Order, Plaintiff shall supplement her answers to Requests for Admission Nos. 15, 16, and 37 with more detail about why she cannot truthfully admit or deny the request, or in the alternative, specifically admit or deny the request. SIGNED this 11th day of January, 2023.
wh. Lb UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE