Insulet Corporation v. EOFlow, Co. Ltd.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

_______________________________________ ) INSULET CORPORATION, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. v. ) 23-11780-FDS ) EOFLOW CO., LTD.; EOFLOW, INC.; ) NEPHRIA BIO, INC.; JESSE J. KIM ) (a/k/a JAE JIN KIM); LUIS J. MALAVE; ) STEVEN DIIANNI; and ) IAN G. WELSFORD, ) ) Defendants. ) _______________________________________)

ORDER ON OUTSTANDING DISCOVERY DISPUTES FROM DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM PLAINTIFF

SAYLOR, C.J. On May 13, 2024, defendants moved to compel certain discovery from Insulet Corporation. The Court has ruled from the bench on each of the disputed items except for the dispute concerning whether the document that defendants have termed a “trade secret inventory” should be produced. After in camera review, Court is not satisfied that the disputed document qualifies as protected attorney work product, and there is no indication that the document at issue is privileged. Among other things, there is an insufficient basis to conclude that it was prepared for use in actual or reasonably anticipated litigation. See United States v. Textron Inc. & Subsidiaries, 577 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2009). It appears to be relevant and therefore discoverable. Nevertheless, to protect against the possibility that the document contains attorney impressions or advice, and pending further order of the Court, the document may be produced with the entries under Column A (“Criticality”) and Column H (“Comments/Ideas/Follow Up”) in redacted form. So Ordered.

/s/ F. Dennis Saylor IV F. Dennis Saylor IV Dated: June 21, 2024 Chief Judge, United States District Court