TOPIC TAGS for this article:
Click on a topic to display all headlines on that subject
SSJR Successfully Defends Motion to Compel Work Product From Non-Testifying Experts
19 July 2011
In MeadWestvaco Corp. v. Rexam PLC, Plaintiffs have alleged infringement of two patents by SSJR’s clients Rexam Dispensing Systems SAS and Rexam Beauty and Closures Inc. Plaintiffs moved to compel Rexam to produce expert test results, data, and protocols that SSJR obtained from its non-testifying experts after Rexam received Plaintiffs’ threat to sue for patent infringement, which the Magistrate Judge denied.
The District Court Judge confirmed the Magistrate’s ruling, stating there was no clear error in the Magistrate Judge’s denial of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel. The Magistrate determined and the District Court Judge affirmed that “(1) the materials at issue are protected work product; (2) Plaintiff has not shown substantial need within the meaning of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(3)(ii); (3) Plaintiff’s waiver argument is without merit and; (4) Plaintiff has not shown that there are exceptional circumstances justifying the disclosure of information generated by non-testifying experts who were hired in anticipation of litigation.” For the full Opinion, See MeadWestvaco Corp. v. Rexam PLC, No. 11 Civ. 511-347 (E.D.V.A. July 18, 2011).