When information is relevant to the claims and defenses in a case, strong evidence must be used to support an argument against the production of this relevant information.
In this infringement dispute between two software companies, the defendant, Microsoft, sought a protective order “barring further retention and production” of Telemetry Data based on it being “infeasible because of its size.”
Microsoft claims that producing this data would be “highly burdensome” and thus disproportionate under Rule 26(b)(1) due in part to GDPR obligations that regulate the Telemetry Data, requiring additional measures to anonymize it that would make its retention and production “technically challenging and cost prohibitive.”
Conversely, Corel argues that the production of such Telemetry Data is necessary due to its relevance to the “infringement, damages and validity” of its claim. Corel further supports its position by asserting that (1) Microsoft never proved their alleged “undue burden” and (2) the data requested is confined to that relevant to the dispute.
Download the PDF version of Corel Software v. Microsoft case law alert here.
Parties objecting to producing otherwise relevant information may face an uphill battle to establish disproportionality, particularly when the objecting party is deemed to have substantial resources, the information may be highly probative, and/or the objecting party fails to support its proportionality and burden arguments with affidavits or other specific evidence.