Defendants’ nonsensical speculation regarding an implied license does not justify reopening discovery.
Defendants Did Not Act Diligently in Seeking Discovery With Respect to the ASA Defendants’ attempt to take advantage of Ms. Leane’s baseless allegations does not excuse their failure to demonstrate reasonable diligence. Defendants have known of the ASA for years; it was identified in the October 2015 Agreement, Ms. Leane discussed it during her April2018 deposition, and Defendants received the termination shortly thereafter. Defendants have never previously explained the purported relevance of the ASA and failed to exercise reasonable diligence to acquire the agreement or the discovery they now seek. Under such circumstances, Defendants cannot demonstrate good cause and the Court should deny the request to reopen discovery.
Ms. Leane sold ChanBond in October 2015 and has recently re-surfaced, harboring seller’s remorse and threatening to “destroy” ChanBond if she was not paid off. (See Leane v. ChanBond, LLC, 3:20-cv-03097 (E.D. Tex.), D.I. 25 at 1–2.) The litigations relied on by Defendants are part of her campaign to be paid-off. Ms. Leane’s unfounded theatrics have no relevance to any issue now in dispute in these actions.
As such, Defendants’ new request for discovery to investigate a hypothetical implied license to Technicolor lacks merit and does not warrant reopening discovery.
Unable to dispute the facts or law set forth in ChanBond’s Opposition, Defendants use their Reply to smear counsel by repeating Ms. Leane’s baseless and unjustified accusations. As detailed herein, Defendants’ new arguments to reopen discovery fare no better than their old arguments.
Moreover, they offered no explanation as to why the “new” interpretation of the October 2015 Agreement was not available to them during discovery, and no explanation as to why the requested discovery is relevant given the unambiguous language of that agreement.
That theory fails for two reasons. First, it is undisputed that after executing the October 2015 Agreement, Ms. Leane did not have the right to grant a license. Nor did the ASA grant her any such right. As such, Ms. Leane could not have granted Technicolor a license and the requested discovery is not relevant. Second, the reopening of discovery should be denied because Defendants knew of the ASA and its termination since at least 2018 and did not exercise reasonable diligence to obtain the discovery they now seek.
