Magistrate Judge Christopher J. Burke recently resolved several discovery disputes raised by both sides in Integra LifeSciences Corp., et al. v. HyperBranch Medical Technology, Inc., C.A. No. 15-819-LPS-CJB (D. Del. Feb. 12, 2016). Judge Burke ordered defendant to produce five samples of each accused product sold or offered for sale, as “[t]he samples are indisputably relevant to the claims and defenses in the matter.” Id. at ¶ 1. Judge Burke also ordered Plaintiffs to obtain and produce certain documents that “remain[ed]” with third-party Medtronic. Id. at ¶ 2. Judge Burke found that the documents were “under the ‘control’ of at least certain Plaintiffs for purposes of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a)” because Plaintiffs have the contractual right to the documents pursuant to a Stock Purchase Agreement. Id. at ¶¶ 2-3. Finally, Judge Burke ordered Plaintiffs to supplement their response to Defendant’s interrogatory which “requested, inter alia, that as to claim 6 of [the patent-in-suit], Plaintiffs identify the priority date of claim 6, and ‘provide all of the factual and legal bases for that contention, and identify all documents and evidence [Plaintiffs] claim supports that contention.'” Id. at ¶ 5 (last alteration in original). Judge Burke agreed with Defendant that Plaintiffs’ response was “clearly deficient” demonstrated by the fact they provided a “more full explanation” in their discovery dispute letter. Id.