Published on:

Judge Stark considers motion to amend and makes further findings regarding sanctions against Princeton Digital

Chief Judge Leonard P. Stark recently considered several disputes, including intervenor Adobe System Incorporated’s motion to amend its complaint in intervention and further request for attorneys’ fees.  Princeton Digital Image Corporation v. Office Depot Inc., et al., No. 13-239-LPS, 12-287-LPS, 13-288-LPS, 13-289-LPS, 13-326-LPS, 13-330-LPS, 13-331-LPS, 13-404-LPS, 13-408-LPS (D. Del. Jan. 27, 2017).  Previously, Adobe requested to intervene in these suits, and the Court granted the request, on the basis that the defendants were Adobe’s customers.  Id. at 3.  Adobe filed a complaint in intervention, and plaintiff responded to that complaint in all but one suit–the Nordstrom suit.  Id.  The Clerk subsequently entered default and plaintiff moved to set aside the default.  While the Court granted plaintiff’s motion, the Court also granted Adobe monetary sanctions.  The parties, however, were unable to agree to the requisite amount of fees.  Moreover, Adobe subsequently filed a motion to amend its complaint in intervention to add a claim for restitution damages, which plaintiff opposed.

Regarding the motion to amend, plaintiff argued that the amendment was futile and that Adobe failed to comply with Local Rule 7.1.1 regarding meeting and conferring on non-case dispositive motions.  Judge Stark granted the motion to amend.  Judge Stark agreed with Adobe that it “could prove restitution damages if it is ultimately determined that Adobe did not get the benefit of its bargain in [a license agreement with plaintiff], because at least some of Adobe’s customers were not protected from suit, as provided for in the agreement.”  Id. at 6.  Judge Stark did note that Adobe failed to comply with Local Rule 7.1.1 but, “under the totality of circumstances,” denial of Adobe’s motion was not warranted.  Id.  Regarding the monetary sanctions previously ordered, Judge Stark used the hourly rate Adobe proposed because plaintiff submitted no evidence in support of its proposed rate.  Id. at 8-9.  Judge Stark also deferred determining the reasonableness of the hours spent on the default-related issues until Adobe had produced billing summaries.  Id. at 9.

Princeton Digital Image Corp. v. Office Depot Inc., No. 13-239-LPS

Contact Information