Property Solutions International v. Yardi Systems

MOTION for Discovery Re Entrata's Short Form Discovery Motion Re Interrogatory Nos. 34, 35, and 36

D. UtahOctober 13, 2017

Blaine J. Benard, Utah Bar No. 5661 E-mail: BJBenard@hollandhart.com Eric G. Maxfield, Utah Bar No. 8668 E-mail: EGMaxfield@hollandhart.com Darren G. Reid, Utah Bar No. 11163 E-mail: DGReid@hollandhart.com HOLLAND & HART, LLP 222 South Main Street, Suite 2200 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Telephone: (801) 799-5800 Facsimile: (801) 618-3832 Michael A. Jacobs, Pro Hac Vice E-mail: MJacobs@mofo.com Eric M. Acker, Pro Hac Vice E-mail: EAcker@mofo.com Christian G. Andreu-von Euw, Pro Hac Vice E-mail: christian@mofo.com MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105-2482 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 Jeffrey A. Jaeckel, Pro Hac Vice E-mail: JJaeckel@mofo.com David D. Cross, Pro Hac Vice E-mail: DCross@mofo.com Mary Gilbert, Pro Hac Vice E-mail: MGilbert@mofo.com MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 6000 Washington, D.C. 20006-1888 Telephone: (202) 887-1500 Facsimile: (202) 887-0763 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterdefendant ENTRATA, INC. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION ENTRATA, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, v. YARDI SYSTEMS, INC., a California corporation, Defendant. Civil Action No. 2:15-CV-00102-CW-PMW PLAINTIFF AND COUNTERDEFENDANT ENTRATA, INC.’S SHORT FORM DISCOVERY MOTION RE INTERROGATORY NOS. 34, 35, 36 (Proposed Order Submitted Herewith) HON. CLARK WADDOUPS, DISTRICT JUDGE HON. PAUL M. WARNER, MAGISTRATE JUDGE Case 2:15-cv-00102-CW-PMW Document 132 Filed 10/13/17 Page 1 of 4 Plaintiff (“Entrata”) moves to compel responses from Defendant (“Yardi”) to Interrogatories 34-36 pursuant to DUCivR 37-1(a). Per Exhibit A, the parties’ conferred between October 2 and 6. Exhibit B contains Yardi’s discovery responses. Entrata requests a hearing and expedited treatment. Entrata’s claims are based in significant part on Yardi’s disabling of Entrata’s custom interfaces for purported cybersecurity vulnerabilities, thereby depriving Entrata’s customers of critical software or functionality. (See Dkt. 55 ¶¶ 39, 57, 62.) Yardi admits that “it encouraged third-party providers to communicate with Yardi’s database through Yardi-designed standard interfaces,” rather than Entrata’s custom interfaces, “to ensure client data integrity and security”; that it “conduct[ed] [] security reviews . . . to protect client data and the Yardi network from legitimate and well-documented data security concerns”; “that for various legitimate reasons, including data-security concerns, certain third-party software will be removed . . . after August 31, 2018”; and that it already terminated Entrata’s custom interfaces temporarily (without warning) purportedly “due to a security vulnerability.” (Dkt. 77 ¶¶ 30, 39, 57, 60, 87.) Yet Yardi refuses to provide any information about these alleged “security reviews” or the purported “data- security concerns” it claims justifies its anticompetitive conduct targeting Entrata’s custom interfaces. Entrata asked Yardi to identify each instance where it (i) used outside vendors to look for security vulnerabilities (Interrogatory 34), (ii) looked for those vulnerabilities itself (Interrogatory 35), and (iii) found any vulnerabilities (Interrogatory 36). Although Yardi waived any objections to these interrogatories,1 it refused to answer them, asserting merely that it “engages in testing for security vulnerabilities regularly and on an ongoing basis in the ordinary course.” (Ex. B.) 1 The parties agreed to serve on September 19 objections to those interrogatories to which they would not provide a substantive response, with objections to all other interrogatories due on September 26. Yardi’s “response” to Interrogatories 34-36 is merely an argument for its failure to answer them and thus is wholly nonresponsive, yet it served no objections to those interrogatories on September 19. Indeed, it explicitly agreed to answer them. (Exhibits B-D) (“Pursuant to agreement between counsel for Entrata and Yardi, Yardi will respond to this Interrogatory by September 26, 2017.”) Case 2:15-cv-00102-CW-PMW Document 132 Filed 10/13/17 Page 2 of 4 Yardi claims these interrogatories are unduly burdensome but fails to meet its “burden to show facts justifying its objection by demonstrating that the time or expense involved in responding to requested discovery is unduly burdensome.” See Gassaway v. Jarden Corp., 292 F.R.D. 676, 683 (D. Kan. 2013). Yardi must “provide sufficient detail and explanation about the nature of the burden in terms of time, money and procedure required to respond.” Id. Yardi has provided no such information.2 The highly relevant information Entrata seeks bears directly on its claims and Yardi’s defenses and counterclaims and should be provided. DATED: October 13, 2017 By: /s/ Eric G. Maxfield Blaine J. Benard Eric G. Maxfield Darren G. Reid HOLLAND & HART LLP Michael A. Jacobs Eric M. Acker Jeffrey A. Jaeckel David D. Cross Christian G. Andreu-von Euw Mary M. Gilbert MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterdefendant ENTRATA, INC 2 As it has done repeatedly, Yardi asserts hypertechnical, semantic objections to definitions of terms in Entrata’s interrogatories. The definitions were drafted to avoid such tactics. Nevertheless, when Yardi feigned confusion, Entrata proposed a revised definition, but Yardi still will not respond. (See Exhibit E.) Case 2:15-cv-00102-CW-PMW Document 132 Filed 10/13/17 Page 3 of 4 Case 2:15-cv-00102-CW-PMW Document 132 Filed 10/13/17 Page 4 of 4