Case Activity (120)

1. Minutes | Filed: September 04, 2026 | Entered: September 04, 2026 HBM Holdings Limited et al v. Xu

   Defend Trade Secrets Act (of 2016) | Massachusetts

   Status Conference

   Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Donald L. Cabell: Status Conference held on 9/4/2026. (Court Reporter: Digital Recording.) To order a copy of this Digital Recording, please go to https://forms.mad.uscourts.gov/Audio.html. For a transcript of this proceeding, contact mad_transcripts@mad.uscourts.gov.(Attorneys present: Cutler, Dralle, Holder, Schmidt) (NR)

2. Order | Filed: September 02, 2026 | Entered: September 02, 2026 HBM Holdings Limited et al v. Xu

   Defend Trade Secrets Act (of 2016) | Massachusetts

   Order ~Util - Terminate Motions

   Magistrate Judge Donald L. Cabell: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. re 118 MOTION to Compel Xu Regarding Collection and Search Procedures filed by HBM Holdings Limited, Harbour BioMed (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., Harbour Antibodies U.S. Inc.

   Plaintiffs' motion to compel (D. 118 ) is denied for the reasons discussed in court. Despite Defendant's repeated assertions that he has produced all responsive materials in response to Plaintiffs' requests, Plaintiffs raise concerns about the integrity of Defendant's search for, and collection and production of documents, and request therefore that the court order Defendant to submit all his computers, phones, email accounts, and other electronic devices and storage media to an independent vendor to perform a forensic analysis of deleted data as well as search the data for responsive documents. At a prior hearing on the motion, Plaintiffs articulated a more-focused concern about the insufficiency of Defendant's production as it related to metadata. Namely, when asked specifically what there was for the court to compel that Plaintiffs had not already received, Plaintiffs identified the "PST" files associated with the email productions, which contain metadata associated with those emails. Defendant responded that he believed he had produced those files but would ask his vendor to rerun the production and ensure the PST files were included. Defendant has since represented to the court that he has done so, and that all documents responsive to Plaintiffs' requests have been produced. Against that backdrop, and crediting counsel's representation as an officer of the court, the court can sympathize with Plaintiffs' palpable frustration over what they view as a concerning dearth of information, but at the same time conclude that they have not yet persuasively demonstrated that there is any outstanding discovery for the court to compel.
   (NMC)

3. 118 additional result(s)