Order | Filed: September 16, 2026
| Entered: September 16, 2026
Earin AB v. Skullcandy, Inc.
Patent | Delaware
Oral Order 1 - Terminate Hearings
ORAL ORDER re 52 Joint Motion for Discovery Dispute Teleconference. Having reviewed the parties’ discovery dispute letter submissions, (D.I. 56; D.I. 57), IT IS ORDERED that: (1) Skullcandy’s motion to compel Earin to search for and produce documents responsive to Request for Production (“RFP”) Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 10, 24, 27, 28, 29, 32, 38, 40 to 47, 52, and 57 is DENIED without prejudice. The scheduling order states that document production “shall be substantially complete by March 6, 2026.” (D.I. 15 at &para 3(b)) There is no dispute that Skullcandy did not serve its first set of RFPs until nearly four weeks after the deadline for substantial completion had passed, and Skullcandy did not seek an extension of the deadline. (D.I. 56 at 1; D.I. 57, Ex. A at 13) Although the deadline for substantial completion does not require that all document discovery be completed by that date, Skullcandy’s unexplained failure to even serve its document requests prior to this deadline defeats the deadline’s purpose of allowing parties to take fact depositions with the benefit of a full documentary record. The record confirms that Earin served its responses to the RFPs on April 29, 2026, more than two months before the close of fact discovery on July 17, 2026. (D.I. 56, Ex. A at 47; D.I. 15 at &para 3(a) (providing that “[a]ll discovery in this case shall be initiated so that it will be completed on or before July 17, 2026.”)) Yet Skullcandy did not move to compel the production of additional documents until August 27, 2026, more than one month after the close of fact discovery. (D.I. 52); see, e.g., Akamai Techs., Inc. v. MediaPointe, Inc., 2023 WL 6783505, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2023) (“The Court has been exceptionally clear: ‘The cutoff date for discovery is not the date by which discovery requests must be served; it is the date by which all discovery, including all hearings on any related motions, must be completed.’”). Compelling additional document production at this stage of the proceedings is likely to disrupt the case schedule, as opening expert reports are due on September 30, 2026 and case dispositive motions are to be filed on or before December 18, 2026. Such disruption is not warranted where, as here, the delay is the result of the movant’s lack of diligence. (2) Skullcandy’s motion to compel Earin to serve complete, verified answers to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 13, 15 to 19, and 24 is GRANTED-IN-PART. The motion to supplement responses to Interrogatory Nos. 1 to 3 and 13 is DENIED without prejudice because Skullcandy fails to identify a specific deficiency, no legal authority is cited, and relevance and proportionality are not addressed to support the request for discovery on withdrawn or unaccused products. The motion to supplement responses to Interrogatory Nos. 10, 11, 18, and 19 regarding inventor contributions is GRANTED-IN-PART. Although the inventors worked as a team, the inventor testimony of Kiril Trajkovski confirms that he was able to respond to questions concerning the involvement and contributions of specific individuals during development of the product. (D.I. 56, Ex. C at 187:4-213:5) Therefore, Earin shall supplement its responses to Interrogatory Nos. 10, 11, 18, and 19 to provide a more complete response on or before September 23, 2026. The motion to supplement responses to Interrogatory Nos. 15 to 17 and 24 is GRANTED in accordance with Earin’s offer to supplement, and supplementation shall be made on or before September 23, 2026. The court will not rule on the sufficiency of the responses until after supplementation has occurred and the parties have met and conferred on the remaining deficiencies, if any. Earin’s supplementation shall include a verification covering the operative answers and all supplements. (D.I. 57, Ex. F) (3) Skullcandy’s motion to compel Earin to prepare a Rule 30(b)(6) witness for a four-hour deposition concerning product development, repositories, inventor contributions, infringement investigations, corporate relationships, and Earin’s interrogatory investigation is GRANTED in accordance with Earin’s agreement to designate Mr. Linden on 30(b)(6) Topics 1, 3 to 6, 19, 20, 25, 26, and 29. (D.I. 57 at 4) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the discovery dispute teleconference set for September 21, 2026 at 3:00 p.m. is CANCELLED. Ordered by Judge Sherry R. Fallon on 9/16/2026. (lih)