Special Master Denies Defendant Stryker Corporation’s Motion for Protective Order and Motion to Compel Discovery

December 16, 2015 – The special discovery master in the case denied Stryker’s motion for a protective order requiring the plaintiff Orthophoenix to produce a comprehensive list of topics before defendant produced its 30(b)(6) witnesses. The special master also denied Stryker’s motion to compel all responsive ESI discovery instead of the search terms in the default discovery standard in the case scheduling order.

The patents at issue are U.S. Patent No. 6,241,734, entitled “Systems and methods for placing materials into bone,” U.S. Patent No. 6,248,110, entitled “Systems and methods for treating fractured or diseased bone using expandable bodies,” U.S. Patent No. 6,280,456, entitled “Methods for treating bone,” U.S. Patent No. 6,440,138, entitled “Structures and methods for creating cavities in interior body regions,” U.S. Patent No. 6,623,505, entitled “Expandable structures for deployment in interior body regions,” U.S. Patent No. 6,663,647, entitled “Inflatable device for use in surgical protocol relating to fixation of bone,” U.S. Patent No. 6,863,672, entitled “Structures and methods for creating cavities in interior body regions,” U.S. Patent No. 6,981,981, entitled “Inflatable device for use in surgical protocol relating to fixation of bone,” U.S. Patent No. 7,044,954, entitled “Method for treating a vertebral body,” and U.S. Patent No. 7,153,307, entitled “Systems and methods for placing materials into bone.”

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and is captioned: Orthophoenix LLC v. Stryker Corporation et al, DED-1-13-cv-01628.

By: David G. Varghese