Trading Techs. Int’l., Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., No 04 C 5312, 2006 WL 3541933 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 5, 2006) (Moran, Sen. J.).
Judge Moran denied plaintiff Trading Technologies ("TT") motion to compel additional deposition testimony from third party Brucato, the founder of TT’s competitor Catus Technologies. TT subpoenaed Brucato’s deposition relating to Catus’s work with defendant eSpeed or TT’s software. Brucato appeared for the deposition and answered questions on those topics, but refused to answer questions regarding work for clients other than eSpeed. TT argued that evidence of Catus’s work with other third party clients was relevant to show proof of widespread copying, which is an indicia of non-obviousness. The Court acknowledged that, but balanced the relevance against TT’s need for the evidence and the hardship to Catus. The Court found that TT’s request was only based upon TT’s suspicions or speculations as opposed to any hard facts and that the connection, therefore, was not strong enough to warrant the risk third party Catus faced in providing such information to its competitor TT.