Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Neuron Space Corporation and Blue Cubed, LLC are engaged in litigation involving the interpretation of an IP License Agreement and a Subcontractor Agreement. Fact discovery closed on May 21, 2026. In September 2026, Blue Cubed produced a Termination Agreement between itself and Hawkeye 360 (HE360) that terminated a 2025 Purchase Agreement for the sale of terminals. Following this production, Neuron filed a joint discovery letter (Dkt. No. 186) seeking to reopen discovery. Neuron requested: (1) production of all communications between Blue Cubed and HE360 regarding work requested or performed under the Purchase Agreement; (2) a short deposition of Blue Cubed on the same topic; and (3) leave to introduce discovery obtained from HE360 at trial. Blue Cubed opposed the requests. Trial is scheduled to begin January 25, 2027.
The Court’s Holding
The Court granted in part and denied in part Neuron’s requests. Applying the six-factor test from City of Pomona v. SQM N. Am. Corp., the Court found that although trial is imminent and the request is opposed, the discovery may yield evidence relevant to HE360’s intended use of the terminals and inform the construction of the disputed contracts. The Court noted it had previously required production of such communications and viewed the current request as a continuation necessitated by recent unforeseen developments (the Termination Agreement). Accordingly, the Court granted the request for communications and a short deposition limited to work requested or performed under the Purchase Agreement. The request for leave to introduce discovery obtained from HE360 at trial was denied without prejudice; the Court directed Neuron to clarify its request if it seeks to use such discovery for the pending Motions for Clarification or Reconsideration (Dkt. Nos. 170, 175).
Key Takeaways
- The Court reopened fact discovery after the May 21, 2026 deadline based on the late production of a Termination Agreement constituting an unforeseen development.
- Discovery was limited to communications and deposition testimony concerning work requested or performed under the 2025 Purchase Agreement between Blue Cubed and HE360.
- The Court applied the Ninth Circuit’s six-factor test from City of Pomona, weighing the proximity of trial against the relevance of the evidence to contract interpretation.
- The request to introduce third-party discovery from HE360 at trial was denied without prejudice pending clarification of its intended use regarding pending motions.
- The ruling underscores the Court’s view that post-sale communications between a party and a third party may inform the construction of the parties’ agreements.
Why It Matters
This order demonstrates the Court’s willingness to reopen discovery close to trial when new documents—here, a Termination Agreement produced months after the discovery cutoff—fundamentally alter the factual landscape and bear directly on the interpretation of core contractual disputes. By limiting the scope to the Purchase Agreement context, the Court balanced the prejudice of late-stage discovery against the probative value of evidence regarding HE360’s use of the terminals. The denial without prejudice of the request to use HE360 discovery at trial signals the Court’s gatekeeping role over third-party evidence and its preference for targeted briefing on evidentiary use in connection with pending dispositive motions.
The ruling is narrow. It authorizes communications and a short deposition only about work requested or performed under the Purchase Agreement. It does not yet authorize using HE360 discovery at trial, and the denial of that request was without prejudice. Practitioners should identify the precise use they seek when asking to deploy late-produced evidence on pending motions or at trial.