Terran Biosciences, Inc. v. Compass Pathfinder Limited

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 1:22-cv-01956-ELH Document 363 _ Filed 02/10/26 Page1of6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

February 10, 2026

MEMORANDUM TO PARTIES RE: Terran Biosciences, Inc., et al. v. Compass
Pathfinder Limited, et al., Civil Action No. ELH-
22-1956

Dear Counsel:

In a joint letter, dated January 7, 2026, the parties requested Court intervention to resolve
a discovery dispute arising from the depositions of Plaintiffs’ expert witnesses, Dr. Frederick
Barrett and Dr. Gareth Macartney. ECF No. 329. Defendants contend that the witnesses
obstructed their depositions by providing evasive and non-responsive answers. ECF No. 333 at 1.
Defendants further contend that Plaintiffs’ counsel obstructed the depositions by lodging
improper speaking and coaching objections. ECF No. 333 at 1. Defendants ask this Court to: (1)
grant Defendants additional time to depose the witnesses, (2) direct the witnesses to provide
concise answers to Defendants’ questions, and (3) prohibit Plaintiffs’ counsel from making
improper objections. ECF No. 333 at 3. Plaintiffs dispute that their expert witnesses or counsel
engaged in any improper conduct during the depositions and oppose Defendants’ requested
relief. ECF No. 332 at 4.

Each party has filed a position statement and supporting exhibits.'! See ECF Nos. 332-33.
No hearing is necessary to resolve this dispute. Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2025). For the reasons set
forth below, Defendants’ request for relief is DENIED.

I. Relevant Background
Just before the close of discovery, on November 19 and 20, Defendants took the

depositions of Dr. Barrett and Dr. Macartney. ECF No. 332 at 29, 508. Each deposition lasted an
entire day. ECF No. 332 at 29, 508, 586. Dr. Barrett’s deposition began at 9:22 a.m. and

' The Court granted the parties’ requests to file their position statements and supporting exhibits
under seal, given that the filings contain information subject to the parties’ Confidentiality Order.
See ECF Nos. 186, 331, 334, 340. Because portions of this Memorandum Opinion also describe
information subject to the Confidentiality Order, it, too, will be sealed. A public version containing
redactions of the confidential information will follow.

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

2
concluded at 6:36 p.m., while Dr. Macartney’s deposition started at 9:00 a.m. and ended at
approximately 6:00 p.m.2 ECF No. 332 at 29, 508, 586.
Discovery closed on November 20. ECF No. 270. Thereafter, the parties filed
cross-motions for summary judgment. Defendants filed their opening brief in support of their
motion for summary judgment on November 26, 2025. ECF No. 304. The parties’ cross-motions
were fully briefed as of January 21, 2026, with the filing of Defendants’ reply. ECF No. 351.3
In addition to their summary judgment motion, Defendants filed several motions
challenging the opinions of Plaintiffs’ experts.4 On November 26, Defendants filed a Motion to
Exclude Certain Opinions of Plaintiffs’ Expert Dr. Gareth Macartney. ECF No. 302. And on
December 1, Defendants filed a Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions of Plaintiffs’ Experts Dr.
Joshua Woolley and Dr. Frederick Barrett. ECF No. 308. Both motions are now ripe.
II. 	Analysis
Plaintiffs urge this Court to reject Defendants’ arguments on the merits and to find that
their request for relief is untimely in the first instance. I first address timeliness.
A. 	Defendants’ request to reopen the experts’ depositions is untimely.
Defendants understate the magnitude of their requested relief by framing it simply as
additional time to depose each expert witness.5 What Defendants truly seek is a modification of
the schedule to allow for a reopening of the depositions and, by extension, a limited reopening of
the discovery period. Reopening the depositions at this late stage would significantly disrupt the
schedule and halt the orderly progress of this case. At the time the parties filed their January 7
joint discovery dispute letter, briefing on the cross-motions for summary judgment and Daubert
motions was well underway. See ECF Nos. 270, 312. Significantly, Defendants have filed two
Daubert motions specifically challenging the opinions of Dr. Barrett and Dr. Macartney. ECF
Nos. 302, 308. After any reopening of the experts’ depositions, Defendants might seek to
supplement their summary judgment briefing and Daubert motions. This briefing would, of
2 During both depositions, the parties took a lunch recess, in addition to several short breaks
throughout the day. See generally ECF Nos. 333-1, -2.
3 Plaintiffs withdrew their cross-motion for summary judgment because the Court dismissed
Defendant Compass Pathfinder Limited’s counterclaims during the summary judgment briefing
schedule, ECF No. 341, making Defendants’ reply in support of their motion for summary
judgment the final brief on the cross-motions.
4 The parties agreed to a briefing schedule for Daubert motions that aligned with the summary
judgment briefing schedule. See ECF Nos. 311–12.
5 Defendants do not expressly state in their position statement how much more time they need to
adequately depose Plaintiffs’ experts. In the parties’ email correspondence regarding this dispute,
however, Defendants requested an additional 5 hours of deposition time for each witness. ECF No.
332 at 26.
Case 1:22-cv-01956-ELH Document 363 Filed 02/10/26 Page 2 of 6

3
course, necessitate supplemental briefing from Plaintiffs, all of which would cause further delay
in the resolution of the motions.
Setting aside the ripple effects a reopening of the depositions might cause, Defendants
have not set forth good cause for their request. All modifications of a case scheduling order must
comply with the good cause requirement of Rule 16(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. “The primary consideration of the Rule 16(b) ‘good cause’ standard is the diligence
of the movant.” Rassoull v. Maximus, Inc., 209 F.R.D. 372, 374 (D. Md. 2002). The Court
should inquire into the moving party’s reasons for modification and, “[i]f that party was not
diligent, the inquiry should end.” Id. (quoting Marcum v. Zimmer, 163 F.R.D 250, 254 (S.D.W.
Va. 1995)).
Defendants waited approximately three weeks after the conclusion of the experts’
depositions to first raise their concerns about obstruction. It was not until December 10 that
counsel for Defendants emailed Plaintiffs’ counsel regarding the alleged obstruction. See ECF
No. 332 at 25–26. Defendants’ only explanation for the delay is that the deadline for their
summary judgment motion fell one week after the experts’ depositions—on November 26—and
that the Thanksgiving holiday was the following day. ECF No. 333 at 3. That explanation falls
short where, as here, the alleged misconduct by the expert witnesses and counsel was
immediately apparent. Defendants were present at the time of the alleged obstructionist behavior
and could have conferred with Plaintiffs’ counsel at the conclusion of the depositions or soon
thereafter if Defendants truly believed that they were deprived of their deposition time.
Defendants did not do so. Rather, in their recent briefing, they relied upon the very deposition
testimony they now assert is inadequate and seek a do-over of the depositions more than six
weeks after the close of discovery. Defendants were not diligent in raising this dispute with the
Plaintiffs, thereby precluding a finding of good cause to justify a reopening of the depositions
and discovery.
Even if Defendants’ request to reopen the depositions was timely, I would not grant relief
because I find that there was no obstruction or misconduct of any kind on the part of Plaintiffs’
experts or counsel.
B. 	Neither Plaintiffs’ counsel nor Plaintiffs’ experts obstructed the depositions.
I have reviewed each of the 30 deposition excerpts Defendants highlight and I find no
obstructionist behavior on the part of Plaintiffs’ counsel or the expert witnesses.6 In the interest
of brevity, I do not address each instance of alleged obstructionist behavior, instead highlighting
only illustrative examples.
1. 	Plaintiffs’ counsel’s objections were appropriate.
Rule 30(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that during a deposition,
“[a]n objection must be stated concisely in a nonargumentative and nonsuggestive manner.” Fed.
6 The complete list of deposition excerpts related to this dispute is identified in a December 29
email from Defendants’ counsel to Plaintiffs’ counsel. ECF No. 332 at 18–20.
Case 1:22-cv-01956-ELH Document 363 Filed 02/10/26 Page 3 of 6

R. Civ. P. 30(c)(2). The Local Rules of this District provide additional guidance, noting that
objections “should be stated as simply, concisely, and non-argumentatively as possible to avoid
coaching or making suggestions to the deponent, and to minimize interruptions in the
questioning of the deponent (for example: “objection, leading;” “objection, asked and

answered;” “objection, compound question;” “objection, form’’).” Loc. R. App’x A, Guideline
6.b.

ce

The objections Plaintiffs’ counsel lodged comport with these discovery rules. The
objections were plain and concise and fell into two general categories: (1) “asked and answered”
objections and (2) “calling for a legal conclusion” objections. Each time Plaintiffs’ counsel
raised these objections, there was a valid basis to do so.

For instance, during Dr. Barrett’s deposition,

Plaintiffs’ counsel appropriately raised an “asked and answered” objection
after the second rephrased question and continued to raise these objections six more times before
Defendants’ counsel moved to another topic. See id. Defendants highlight this exchange to
demonstrate obstructionist behavior on the part of the witness and Plaintiffs’ counsel, but it
reflects the questioner’s own resistance to accepting an answer that the questioner may not have
preferred, but which was responsive by inference.

Plaintiffs’ counsel’s other objections on the ground that some questions “call[ed] for a
legal conclusion” were also appropriate. And, even if Defendants believe that these objections
were baseless, the objections did not obstruct the deposition.

Beyond these two categories, Defendants assert that Plaintiffs’ counsel also coached the
experts by, at times, asking Defendants’ counsel to show the witness a specific document when
the question posed related to the document. See ECF No. 333 at 2. This, too, does not rise to the
level of obstructionist behavior.

Case 1:22-cv-01956-ELH Document 363 Filed 02/10/26 Page5of6

There is nothing improper about Plaintiffs’ counsel’s conduct during this exchange.
Ensuring that the witness has reviewed a document that is the subject of a question strikes me as
good practice. Moreover, Defendants cannot point to any prejudice arising from this exchange.
Plaintiffs’ counsel did not prevent the witness from answering the question, and Dr. Barrett did
not refuse to do so. By asking Defendants’ counsel to show Dr. Barrett the declaration, Plaintiffs’
counsel was trying to facilitate an accurate, non-speculative response from the witness—a
benefit to both parties.

2. The expert witnesses’ answers were not obstructionist.

Defendants take issue with many of the experts’ responses in which the experts provided
lengthy answers or read directly from their reports. Expert witnesses, by their very nature,
possess specialized knowledge, education, or skill. Unsurprisingly, their testimony is more
complex than an ordinary lay witness. Having reviewed the deposition excerpts Defendants
highlight, I do not find that the witnesses engaged in any obstructionist behavior. The witnesses
at times resisted providing yes-or-no responses, instead reciting passages from their reports or
otherwise providing lengthy context. But such testimony is not categorically improper,
particularly where the questioner does not state at the outset of a question that the witness should
provide a yes-or-no response.

Accordingly, I deny Defendants’ request for an order requiring the witnesses to provide
concise answers. Such an order is unwarranted on these facts. Moreover, any order requiring an
expert witness to testify “concisely” in a deposition invites problems of interpretation, as it risks
being vague and difficult to enforce.

6
For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ request for relief is DENIED. Despite the
informal nature of this memorandum, it shall constitute an Order of the Court, and the Clerk is
directed to docket it accordingly.
Sincerely,
/s/
Chelsea J. Crawford
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:22-cv-01956-ELH Document 363 Filed 02/10/26 Page 6 of 6