RAIL SCALE, INC., a Florida corporation, Plaintiff, v. WINGFIELD SCALE & MEASURE, LLC, a Tennessee limited liability Company, Defendant No. 1:21-cv-287-TAV-CHS United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, Southern Division, at Chattanooga Filed May 16, 2023 Counsel Charles W. Gilbreath, II, The Law Firm of Stephan Wright, Chattanooga, TN, Stephan R. Wright, Wright, Cortesi & Gilbreath, Chattanooga, TN, Greggory Allen Teeter, Pro Hac Vice, Joseph G. Pia, Zachary James Weyher, Pro Hac Vice, Pia Hoyt, LLC, Salt Lake City, UT, Samuel F. Miller, Miller Legal Partners PLLC, Brentwood, TN, for Plaintiff. Eileen H. Rumfelt, Pro Hac Vice, Stephen E. Kabakoff, Pro Hac Vice, Miller & Martin PLLC, Atlanta, GA, Stephen J. Stark, Miller & Martin, PLLC, Chattanooga, TN, for Defendant. Steger, Christopher H., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER *1 This matter is before the Court upon Defendant Wingfield's Expedited Motion to Compel [Doc. 74]. In such motion, Defendant sought the Court's intervention in two discovery disputes. The first discovery dispute related to “prior art,” produced by defendant Weighing Technologies, Inc., in a similar patent infringement lawsuit pending in federal district court in Houston, Texas, styled, Rail Scale, Inc. v. Weighing Technologies, Inc., Civil Action No. 4:21-cv-03698 (the “Texas Document Production”). Defendant Wingfield Scale Company, Inc., sought discovery of those documents prior to the filing of the claims construction briefs on May 5, 2023. The second discovery dispute relates to written discovery requests served upon Plaintiff Rail Scale by Defendant Wingfield which Defendant claims have not been responded to adequately and/or completely. The second discovery dispute, however, was not identified by Defendant as an impediment to Defendant's ability to file its claims construction brief. The Court conducted an expedited videoconference hearing on this motion on May 1, 2023. Both parties were represented by counsel and were given an opportunity to argue their positions. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court provided informal guidance to the counsel for the parties and directed them to meet and confer in an effort to resolve the pending discovery disputes. The Court offered to have another videoconference hearing with counsel to decide any remaining discovery disputes that they were unable to resolve through their own discussions. On May 5, 2023, counsel sent the undersigned an email stating: The parties have conferred this morning as planned. We have formulated a plan for reconciling the documents relied upon by the defendant in the Texas case in support of its invalidity contentions with the documents produced in this case. The parties are working together to facilitate third party agreements to produce any remaining unproduced documents under the protective order in this case. We also have set a date for a conferral on other discovery disputes. We are currently optimistic that we can work through these issues among the parties and do not expect that we will need the Court's assistance this afternoon. The Court commends counsel for their successful efforts to resolve pending discovery disputes. Based on counsel's representations, the Court will not take any further action at this time, but will remain available to conduct an in-person hearing to decide any further discovery disputes which arise between the parties. For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that: Wingfield's Expedited Motion to Compel [Doc. 74] is DISMISSED AS MOOT. Defendant Wingfield's deadline for filing its expedited claims construction brief was EXTENDED (nunc pro tunc) from May 5, 2023 to May 12, 2023, as a result of delays experienced in obtaining the Texas Document Production. SO ORDERED.