Entrust PACER Quote:

Courtesy of ZPaul

A key element of Entrust’s strategy throughout the litigation has been to selectively hide behind its foreign non-party affiliate, EDL, to block and obstruct discovery. As but one example, Entrust in its Initial Disclosures identified numerous individuals it stated were “employees” of the named Defendants—but, when StrikeForce sought to depose those individuals, Entrust suddenly revealed that these people were not employees of defendants, but instead employees of Entrust Datacard Limited (“EDL”), an Entrust affiliate, and were not subject to deposition by notice. Weeks later, Entrust then designated EDL employees—and only EDL employees—as its 30(b)(6) witnesses, but still refused to allow them to be deposed in their personal capacities despite them voluntarily appearing for deposition. This is just one example of how Entrust is improperly using the existence of EDL to cherry-pick what discovery to provide and what to withhold. Entrust’s motion for a protective order is the next step in Entrust’s attempt to avoid providing responsive, relevant, and proportional discovery to StrikeForce.