Court filings, turned into sales opportunities.

Orrindel Routing, Inc. sued Tessaly Freight Software LLC on 2026-05-11 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, Case No. 1:26-cv-90417, before Judge T. Wrenfield. Orrindel, a Delaware corporation based in Columbus, Ohio, sells route-planning software to freight brokerages; Tessaly, a Delaware limited liability company based in Wilmington, sells the transportation management system many of those brokerages run on. Orrindel pleads exclusive dealing under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, monopolization and attempted monopolization under Section 2, and tortious interference under Delaware law, invoking 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337. It alleges that from early 2024 Tessaly rewrote its brokerage contracts (the 2024 Partner Terms, version 4.1) to bar connections to competing routing tools, and cut off Orrindel's access to its data interface on 2024-03-18, after which Orrindel says it lost 41 brokerage accounts. Tessaly denies every allegation and did not move to dismiss; it answered on 2026-07-02. The parties filed their Rule 26(f) report on 2026-07-20 and the court entered a stipulated protective order on 2026-08-28. On 2026-09-28 Orrindel moved to compel internal communications and pricing records that Tessaly has withheld as outside the agreed date range. Tessaly's opposition is due 2026-10-12, and discovery is ongoing.

This is a high value opportunity. The motion to compel shows a case that has cleared pleadings and is in a discovery fight four months after filing, with one corporate defendant holding nearly all of the documents and no settlement in sight. The parties' Rule 26(f) report set a date range of January 2024 to the present; Orrindel's motion asks for January 2023 onward, so the court's ruling will decide the size of the collection. No ESI protocol is on the docket, so the vendor that drafts the production format shapes the scope. The pitch is a compelled production on a court deadline paired with a privilege review that can keep pace with a rolling production. The case will turn on several things: the drafting history of the Partner Terms, the interface access logs showing when and by whom Orrindel's access ended, discount approvals for brokerages that signed the new terms, and customer call notes in which routing tools were discussed. Damages depend on Orrindel's lost brokerage revenue across 2024 to 2026. Defense counsel at Marrowby Kessel LLP (Imogen Stratteridge, Caleb Vornbrook) will hold the collection, and no review vendor is named anywhere on the docket. Offer them a scoped estimate for the categories the motion names before the 2026-10-12 opposition. Separately, offer plaintiff's counsel at Aldermoor & Pryce LLP (Ottoline Serravane, Tobias Kellerhaven) a budgeted workflow for receiving and reviewing a large production.

The ESI in play splits into two sides. On Tessaly's side, the sources are: - Brokerage contracts and amendments from 2023 to the present, with the drafting history of the 2024 Partner Terms. - Internal chat and email from partnerships, sales leadership, product management, pricing and legal operations. - Data interface access logs and the change records for the cutoff. - Pricing models and discount approval records. - Customer relationship system notes and call recordings. - Product planning documents for the integration program. - Board and leadership presentations on partner strategy. On Orrindel's side, the sources are brokerage account records, churn and revenue data for the damages period, and sales correspondence with the brokerages it lost. We estimate 16 to 28 custodians across Tessaly's partnerships, sales leadership, product management, pricing and legal operations teams, and Orrindel's sales and finance teams. Volume estimates: - Collected: 700 to 2,400 GB. - Processed and hosted: 1,000 to 3,300 GB. The main volume driver is the date range: if the court grants the motion, the window roughly doubles and pulls more than two years of chat exports and shared-drive attachments into scope. The estimate is held down because only two parties are named and the interface logs are structured and can be produced without review. Processing expansion of roughly 1.4x reflects attachment extraction and duplicate chat threads.