From a court signal to a worked opportunity.

Case summary

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.

Opportunity insight

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.

Estimated data scope

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.

Counsel

In the app, the counsel table lists each attorney with firm, side, email and phone where the court record gives them.

Signal entries on the docket

Grounded in:

Docket text of entry 31

Source filings:

On file. This summary was written from the filed documents.

Case summary

Pellwick Cold Storage, Inc. sued Dunmarrow Refrigeration Systems LLC on 2026-02-18 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria), Case No. 1:26-cv-90233, before Judge M. Quillford. Pellwick, a Virginia corporation that operates refrigerated warehouses, pleads breach of contract, breach of express warranty, breach of the implied warranty of fitness and negligent design against Dunmarrow, a North Carolina limited liability company, invoking diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The claims arise from ammonia refrigeration systems Dunmarrow designed and installed at Pellwick's warehouses in Manassas, Sterling and Fredericksburg under a master contract dated 2024-03-11 (contract no. MC-2024-017). Pellwick alleges that the systems failed to hold temperature on eleven dates between 2025-07-08 and 2025-10-02, that stored product worth about $2.3 million was lost, and that Dunmarrow's repairs did not cure the fault. Dunmarrow denies the allegations, answered on 2026-04-06 and counterclaimed for $418,000 in unpaid invoices. The court entered its scheduling order on 2026-05-14 with a discovery cutoff of 2027-01-15. On 2026-09-22 Pellwick served its expert disclosure, naming a refrigeration engineer, a controls specialist and a damages accountant. Dunmarrow's disclosure is due 2026-10-22, and discovery is ongoing.

Opportunity insight

This is a high value opportunity. The expert disclosure shows a case that has cleared pleadings and is heading into expert discovery on a short clock, with three retained experts already named on one side, the other side's due within thirty days, and every deposition in the case to be finished before the 2027-01-15 cutoff. The record is small in documents and heavy in testimony: three sites, eleven alleged failures, the engineers who designed and commissioned each system, the service technicians who answered each call, and the warehouse staff who logged the failures, many of them in North Carolina. The pitch is deposition coverage at volume: six or more retained experts across both sides, remote and video coverage for out-of-state witnesses, and one shared exhibit set across dozens of witnesses. The case will turn on several things: the controller temperature and alarm logs for each failure, the commissioning reports from the 2024 installations, the service tickets after the first failure, and the two sides' damages models. Because each failure is alleged on a specific date and each controller recorded it, every technical deposition will turn on the same charts and logs, which rewards a reporter who manages one exhibit protocol for both sides. Plaintiff's counsel is Halvering & Stott LLP (Marguerite Oakhallow, Desmond Quillenbury); defense counsel is Vennholt Tarrowgate LLP (Anneliese Corvantine, Rowan Fitzgallow). Contact both now, before Dunmarrow's disclosure, with availability through the cutoff, remote coverage for the North Carolina witnesses and a single exhibit protocol.

Estimated testimony scope

Testimony, not documents, carries this case. Three retained experts are named on Pellwick's side and Dunmarrow's are due 2026-10-22, so expect six or more expert depositions, each likely to run a full day with exhibits drawn from the same controller charts and alarm logs. Fact witnesses follow the failures: Pellwick's facility managers and warehouse operations staff at Manassas, Sterling and Fredericksburg, and Dunmarrow's design engineers, commissioning staff and field technicians, most of them in Charlotte and Raleigh. The January 15 cutoff leaves about fifteen weeks for all of it, so sessions will cluster in November and December, with the two damages experts last. Expect video for every expert and realtime for the engineering witnesses; no interpreter needs appear on the docket. Exhibit volume is moderate but repetitive: the same drawing sets, logs and service tickets across dozens of witnesses, which rewards one shared, numbered exhibit set.

Likely depositions

22 to 30 (6 to 8 experts; 16 to 22 fact witnesses)

Sessions and days

24 to 34

Locations

Alexandria and Manassas, VA; Charlotte and Raleigh, NC; several remote

Video, realtime, interpreter

video for all experts; realtime for the engineering witnesses; no interpreter

Transcript pages

4,500 to 7,000

Deadline pressure

Discovery cutoff 2027-01-15; expert depositions must finish before it

Exhibit volume

moderate; one shared set of controller charts, alarm logs, drawings and service tickets

Counsel

In the app, the counsel table lists each attorney with firm, side, email and phone where the court record gives them.

Signal entries on the docket

Grounded in:

Docket text of entry 24

Source filings:

On file. This summary was written from the filed documents.