G.P.P., Inc. v. Guardian Protection Products, Inc.

Filing 372

ORDER FOLLOWING INFORMAL DISCOVERY DISPUTE CONFERENCE. The parties SHALL meet and confer to narrow the scope of their dispute with respect to the 27 document requests and 14 deposition examination topics currently at issue. Should the parties require more time to meet and confer and/or complete this discovery, the Court will consider enlarging the case schedule to accommodate their request. Finally, to the extent any dispute remains as to this discovery, the parties SHALL proceed as set forth in this Court's Local Rule 251. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 6/19/2020. (Apodaca, P)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

G.P.P., INC. d/b/a GUARDIAN
INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS,

10
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14
15

v.
GUARDIAN PROTECTION PRODUCTS,
INC., RPM WOOD FINISHES GROUP,
INC.,

Case No. 1:15-cv-00321-SKO
ORDER FOLLOWING INFORMAL
DISCOVERY DISPUTE CONFERENCE

Defendants.

16

_____________________________________/

17

GUARDIAN PROTECTION PRODUCTS,
INC.,

18

Counterclaimant,

19
20

v.

21
22
23
24

G.P.P., INC. d/b/a GUARDIAN
INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS,
Counter-defendant.
_____________________________________/

25
26
27
28

On June 18, 2020, the Court held a telephonic informal discovery dispute conference
regarding clarification of the Court’s May 26, 2020 order granting Plaintiff/Counter-defendant

1 G.P.P., Inc. d/b/a Guardian Innovative Solutions (“GIS”)’s motion for leave to supplement the
2 complaint and reopening discovery. Dylan Liddiard, Esq., Jason Mollick, Esq., and Brian Levy,
3 Esq., appeared on behalf of GIS. Aaron Rudin, Esq. and Emerson Kim, Esq. appeared on behalf of
4 Defendant/Counterclaimant Guardian Protection Products, Inc. (“Guardian”).
5

In its May 26, 2020 order, the Court granted GIS’s motion for leave to supplement its

6 complaint to add an eleventh claim, namely, a cause of action for breach of the Mid-Atlantic, Cook
7 County, Indiana, Midwest, and Pennsylvania Agreements relating to Guardian’s alleged post-trial
8 termination of those agreements (the “Eleventh Cause of Action”). (See Doc. 366.) In so doing,
9 the Court reopened discovery “for the limited purpose of addressing the issue of damages that have
10 occurred since the trial in this case and as a result of the additional alleged breaches.” (Id. at 14.) It
11 limited each side to “one Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of no more than seven (7) hours, and any limited
12 necessary written discovery directly related to the depositions.” (Id.)
13

As discussed at the conference, the Court’s May 26, 2020 order intended to reopen discovery

14 “for the purpose of addressing the issue of damages that have occurred since the trial in this case”
15 as to the claims remanded by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, defined as the “Remanded Claims”
16 in the Court’s December 13, 2019 Order (Doc. 349), and “as a result of the additional alleged
17 breaches” alleged in the Eleventh Cause of Action of GIS’s supplemental complaint (Doc. 367).
18 Thus, the parties may take one Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of no more than seven (7) hours, and any
19 limited necessary written discovery directly related to the depositions, pertaining to:
20

1.

21

June 30, 2017 as to the Remanded Claims (as defined in the Court’s December 13, 2019

22

Order (Doc. 349)); and

23

2.

24

Eleventh Cause of Action in its supplemental complaint (Doc. 367).

Damages that GIS has allegedly incurred since the original judgment was filed on

Damages that GIS has allegedly incurred as a result of the breaches alleged in its

25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
2

1

In light of this clarification, the parties SHALL meet and confer to narrow the scope of their

2 dispute with respect to the 27 document requests and 14 deposition examination topics currently at
3 issue. Should the parties require more time to meet and confer and/or complete this discovery, the
4 Court will consider enlarging the case schedule to accommodate their request.
5

Finally, to the extent any dispute remains as to this discovery, the parties SHALL proceed

6 as set forth in this Court’s Local Rule 251.
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9 Dated:
10

June 19, 2020

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

.