California Natural Products v. Illinois Tool Works, Inc.

Filing 34

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 3/14/2012 GRANTING in part, DENYING in part 18 Motion for Expedited Discovery. (Michel, G)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13

CALIFORNIA NATURAL PRODUCTS
(d/b/a POWER AUTOMATION
SYSTEMS), a California
Corporation,
Plaintiff,

14
15
16
17

vs.
ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS, INC.
(d/b/a HARTNESS INTERNATIONAL,
INC.), a Delaware Corporation,
Defendant.

18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:12-CV-00593-JAM-GGH
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY

19

This matter is before this Court on plaintiff CALIFORNIA

20

NATURAL PRODUCTS’ (d/b/a POWER AUTOMATION SYSTEMS) (“PAS”) Motion

21

for Expedited Discovery (Doc. #18).

22

Defendant (Doc #24).

23

the proposed discovery requests filed therewith, and the entire

24

record herein and finding good cause therefor,

25
26
27
28

The Motion is opposed by

Upon consideration of this Motion, as well as

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that PAS’s Motion for Expedited Discovery
is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:
1.

PAS’s 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice attached as Exhibit A to

its Motion for Expedited Discovery is deemed served on defendant
1

1

ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS, INC. (d/b/a HARTNESS INTERNATIONAL, INC.)

2

(“ITW”) at this time.

3

mutually agreeable to both parties, but no later than April 4, 2012

4

at 10:00 a.m.;

5

2.

The deposition shall commence on a date

PAS’s Request for Production of Documents (“Documents

6

Request”) attached as Exhibit B to its Motion for Expedited

7

Discovery is deemed served on ITW at this time.

8

ITW’s objections to PAS’s Documents Request to be meritorious, in

9

part.

The Court finds

For purposes of the Motion for Preliminary Injunction, some

10

of the document requests are overbroad and go beyond the boundaries

11

of the Preliminary Injunction Motion.

12
13
14

Accordingly, the following guidelines shall apply to the
Documents Request:
(a)

The parties are instructed to immediately meet and confer

15

concerning a protective order, given that PAS is requesting ITW to

16

produce some documents which are likely to contain confidential and

17

proprietary information.

18

eyes only” protective order is too narrow, however, and that the

19

protective order must, at a minimum, also allow an expert witness

20

and up to two knowledgeable individuals designated by each party to

21

view any documents marked confidential and proprietary. A

22

protective order should be submitted to the Court for approval no

23

later than March 20, 2012.

24
25
26
27
28

(b)

The Court believes that a “for attorneys’

No documents dated prior to January 2010 shall be

required to be produced by ITW at this time.
(c)

ITW shall make its best efforts to produce the following

documents to PAS:
1.

Promotional, advertising and marketing materials
2

1

related to or developed for ITW’s “StorFast” system including,

2

but not limited to, the document attached to PAS’s Rule

3

30(b)(6) deposition notice as Exhibit 1.

4

2.

Promotional, advertising and marketing materials

5

developed for potential customers or provided to actual

6

customers at the MODEX trade show in Atlanta, Georgia in

7

February 2012; and any documents identifying actual customers

8

to whom these materials were given.

9

3.

Promotional, advertising and marketing materials

10

provided to SIBCO or anyone acting on its behalf including,

11

but not limited to, Eric Tverberg.

12

4.

Promotional, advertising and marketing materials

13

provided to Coca-Cola in Malaysia or anyone acting on its

14

behalf.

15

5.

Any and all documents containing statements or

16

representations by ITW that it developed and/or installed an

17

automated storage and retrieval system with a lift and a cart

18

at any of the sites identified in Exhibit 1 to PAS’s Rule

19

30(b)(6) deposition notice, as well as the Pepsi bottler in

20

North Carolina.

21

(d)

The Court admonishes PAS and ITW that it expects the

22

parties to fully cooperate with each other and make a good faith

23

effort to resolve any disputes that may arise concerning this Order

24

without further involvement of the Court.

25

are unable to informally resolve any such disputes and, instead

26

choose to submit a discovery dispute related to this Order to the

27

Court for resolution, the motion should be submitted to Magistrate

28

Judge Hollows pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(1).
3

However, if the parties

1
2
3

3.

ITW shall make its representative(s) available for

deposition within twenty (20) days of this Order;
4.

ITW shall deliver to PAS’s counsel by hand or fax or

4

email (pdf) its written responses and responsive documents within

5

fifteen (15) days of this Order; and

6

5.

PAS is permitted to immediately issue a subpoena to

7

Precision Distribution Consulting, Inc., in the form attached as

8

Exhibit C to its Motion for Expedited Discovery.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 14, 2012.

____________________________
JOHN A. MENDEZ,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4