Alcohol Monitoring Systems, Inc. v. Actsoft, Inc. et al

Filing 283

ORDER denying 274 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. Each party shall pay their own attorney fees and costs for this motion. By Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 7/18/11.(mnf, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 07-cv-02261-PAB-MJW
(Consolidated with 08-cv-01226-PAB-MJW)
ALCOHOL MONITORING SYSTEMS, INC.,
Plaintiff
v.
ACTSOFT, INC.,
OHIO HOUSE MONITORING SYSTEMS, INC., and
US HOME DETENTION SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT, INC.,
Defendants.

ORDER REGARDING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL (DOCKET NO. 274)

Entered by United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (docket no. 274).
The court has reviewed the subject motion (docket no. 274) and the response (docket
278) thereto. In addition, the court has taken judicial notice of the court file and has
considered applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and case law. The court now
being fully informed makes the following findings of fact, conclusions of law, and Order.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The court finds:
1.

That I have jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the parties
to this lawsuit;

2.

That venue is proper in the state and District of Colorado;

2
3.

That each party has been given a fair and adequate opportunity to
be heard;

4.

That at the Status Conference on May 12, 2011, Judge Brimmer
denied Defendant’s request to re-open discovery. See docket no.
269 and record of court proceedings. Judge Brimmer informed the
parties that any supplemental production by Defendant Actsoft
would be limited to that which Plaintiff AMS had already requested
prior to discovery cut-off;

5.

That in the subject motion, Plaintiff AMS seeks an Order from this
court directing Defendant Actsoft to produce “all documents related
to Actsoft’s revenue and profits from the accused device;”

6.

That Plaintiff AMS’ argument that the word “sales,” as used in their
discovery requests [i.e., Requests for Production Numbered 12, 13,
and 14], includes the rental of equipment or charging of monitoring
fees is misplaced. Moreover, if Plaintiff AMS wanted information
concerning the rental of equipment or charging of monitoring fees
or rental and monitoring revenue, it could have specially requested
such information in its discovery requests but it did not; and

7.

That Defendant Actsoft has already produced those portions of the
G4S Asset Purchase Agreement Falling Within the Scope of AMS’
Pre-Discovery Cut-Off Requests that relate to the “sale of accused
products.” Plaintiff AMS’ request that this court order that
Defendant Actsoft produce the entire unredacted G4S Asset

3
Purchase Agreement is without merit. Plaintiff AMS now seeks the
unredacted portions of the G4S Asset Purchase Agreement in
order to evaluate whether G4S should be added as a party to this
lawsuit. See docket no. 274 at p. 7. However, the time to add
additional parties has long since expired. Further, the discovery
deadline in this case has also long since expired. In addition, this
case is set for (a) a Final Pretrial Conference on August 29, 2011,
at 1:30 p.m.; (b) a Trial Preparation Conference on October 11,
2011, at 1:00 p.m.; and (c) Jury Trial on October 31, 2011, at 8:00
a.m.
ORDER
WHEREFORE, based upon these findings of fact and conclusions of law this
court ORDERS:
1.

That Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (docket no. 274) is DENIED; and

2.

That each party shall pay their own attorney fees and costs for this
motion.

Done this 18th day of July 2011.

BY THE COURT

s/Michael J. Watanabe
MICHAEL J. WATANABE
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE