Scotsman Industries, Inc. et al v. Broadbent
Filing
45
ORDER granting 38 Motion to Compel, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 9/6/12.(sgrim)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 11-cv-01793-JLK-KLM
SCOTSMAN INDUSTRIES, INC., and
MILE HIGH EQUIPMENT LLC,
Plaintiffs and Counter Defendants,
v.
JOHN A. BROADBENT,
Defendant and Counter Claimant.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery
Responses from Defendant [Docket No. 38; Filed July 13, 2012] (the “Motion”).
Defendant filed a Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery
Responses from Defendant [Docket No. 40; Filed August 3, 2012] (the “Response”), and
Plaintiffs filed a Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Compel Discovery Responses
from Defendant [Docket No. 41; Filed August 17, 2012] (the “Reply”). The Motion is thus
ripe for review.
A.
BACKGROUND
This matter pertains to allegations that Defendant, shortly before resigning from his
employment with Plaintiffs, downloaded electronic files containing confidential information
without Plaintiffs’ authorization. Complaint [#1] at 1. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant made
false and misleading statements that he had returned all company materials and had not
1
retained any such materials. Id. at 6. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendant retained the
electronic files for the purpose of engaging in work with others in the same industry,
including Plaintiffs’ competitors. Id. at 5, 12.
The Motion seeks an order compelling Defendant to respond to three discovery
requests, two interrogatories and one request for production, served on him on May 21,
2012. The discovery requests at issue, and Defendant’s objections, are as follows:
Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory No. 6: Identify and describe all tasks and
engagements that you have performed (other than for Plaintiffs) since
December 1, 2010 relating to Ice Technology and/or Equipment, including the
intervention, conception, design, development, testing, manufacture,
marketing, promotion or sale of such technology or equipment.
Defendant’s Objections to Interrogatory No. 6: Defendant objects to the
discovery request as being vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly
burdensome. Defendant also objects to this request to the extent it seeks
information confidential to non-parties. Moreover, Defendant is subject to
written confidentiality agreement(s) which prohibit the disclosure of
information requested by this interrogatory. Finally, Defendant objects to this
interrogatory because it seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead
to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory No. 7: Identify each person and entity (other than for
Plaintiffs) who has employed, engaged or utilized you (either directly or
indirectly, e.g., through an entity by which you are or have been employed or
otherwise engaged) to perform, or for whose benefit you have performed any
work or other services relating to Ice Technology and/or Equipment since
December 1, 2010, and for each state the nature of your engagement, the
nature of the work or other services you provided, and the time period during
which you performed such work or services.
Defendant’s Objections to Interrogatory No. 7: Defendant objects to the
discovery request as being vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly
burdensome. Moreover, Defendant is subject to written confidentiality
agreement(s) which prohibit the disclosure of information requested by this
interrogatory. Finally, Defendant objects to this interrogatory because it
seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.
2
Plaintiffs’ Request for Production No. 5: All documents regarding any
employment, task, or engagement that you undertook, or that you
communicated about the possibility of undertaking, either directly or indirectly
(e.g., through an entity by which you are or were employed or otherwise
engaged), for anyone other than Plaintiffs since June 1, 2010 relating to Ice
Machine Technology and/or Equipment.
Defendant’s Objections to Request for Production No. 5: Defendant objects
to the discovery request as being vague, ambiguous, overly broad and
unduly burdensome. Defendant also objects to this request to the extent it
seeks information confidential to non-parties. Moreover, Defendant is
subject to written confidentiality agreement(s) which prohibit the disclosure
of information requested by this interrogatory. Finally, Defendant objects to
this interrogatory because it seeks information not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
B.
ARGUMENT AND ANALYSIS
Plaintiffs argue that discovery regarding Defendant’s work in the ice equipment and
technology field since his employment with Plaintiffs, and the identities of those who have
retained him to perform such work, is relevant to their claims and reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. They contend that the requested discovery
is necessary to determine the extent to which Defendant disclosed to others the copied files
or any confidential information contained therein. They argue the discovery would also help
determine whether Defendant is using such information to perform work for others in the
ice equipment and technology business.
Defendant argues in response that he is not subject to a non-compete covenant or
related post-employment restrictions. He contends that this case is not about his postemployment activities and thus any requests for information about such activities are
beyond the scope of permissible discovery. He also claims the discovery is not relevant
because in another interrogatory, he responded that he had not provided any of the copied
files to any person or entity. Defendant further argues that pursuant to the terms of a
3
written consulting services agreement, he is prohibited from disclosing the information
Plaintiffs are requesting.
Generally, the test for allowing discovery of information or documents is whether the
information “is relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). This is
a deliberately broad standard which is meant to allow the parties to discover the information
necessary to prove or disprove their cases. Gomez v. Martin Marietta Corp., 50 F.3d 1511,
1520 (10th Cir. 1995); Simpson v. Univ. of Colo., 220 F.R.D. 354, 356 (D. Colo. 2004);
Cardenas v. Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc., 232 F.R.D. 377, 382 (D. Kan. 2005) (“Relevancy
is broadly construed, and a request for discovery should be considered relevant if there is
‘any possibility’ that the information sought may be relevant to the claim or defense of any
party.” (citations omitted)). If the material sought is relevant to the case and may lead to
admissible evidence, it should generally be produced. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
However, where the burden of producing relevant discovery outweighs the likely benefit,
the Court has discretion to limit the discovery requested. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C); see
Qwest Commc’ns Int’l v. Worldquest Networks, Inc., 213 F.R.D. 418, 419 (D. Colo. 2003).
The objecting party bears the burden to show why a discovery request is
objectionable, and that burden cannot be sustained merely by asserting “boilerplate claims
that the requested discovery is oppressive, burdensome or harassing.” Klesch & Co. v.
Liberty Media Corp., 217 F.R.D. 517, 524 (D. Colo. 2003). “When a party files a motion to
compel and asks the Court to overrule certain objections, the objecting party must
specifically show in its response to the motion to compel, despite the broad and liberal
construction afforded by the federal discovery rules, how each request for production or
interrogatory is objectionable.” Sonninno v Univ. of Kan. Hosp. Auth., 221 F.R.D. 661, 670
4
(D.Kan.2004). The court will consider objections that have been addressed in response
to the motion, but will deem as abandoned any objections initially raised but not relied on
in response to the motion. Id. (citing Cotracom Commodity Trading Co. v. Seaboard
Corporation, 189 F.R.D. 655, 662 (D. Kan. 1999)).
Here, the only objections Defendant relies on in response to the Motion are that the
discovery requests are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence and that a confidentiality agreement with his clients prohibits him from disclosing
the information. In response to the discovery requests themselves, Defendant also
objected on grounds that the requests are vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly
burdensome. Because Defendant has failed to argue those objections in response to the
Motion, the Court finds them to be abandoned and will not consider them.
Regarding the question of relevance, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ discovery
requests are relevant to their claims. Plaintiffs raise several allegations in their complaint
pertaining to Defendant’s unauthorized retention and use of company files. In Count I,
where Plaintiffs allege a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1030, they contend that he used a company computer to download confidential
information for use in his post-employment activities. Complaint [#1] at 4. In Count II,
Plaintiffs allege a breach of two confidentiality agreements in which Defendant agreed not
to communicate or disclose any confidential information acquired during the period of his
employment. Id. at 11. In Count III, Plaintiffs allege a breach of fiduciary duty and duty of
loyalty based on Defendant’s alleged improper acquisition of company files. Id. at 12.
Lastly, in County IV, Plaintiffs allege misappropriation of trade secrets based on
Defendant’s alleged improper downloading and retention of company files for his post5
employment use. Id. at 13. Thus, Plaintiffs’ discovery requests regarding Defendant’s
post-employment activities are clearly relevant to the claims alleged in their complaint.
Defendant’s contention that the requests are not relevant because he already
answered in a separate interrogatory that he has not disclosed the copied files to anyone,
does not change the Court’s conclusion. Plaintiffs are not required to simply accept
Defendant’s conclusory assertion without further inquiry. Plaintiffs must be allowed to
challenge the accuracy of Defendant’s assertions through further discovery. Accordingly,
Defendant’s objection that the claims are not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence is overruled.
Likewise, Defendant’s objection based on a confidentiality provision in a consulting
services agreement between him and his clients is overruled. Plaintiffs and Defendant
submitted a Stipulated Protective Order [#37] that the Court adopted (with minor
modifications) and issued on July 6, 2012. As Plaintiffs point out in the Reply, the discovery
requests at issue were served before Defendant stipulated to the Protective Order.
Moreover, the strict terms of the Protective Order will adequately protect any sensitive
information about which Defendant has concerns. See E.E.O.C. v. Thorman & Wright
Corp., 243 F.R.D. 426, 430 (D. Kan. 2007) (confidentiality objection overruled where entry
of protective order would appropriately safeguard any potential for harm from disclosure
of sensitive information).
C.
PAYMENT OF EXPENSES
Lastly, Plaintiffs seek an order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A) requiring
Defendant to pay the reasonable expenses they incurred in bringing the motion. The rule
provides that “the court must, after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the party or
6
deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion, the party or attorney advising that
conduct, or both to pay the movant’s reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion,
including attorney’s fees.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). Payment “must not” be ordered if
the motion was filed before the movant made a good faith attempt to obtain the discovery
without court action, the opposing party’s objection was substantially justified, or other
circumstances make an award of expenses unjust. Id.
Here, Plaintiffs made sufficient good faith attempts to obtain the discovery without
court action. Additionally, as explained above, Defendant’s objections are not substantially
justified. Nor has Defendant presented circumstances that make an award of expenses
unjust. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to their reasonable expenses.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#38] is GRANTED; Defendant shall
respond to the two interrogatories and the request for production of documents on or before
September 20, 2012.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs are entitled to their reasonable costs and
fees incurred to adjudicate the Motion. On or before September 25, 2012, Plaintiffs shall
file affidavits and information in compliance with D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.3 regarding the
reasonable expenses incurred in bringing the motion. No motion shall be necessary.
Defendant shall file a response, if any, with ten (10) days of Plaintiffs’ submissions. No
reply shall be permitted.
Dated: September 6, 2012
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?