WhitServe LLC v. Computer Packages, Inc et al
ORDER granting 493 motion to compel. The defendant shall provide the plaintiff with the requested documents on or before February 17, 2013. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Alfred V. Covello on January 24, 2013. (Gentile, N.)
3:06-cv-01935 (AVC) January 24, 2013. The plaintiff’s motion to
compel damages related discovery is GRANTED.
The plaintiff has filed a motion seeking to compel the defendant to
produce financial information from each quarter of 2010, 2011, 2012 and
requests that the disclosures continue on a quarterly basis until a new
trial is held. Specifically, the plaintiff seeks an order requiring the
defendant to produce: (1) balance sheets, income and total annuity
payments; (2) the number of patent taxes paid by [the defendant] or its
agents on behalf of clients that use the infringing products; and (3)
licensing, maintenance and annual fees for the infringing products. In
sum, the plaintiff is seeking an updated version of the financial
disclosure the defendant provided to the plaintiff at trial.
“[P]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter
that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense . . . .” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 26(b)(1). Furthermore, “relevant information need not be admissible
at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id. “The definition of relevance
[is] to be liberally construed . . . .” Breon v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co.,
232 F.R.D. 49, 52 (D. Conn. 2005). Moreover, the district court has
“wide latitude to determine the scope of discovery . . . .” In Re Agent
Orange Product Liability Litigation, 517 F.3d 76, 103 (2d Cir. 2008).
“The objecting party bears the burden of demonstrating specifically how,
despite the broad and liberal construction afforded the federal
discovery rules, each request is not relevant or how each question is
overly broad, unduly burdensome or oppressive . . . .” Klein v. AIG
Trading Group Inc., 228 F.R.D. 418, 422 (D. Conn. 2005) (internal
citations and quotation marks omitted).
The court concludes that the defendant has failed to show how the
plaintiff’s request is overly broad, unduly burdensome or oppressive.
This case was remanded for a new trial on damages, and the plaintiff is
entitled to discovery in order to accurately calculate those damages. If
the defendant concludes that the material is inadmissible at trial, it
may move to exclude the evidence at the appropriate time. Accordingly,
the motion to compel is GRANTED, and discovery with respect to this
limited issue is re-opened. The defendant shall provide the plaintiff
with the requested documents on or before February 17, 2013.
Alfred V. Covello, U.S.D.J.
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?