T. V. D. B. Sarl et al v. KAPLA USA, LP et al

Filing 59

ORDER denying 33 Motion to Compel; denying 33 Motion to Dismiss; denying 33 Motion for Sanctions; denying 33 Motion to Expedite; denying 41 Motion Confirmation of Designation ; denying 42 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 9/11/13. (bcw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION

T.V.D.B. SARI; KAPLA FRANCE
SARL; and TOM'S TOYS, LLC,

)
)
)

Plaintiffs,
)

Case No. CV412-230

V.

KAPLA USA, LP; KAPLA USA GP,
LLC; CITIBLOCSOCS, LLC; and
MARJORIE I. CHAYETTE,
Defendants.

Before the Court in this international business dispute case are
three discovery matters. First, defendants move to compel certain
discovery responses from the plaintiffs, and to sanction them for
"repeated" discovery violations. Doc. 33. They invoke the dismissal
sanction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41. Id. at 1, 15. Only the district judge
can grant that sanction, as well as reach the later-filed plaintiffs' motion
for summary judgment, doe. 50, to which defendants have responded

without invoking Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). Under Rule 56(d), the nonmovant

can show "by affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot
present facts essential to justify its opposition. . . ." Id.
Nor, for that matter, do the defendants express any informationbased difficulty in filing their own motion for summary judgment. Doc.
50. Their brief is saturated with supporting evidence cites. Doc. 51.
And both sides seek complete summary judgment. Docs 49-1 at 21; doe.
51 at 34. Given the apparently high probability that this particular
discovery dispute will be mooted by the district judge's summary
judgment ruling, defendants' motion to compel (doc. 33) is DENIED
without prejudice.
The same result is warranted for plaintiffs' motion to compel
defendants to "fully" respond to their discovery requests. Doe. 42. For
that matter, defendants insist they have fully responded. Doe. 45. Thus,
plaintiffs' motion to compel (doe. 42) is also DENIED without prejudice.
Finally, defendant CITIBLOCS, LLC (CITIBLOCS), moves for an
order confirming "Attorneys Eyes Only" designation on "hundreds of
pages of historical sales data for the years 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012...
." Doe. 41 at 2. Some background: the parties consented to entry of a
joint protective order. Doe. 27. They contemplated that certain
2

documents would be so sensitive (proprietary information) that only
their attorneys could see them -- if they were designated "Attorneys Eyes
Only."

Id. at 1. CITIBLOCS places its "historical sales information"

(hence, masses of documents) in that category. Doc. 41 at 2. Plaintiffs
challenged that designation.

Id.

So, CITIBLOCS asks this Court to

confirm its designation. Id. at 3.
Plaintiffs disagree. Doe. 43. CITIBLOCS, it insists, "failed to
provide any specific support or make a particularized showing that the
disputed documents warrant the Attorneys Eyes Only designation," doe.
43 at 5, so under governing law, its motion should be denied. Id. Again,
however, this dispute floats atop later-filed summary judgment motions
that, once ruled upon, may also wash this particular dispute out with the
tide. Hence, CITIBLOCS' "designation" motion, doe. 41 is likewise
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED this

/1tt

day of September, 2013.

UNITE Ij STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTH RN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

3