Almblad v. Scotsman Industries, Inc. et al

Filing 75

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable John W. Darrah on June 18, 2014.(mr, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
ROBERT ALMBLAD,
Plaintiff,
v.
SCOTSMAN INDUSTRIES, INC. and
KEVIN FINK,
Defendants.

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

Case No. 13-CV-1297
Judge John W. Darrah

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, Robert Almblad (“Almblad”), has filed a Motion to Compel Discovery,
seeking production of certain testing data from Defendants, Scotsman Industries, Inc. and
Kevin Fink (collectively, “Scotsman”). For the following reasons, Almblad’s Motion is
granted.
BACKGROUND 1
Scotsman manufactures ice machines for commercial use. (Second Amended
Complaint (“SAC”), Count I ¶ 1.) Almblad determined that a defect in the design of
certain Scotsman ice machines allowed unwanted substances to enter the machine. (SAC,
Count I ¶ 6.) Almblad invented a device to prevent this alleged problem. (SAC, Count I
¶ 7.) On February 28, 2012, Scotsman composed a written statement, which Scotsman
later disseminated orally, asserting that Scotsman had performed tests of its ice machines
and the problems alleged by Almblad did not exist.
1

A complete account of the background of this case can be found in the previous
Memorandum Opinion and Order, issued on March 26, 2014. (Dkt. No. 59.)

On September 16, 2013, Almblad filed the two-count SAC. On March 26, 2014,
upon a motion brought by Scotsman, one of the two counts was dismissed. Proceeding
on the remaining Count I, alleging defamation, Almblad now moves to compel Scotsman
to produce certain testing results, which he argues are necessary to prove that Scotsman
“falsely denied criticism by [Almblad] of [Scotsman’s] ice machines, attributing base
motives to [Almblad].” (Pl.’s Mot. to Compel at 2.) Specifically, Almblad alleges
Scotsman:
. . . composed a written defamatory statement for dissemination to the
public falsely asserting that its products did not have the design defect
identified by Robert Almblad and falsely asserting that Robert Almblad
was making false claims about his own inventions for his commercial
advantage, to wit: among other things Scotsman Industries Inc. falsely
asserted that engineering testing was conducted and it was determined that
Scotsman Industries Inc.’s ice machines did not draw in sewer gas from
drains and also that its ice machines were equipped with a component that
prevents dust from entering a food zone of the machines, as had been
asserted by the plaintiff, Robert Almblad, rendering his inventions
unnecessary.
(SAC, Count I ¶ 9.)
The parties agree that Scotsman has produced its tests regarding sewer gas and
argue only for disclosure of tests and responses to interrogatories regarding “air flow.” 2
LEGAL STANDARD
District courts are afforded broad discretion in matters of compelling discovery.
James v. Hyatt Regency Chicago, 707 F.3d 775, 784 (7th Cir. 2013.) The general scope
of discovery allows parties to “obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that
2

Almblad’s Motion also requests test results and other information produced after
February 28, 2012, to which Scotsman initially objected. However, Scotsman has since
produced post-February 28, 2012 documents related to sewer gas. (Defs.’ Response at 5,
n. 2.)
2

is relevant to any party's claim or defense – including the existence, description, nature,
custody, condition, and location of any documents or other tangible things and the
identity and location of persons who know of any discoverable matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(b)(1). However, this normally expansive grant should be limited when “the burden or
expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(b)(2)(C)(iii). A motion to compel is properly denied when the information sought is
not relevant to a plaintiff’s claims. See Griffin v. City of Milwaukee, 74 F.3d 824, 829
(7th Cir. 1996).
ANALYSIS
Scotsman argues that documents related to airflow should not be discoverable
because discovery is “limited to the specific alleged defamatory statements.” (Defs.’
Response at 3.) Even if this limit is accepted, Almblad’s request does not exceed it.
Almblad alleges that Scotsman defamed him by stating that his conclusions about
Scotsman’s ice machines were incorrect and offered in self-promotion. Specifically,
Almblad asserts that Scotsman falsely asserted that its ice machines were equipped with
“dustproof barriers,” making Almblad’s inventions unnecessary. Almblad now seeks
discovery of any tests, including airflow tests, showing that no dust is present in the food
zone of Scotsman’s ice machines. This request is reasonably related to Almblad’s
allegations, and Scotsman’s subsequent arguments that disclosure would be unduly
burdensome and that the results are commercially sensitive are unpersuasive.
Yet, Almblad’s discovery request is subject to reasonable limitations. Although
Almblad should not be strictly limited by the precise words of the SAC, Almblad’s
contention that the phrase “among other things” put Scotsman on notice that Almblad
3

considered many statements not alleged in the SAC to be defamatory is not persuasive.
Accordingly, Scotsman shall disclose any airflow test results or documents that
demonstrate or disprove the passage of dust into the food zone.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Almblad’s Motion to Compel Discovery [61] is
granted. Scotsman shall disclose forthwith any airflow test results or related documents
which demonstrate or disprove the passage of dust into the food zone of Scotsman
Industries Inc.’s ice machines.

Date:

June 18, 2014

______________________________
JOHN W. DARRAH
United States District Court Judge

4