TECNOMATIC, S.P.A. v. REMY, INC. et al
Filing
420
ORDER granting in part and denying in part Tecnomatic's 317 Motion to Compel (see Order). Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 3/27/2013. (SWM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
REMY INC.
Plaintiff,
vs.
TECNOMATIC, S.P.A.,
Defendant,
______________________________________
TECNOMATIC, S.P.A.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
REMY, INC.,
HANSON SYSTEMS, LLC D/B/A EAGLE
TECHNOLOGIES GROUP,
ODAWARA AUTOMATION, INC.,
REMY INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
DELCO REMY MEXICO, S.R.L. DE C.V.,
REMY COMPONENTES S. DE R.L. DE
C.V.,
1-10 DOES,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 1:11-cv-00991-SEB-MJD
ORDER ON TECNOMATIC’S MOTION TO COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS AND COMPLETE ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES TO REMY
[DKT. 317]
This matter is before the Court on Tecnomatic’s Motion to Compel the Production of
Documents and Complete Answers to Tecnomatic’s Interrogatories to Remy. [Dkt. 317.] The
Court held a hearing on this motion on September 27, 2012, at which the Remy Defendants
(“Remy”), Tecnomatic, S.P.A. (“Tecnomatic”), and Odawara Automation, Inc. (“Odawara”)
appeared by counsel. The Court, being duly advised, GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN
PART the Motion to Compel as follows:
A.
Interrogatories
Tecnomatic takes issue with Remy’s responses to Remy Inc.’s Answers to Tecnomatic’s
Interrogatories [Dkt. 318-6], Remy Inc.’s Amended and Supplemental Answers to Tecnomatic’s
Interrogatories [Dkt. 318-7], and Remy Inc.’s Second Amended and Supplemental Answers to
Tecnomatic S.p.A.’s Interrogatories [Dkt. 318-8]. Remy indicated in open court that Remy Inc.’s
Second Amended and Supplemental Answers [Dkt. 318-8] are the final response and the
previous responses are incorporated into Dkt. 318-8, therefore, the Court will focus its discussion
upon this response. [See Dkt. 382 at 6-7.] The interrogatories in question are Interrogatory Nos.
5, 6, and 7.
1.
Interrogatory No. 5
With regard to Interrogatory No. 5, Remy first objects on the grounds that subparts (a)
through (c) of the interrogatory are overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, and
seek information that is not relevant to a claim or defense in the case. This interrogatory seeks
information regarding the “Tecnomatic Production System.”
First, Remy’s objection that Tecnomatic should have requested the information sought by
this interrogatory in the earlier portion of this case is overruled. The Court finds that the
information requested is relevant to Tecnomatic’s claims in the lawsuit.
The Court limits the time frame for this interrogatory to the period from December 1,
2006 through September 30, 2008. [See Dkt. 382 at 14.] With that limitation, Remy’s
overbreadth objections as to that time period are overruled. Remy’s overbreadth objections as to
any other time periods are sustained.
2
Remy’s objections as to the scope of the individuals encompassed by this interrogatory
are granted in part and denied in part. Remy’s objections are overruled as to any individuals who
participated in the conception, design, development, manufacture, operation or maintenance of
the equipment at issue. Remy’s objections are also overruled as to any individuals who accessed
the equipment for the purpose of inspecting, photographing, videotaping, or otherwise examining
the equipment. However, to the extent the term “access” encompasses any individual not
specifically set forth above, the Court finds that term to be overly broad and Remy’s objection in
that regard is sustained.
Remy also objects, as unduly burdensome, to Tecnomatic’s request in subpart (a) for “a
detailed description of the individual’s involvement.” With the limitation on the time period and
relevant individuals set forth herein, Remy’s objections to this aspect of Tecnomatic’s
interrogatory are not well taken and are overruled. Likewise, with the limitations already
imposed, Remy’s objections to the phrase “and the purpose for providing such access” in subpart
(b) are also overruled. Additionally, with the limitations otherwise imposed, Remy’s objections
to subpart (c) are also overruled; Remy is to identify all individuals and entities who were
provided access to the information identified in subpart (c) and indicate the purpose for which
each such person or entity was provided such access.
Finally, in light of the limitations set forth above, any other objections asserted by Remy
with regard to Interrogatory No. 5 are also overruled and Remy is ordered to provide a complete
and unequivocal response thereto.
2.
Interrogatory No. 6
With regard to Interrogatory No. 6, Tecnomatic argues that Remy did not articulate when
or why they provided certain information to Eagle. Remy argues that, under Rule 33(d), it
3
identified by Bates number transmissions of information to Eagle that indicated the date and to
whom the materials were sent as well as why the information was provided. The Court finds that,
so long as the documents in question were specifically identified by Bates number, the
interrogatory response in that regard is sufficient and thus the motion is denied with regard to
this issue.
Tecnomatic next takes issue with Remy’s response regarding information provided to
Eagle in connection with the DCX project. In its response, Remy answered that it “is not aware
of any Tecnomatic data, information, or materials that were provided to Eagle in connection with
the DCX project.” [Dkt. 318-8 at 9.] Tecnomatic argues, however, that there is a discrepancy
between this response and the answer regarding the HVH project where Remy definitely answers
that it did not provide any Tecnomatic information to Eagle. The Court does not find anything
deficient in that portion of the response.
Tecnomatic also expressed concern that Remy’s general objections to Interrogatory No. 6
will limit its response. Counsel for Remy represented that the general objections would not limit
its response to subparts (a) through (d) and once it has identified people with regard to this
interrogatory, it will fully respond. [Dkt. 382 at 49-50]. In light of Remy’s representation,
Remy’s general objections to Interrogatory No. 6 are sustained.
With regard to the transmission of Tecnomatic information to Eagle, Tecnomatic argues
that Remy did not identify whether any transmission of information was made verbally. Remy
argues that this is more of a subject of inquiry for a deposition. The Court finds that it would be
reasonable for Remy to interview the people who transmitted responsive information and inquire
into whether any transmissions were made verbally. While a detailed narrative may exceed the
burden requirement, Remy must identify which individuals had communications with Eagle and
4
provide at least a general description of those communications. Tecnomatic’s motion to compel
is granted with respect to this issue.
Finally, with the understanding that Remy’s response must be complete as to all highvoltage hairpin projects involving Remy and Eagle during the relevant time period, the
remaining portions of Tecnomatic’s motion to compel with regard to this interrogatory are
denied.
3.
Interrogatory No. 7
With regard to Interrogatory No. 7, Tecnomatic argues that Remy did not provide any
information with regard to Taggert McGough as an agent of Odawara. Tecnomatic argues that,
even if Interrogatory No. 7 is not read to include the agents of Odawara, information regarding
Taggert McGough should have been provided in response to Interrogatory No. 5. Remy has
agreed to supplement its response to this interrogatory and identify whether Remy communicated
with McGough and whether he was provided with information responsive to this interrogatory.
[Dkt. 382 at 57.]
Tecnomatic also argues that Remy failed to identify any Remy personnel responsible for
sending or communicating the Tecnomatic data or material information to Odawara. Tecnomatic
argues that there were emails that show when Remy personnel were copying the disks and at
whose instructions the disks were copied and Remy failed to reference any of these documents in
response to this interrogatory. Remy responds that at the time of the response, its intent was to
provide a full and complete answer, however, it will review and supplement if needed. [Dkt. 382
at 58.] In light of Remy’s duty to supplement, Tecnomatic’s motion to compel in this regard is
denied.
5
The remaining issues with regard to Interrogatory No. 7 have been addressed in the
Court’s decision regarding Interrogatory No. 6 and thus the Court incorporates its ruling as to
Interrogatory No. 6 as its ruling on Interrogatory No. 7, with all references therein as to “Eagle”
changed to references to “Odawara.”
B.
Request for Production
Tecnomatic moves this Court to compel Remy to fully respond to Tecnomatic’s Fourth
Request for Production of Documents [Dkt. 318-2].
With regard to request No. 1, Remy first objects on the basis of privilege and work
product. Remy acknowledged that any privileged or otherwise protected responsive documents
must be listed on a privilege log.
The next objection is on the basis that Tecnomatic seeks confidential information. Remy
represents that it is not withholding any documents on the basis of that objection. In any event,
given that a protective order is in place, Remy’s confidentiality objection is overruled.
The next objection is on the basis that the request is vague and ambiguous because Remy
has not seen Tecnomatic’s FOIA request. The Court orders Tecnomatic to provide Remy with a
copy of the FOIA request. Once Remy receives a copy of Tecnomatic’s FOIA request, this
objection is overruled.
Remy also objects to producing all communications with the Department of Energy
(“DOE”) on the basis of relevance. Tecnomatic argues that the communications are relevant
because the DOE documentation relates to the use of Tecnomatic equipment and the grant funds
relate to the quantification of gains and unjust enrichment and restitution. Remy responds that
the grant funds from the DOE should not be considered as a measure of damages for unjust
enrichment or gain. Remy further argues that Tecnomatic has not asserted an unjust enrichment
6
claim against Remy and is seeking the Court’s permission to add one in. The parties reference
authority on the issue of damages and the quantification of gain including Weston v. Buckley,
677 N.E.2d 1089 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997), and A.F.A. Tours, Inc. v. Whitchurch, 937 F.2d 82 (2nd
Cir. 1991). Tecnomatic filed supplemental authority for the Court to review with regard to
damages. [Dkt. 375.] Remy did not file supplemental authority.
On the issue of relevance, the Court notes that it is generally a low threshold. Some
documents relating to the DOE grant have already been produced. The Court finds that
Tecnomatic has satisfied its burden of demonstrating the potential relevance of the documents
relating to the DOE grant. Therefore, Remy’s relevance objection to this request is overruled and
Tecnomatic’s motion to compel is granted with regard thereto.
With regard to Request No. 2, the issues are substantially similar to that in Request No. 1;
therefore the Court incorporates by reference its ruling regarding Request No. 1 as its order as to
Request No. 2.
Remy objects to Request No. 3 on the basis that is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and
unduly burdensome. Remy also objects on the basis of relevance, which is substantially similar
to its argument with regard to Request No. 1; therefore, the same ruling shall apply for Request
No. 3 with regard to relevance. With the exception that Remy may log any responsive documetns
it claims to be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure, the Court finds that Remy’s
remaining objections to Request No. 3 are not well taken and should be overruled. Tecnomatic’s
motion to compel with regard to this Request is granted.
Request Nos. 4 and 5 are similar in argument to Request No. 3 with regard to the
valuation of Remy’s business operation. Therefore, the Court incorporates by reference its ruling
as to Request No. 3 as its order with regard to Request Nos. 4 and 5.
7
Request No. 6 is more limited; the scope is only related to the valuations with respect to
the EP8 Stator project. As stated in its response and in open court, Remy has agreed to provide
the responsive documents relating to any valuations conducted with regard to Remy’s business
operations in connection with the EP8 stator project. [Dkt. 318-2 at 7-8; Dkt. 382 at 81.]
Accordingly, Tecnomatic’s motion to compel in that regard is denied as moot.
Request No. 7 is limited to valuations of Remy’s business operations with regard to the
HVH project. However, Remy asserts the same arguments as set forth with regard to Request
Nos. 3, 4 and 5. The Court incorporates by reference its ruling as to Request No. 3 as its order
with regard to Request No. 7.
With regard to Request Nos. 8 through 14, 27 and 28, the Court sustains Remy’s
overbreadth objections and denies Tecnomatic’s motion to compel, because those requests seek
the production of documents far beyond anything Tecnomatic may argue to be reasonably related
to the claims or defenses in this case.
Request Nos. 15 and 16 request documents relating to a joint venture with Tecnomatic.
Remy has agreed to produce the responsive documents or log those that are privileged or
otherwise protected, subject to the search protocol to be approved by the Court. Accordingly,
Tecnomatic’s motion to compel in this regard is denied as moot.
In Request No. 37, Remy objects on the basis that the term “HVH stator technology” is
vague and ambiguous as it is not a defined term. Tecnomatic clarified on the record that that
terminology refers to “the stators and the technology used for the stators in the HVH line of
motors.” [Dkt. 382 at 87-88.] Given that clarification, Remy’s objections that the request is
vague and ambiguous are overruled.
8
Remy further objects on the basis of relevance, again requesting clarification on what the
claims are. Remy argues that Tecnomatic does not have a stator design trade secret claim and
thus should not be entitled to every document on the HVH stators, as Tecnomatic requests. Remy
argues that it should be limited to producing information regarding the use of Tecnomatic
information on the HVH project. Tecnomatic argues that the need for all documents relating to
the HVH stators is relevant to the claims they have asserted and to Remy’s defense. Tecnomatic
also argues that it designed portions of the stators including phase lead, jumpers, and neutrals.
Remy has offered to allow Tecnomatic to inspect the HVH stator. Tecnomatic argues that it
needs the documents related to the design and development of the stator, such as drawings, in
order to examine it. The Court finds that Tecnomatic has demonstrated the possible relevance of
the information sought by this request to a claim or defense in this lawsuit. Accordingly, Remy’s
remaining objections to this request are overruled and, subject to Remy’s right to log any
privileged or otherwise protected documents, Remy shall provide a complete response to this
request.
With regard to Request Nos. 38, 39 and 40, the Court finds the requests to be overly
broad to the extent they seek the production of documents outside the scope of Request No. 37.
Accordingly, Tecnomatic’s motion to compel with regard to those requests is denied.
With regard to Request No. 43, the Court finds the request to be overly broad. The terms
“strategic alliance” and “collaborative relationship” are so broad as to encompass virtually any
aspect of Remy’s business that might relate to HVH stator technology, which is well beyond the
reasonable scope of discovery in this matter. Accordingly, Tecnomatic’s motion to compel with
regard to this request is denied.
9
With regard to Request No. 42, Remy had an issue with the term “stator technology.”
Remy now agrees that producing documents relating to revenue generated on the HVH projects
would be proper: there are three such projects at issue: EP8, DCX, and HVH. Remy asserts that
it has produced much of that information and intends to supplement for the EP8 project. [Dkt.
382 100-02.] Accordingly, Remy’s objections are overruled and Tecnomatic’s motion to compel
is granted as to this request.
Tecnomatic also moves to compel Remy to produce documents relating to certain
document custodians. The parties have produced a list of agreed custodians [Dkt. 339-1 at 8-9
(including Rick Trammell)] and a list of additional custodians for which Tecnomatic requests
document production [Dkt. 318-1 at 11-13]. With regard to the agreed custodians, Remy
represents that the documents have been collected for all of the agreed custodians and the
documents have been searched for the agreed search terms, with the exception of Rick Trammell,
whose documents had not yet been produced. [Dkt. 382 at 103-09.]
With regard to the additional custodians, the parties agreed that Brian Richardson, Bryan
Hershberger, Dane Carter, Alex Creviston, and Ted Garcia from Tecnomatic’s additional
custodian list are already on the agreed list. [Dkt. 382 at 110, 115; compare to Dkt. 339-1 at 8-9.]
The Court does not find Ted Garcia on the agreed list, but based upon Remy’s representation,
finds that Remy has agreed to collect and search Mr. Garcia’s documents. The parties further
agreed that “Elenco Ricambi” is not a person, but means “spare parts” in Italian. [Dkt. 382 at
111, 115.] Remy also agreed to add software engineers Rogelio Santoyo, Javier Patino, and
Norma Orta as agreed custodians. [Dkt. 382 at 114.]
As for the remaining individuals, Remy’s position is that, if Tecnomatic wants Remy to
gather and search the documents of additional custodians, then Tecnomatic should be required to
10
pay the costs related to that effort. Tecnomatic argues that cost shifting is not appropriate under
the Federal Rules because Tecnomatic has identified how the individuals are relevant to the
issues and defenses in this matter. Tecnomatic further argues that, even if relevance is not
determinative of whether cost-shifting is appropriate, Remy has not provided sufficient
information upon which the Court could base a cost-shifting analysis. The Court disagrees. The
Court has been required to have extensive involvement in the discovery process to date and is
well aware of the efforts undertaken by the parties. Additionally, the Court finds that Remy has
provided a sufficient analytical basis for the Court to institute a burden shifting protocol in this
matter. To that end, the Court finds as follows:
a. That the following individuals from Tecnomatic’s list of additional custodians should
be added to the list of agreed custodians: Mike Laisure, Darrell Stephens, Mike
Bradfield and John Noll;
b. That Remy is not, at this juncture, entitled to recover the cost of gathering documents
from the agreed custodians;
c. That Tecnomatic may request that Remy gather documents from any of the remaining
custodians specifically identified by Tecnomatic [see Dkt. 318-1 at 11-13]
(hereinafter, the Non-Agreed Custodians) whose documents Tecnomatic wishes to be
searched; however, Tecnomatic must agree in advance to reimburse Remy for 80% of
the vendor costs incurred in collecting and processing the documents of any of the
Non-Agreed Custodians. At Tecnomatic’s request, Remy shall provide a good faith
estimate of the costs for collecting and processing the documents of such custodians
before Tecnomatic must decide to proceed.
11
With regard to search terms, Tecnomatic requested additional terms for Remy to search
in order to locate and produce documents. The parties have agreed to certain terms identified in
Exhibit X (shaded grey); however, there are terms in Exhibit X that have not been agreed upon.
[Dkt. 419-1.] Remy argues, however, that those terms proposed by Tecnomatic produced a high
volume of nonresponsive documents. In Exhibit Y, Remy has proposed to combine some of the
disputed terms in Exhibit X with other terms to produce responsive documents. [Dkt. 419-2.]
These modified search terms are numbers 08_R_062 through 065, 069, 073, 074, 081, 082, 083,
and 086 through 090 of Exhibit Y. [Id.]
In Exhibit X, Remy objected to search numbers 04_R_041 through 052 and 053 through
061 because they were just names of people and Remy argues that they should not be run as
search terms. Tecnomatic argues that these are names that appeared in the documents that Remy
produced that are involved in either EP8, DCX, or HVH or the Department of Energy projects.
Tecnomatic further argues that these names are not on the agreed custodians list, with the
exception of Trammell who has since been agreed to, and Tecnomatic believes that the
individuals were involved in the disputed projects or had access to the information.
Remy produced a spreadsheet that it asserts “tests” whether the disputed terms are
relevant or not. [Dkt. 382 at 122; Dkt. 339-1 at 16-17.] Remy asserts that it ran all the search
terms, both agreed and disputed against five agreed upon custodians (Stephenson, Young, Van
Sickle, Oaf, and Perry) which produced a total number of hits of responsive/nonresponsive
documents. Remy argues that the name search terms produced an extremely high percentage of
nonresponsive documents. [Dkt. 339-1 at 16.] With regard to the search term “drawing*,”
number 62, Tecnomatic withdraws this terms as it stands alone. [Dkt. 382-124.] With regard to
the search term “photo*” or “video*,” number 63, Tecnomatic argues that these terms, when
12
applied on the proper custodians will produce relevant information. Remy argues that based on
the spreadsheet, those terms hit almost 100,000 documents and the nonresponsive rate was 96%.
There is also an issue with the search terms for the Department of Energy, numbers 67 and 68
based on the arguments outlined with respect thereto above. With regard to the term “lease,”
number 73, Tecnomatic argues that if run against the right custodians, this term should produce
documents that are related to the lease issue in the case. The parties agreed that the relevant time
limitation for this term should be from October, 2005 to May, 2008. [Dkt. 382 at 128-129.]
Tecnomatic asserts that “lease” should be run against the following people on the agreed
custodian list: Brenda Alford, Monica Bolt, Dennis Bouie, Stan Clark, Joani Kirby, Ingram
Liljestrand, Carol Mineart, Mike Morrison, David Muir, Terry Oaf, Stuart Perry, Jay Pittas,
Jeremiah Shives, Mark Stevenson, Rich Van Sickle, Jon Weber, Bob Ponsler, Bryan
Hershberger, Dane Carter, and John Noll. Tecnomatic also asserts that “lease” should be run
against the following disputed custodians: Craig Hart and John Fitzenberger. Remy represents
that, with regard to Stephenson, Young, Van Sickle, Oaf, and Perry, it produced all responsive
documents with regard to the agreed and nonagreed search terms. [Dkt. 382 at 131.]
All of these detailed arguments may have a glimmer of merit. Some more than others.
Were the parties actually cooperating in the conduct of discovery in this matter as contemplated
by the federal rules, the Court is confident any issues regarding what terms should be used to
search which custodian could be easily resolved. The Court has recommended several techniques
to facilitate such cooperation -- such as sharing the number of search hits a particular term
produces and modifying searches that produce an inordinate number of responses – all to little or
no avail.
13
The fact is that the parties and their counsel have developed such a deep distrust of one
another that the normal process of discovery has broken down. Such breakdown is further
evidenced by the fact that multiple parties in this matter have moved to compel what is claimed
to be an incomplete production of documents based, not on actual evidence of incompleteness,
but upon a mere supposition that there must be more. In the face of the parties’ failure to
conduct discovery without significant Court involvement, as the discovery process is meant to
proceed, the Court must act to ensure the continued forward movement of this case toward
resolution. Accordingly, the Court rules as follows:
a. The Agreed Search Terms shall encompass the grey shaded terms in Ex. X as well as
the additional terms from Ex. Y that Remy proposed to search, which are search
numbers 08_R_062 through 065, 069, 073, 074, 081, 082, 083, and 086 through 090
of Exhibit Y. [Dkt. 419-1 & 419-2.]
b. Within fourteen days of the date of this Order, the parties shall file any additional
proposed terms intended to gather DOE documents or any other subject documents
Remy is to produce pursuant to this Order. Agreed terms are preferred, but if nonagreed terms are submitted, the Court will determine the final additional terms to be
searched for this purpose. These terms shall also be added to the list of Agreed Search
Terms.
c. Remy shall search the set of agreed custodians for the Agreed Search Terms and
produce responsive documents at Remy’s expense.
d. Tecnomatic may request that the documents of Non-Agreed Custodians be searched
for Agreed Search Terms; however, Tecnomatic must agree in advance to reimburse
Remy for 80% of the vendor costs incurred to process the search and produce any
14
responsive documents. At Tecnomatic’s request, Remy shall provide a good faith
estimate of the costs for searching and producing the documents of such custodians
before Tecnomatic must decide to proceed.
e. Tecnomatic may also request that the documents of either agreed custodians or NonAgreed Custodians be searched for search terms that have not been agreed; however
Tecnomatic must agree in advance to reimburse Remy for 80% of the vendor costs
incurred to process the search and produce any responsive documents. At
Tecnomatic’s request, Remy shall provide a good faith estimate of the costs for
searching and producing the documents of such custodians before Tecnomatic must
decide to proceed. If Tecnomatic makes such a request, Remy may seek relief on a
request-by-request and/or custodian-by-custodian basis upon a particularized showing
of undue burden.
f. This Order does not shift any burden for any costs for attorney review incurred by
Remy. Remy may produce any documents responsive to a search term without review
and Tecnomatic may not object to such production as having provided irrelevant
documents. A claw back provision is in place and the Court will entertain requests for
the entry of quick peek or other orders intended for the protection of Remy’s
privileged or otherwise protected documents as a means to minimize Remy’s further
costs of production in this matter.
For the aforementioned reasons, Tecnomatic’s Motion to Compel is GRANTED IN PART
and DENIED IN PART.
Date: _____________
03/27/2013
Mark J. Dinsmore
United States Magistrate Judge
Southern District of Indiana
15
Distribution:
All Electronically Registered Counsel
16
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?