TECNOMATIC, S.P.A. v. REMY, INC. et al

Filing 422

ORDER granting in part and denying in part Remy's 300 Motion to Compel (see Order). Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 3/28/2013. (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 REMY’S MOTION TO COMPEL [DKT. 300]
This matter is before the Court on Remy’s Motion to Compel. [Dkt. 300.] The Court held
a hearing on this motion on August 24, 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:

Remy moves this Court to compel Tecnomatic to produce complete, properly-designated,
and verified answers to Remy Inc.’s Second Set of Interrogatories [Dkt. 301-2] and Remy
International Inc.’s First Set of Interrogatories [Dkt. 301-3]. Remy also moves to compel
Tecnomatic to provide revised written responses to Remy Inc.’s First Set of Request for
Production [Dkt. 300-8] and Remy Inc.’s Third Set of Request for Production [Dkt. 300-5] as
well as the production of documents responsive to the requests.

I.
A.

Interrogatories

Missing Verification Pages

Remy argues that Tecnomatic served answers to Remy Inc.’s Second Set of
Interrogatories and Remy International, Inc.’s First Set of Interrogatories, but did not include
verification by a Tecnomatic representative, as required by Rule 33(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. Tecnomatic argues that verification of certain responses that require reference
to information designated by Remy as “Highly Confidential” is not possible, because
Tecnomatic’s corporate representative is prevented from reviewing that information. The Court
grants Remy’s Motion in part and orders Tecnomatic to provide a verification page that verifies
specific responses for Remy International Inc.’s First Set of Interrogatories and Remy Inc.’s
Second Set of Interrogatories that do not require reference to documents or information that are
unavailable for review by Tecnomatic’s corporate representative.
B.

Designation of Interrogatory Answers as “Highly Confidential”

Remy argues that Tecnomatic’s labeling every page of its answers to Remy Inc.’s Second
Set of Interrogatories and Remy International, Inc.’s First Set of Interrogatories as “Highly
Confidential” is inappropriate as none of the pages contained information that can be classified

2

as “Highly Confidential.” Tecnomatic argues that the responses to Interrogatory No. 6 in Remy
Inc.’s Second Set and Interrogatory No. 14 in Remy International Inc.’s First Set are “Highly
Confidential.” After reviewing the responses to Interrogatory No. 6 of Remy Inc.’s Second Set of
Interrogatories [Dkt. 301-2] and Interrogatory No. 14 of Remy International Inc.’s First Set of
Interrogatories [Dkt. 301-3], the Court finds that the information contained in those responses is
at a sufficiently high level and lacks sufficient detail so that it can reasonably be argued that the
disclosure of that information is likely to cause competitive or commercial injury to the
producing party as is required for designation of the response as “Highly Confidential” pursuant
to the Protective Order [Dkt. 45 at 4]. Therefore, the “Highly Confidential” designations are
stricken. However, the Court will allow the entirety of the responses to remain Confidential as it
likely satisfies that definition.
C.

General Objections

The Court must first address Tecnomatic’s General Objections of Remy Inc.’s Second
Set of Interrogatories, Remy International Inc.’s First Set of Interrogatories, and Remy Inc.’s
Third Set of Request for Production, which are incorporated into all of Tecnomatic’s responses.
As to General Objection No. 4, the Court has previously clarified that “reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence” is not a proper basis to withhold a document. The
appropriate standard is relevant to a claim or defense in the lawsuit. Therefore, General
Objection No. 4 is overruled.
General Objection No. 5 is not a proper objection as there is no basis for an objection that
an interrogatory is “duplicative.” There is a limit of 25 interrogatories for this reason. Therefore,
this objection is overruled.

3

With regard to General Objection No. 6, the fact that something is publicly available is
not a proper basis for an objection. Further, undue burden needs to be specifically pled and
demonstrated. Therefore, the Court overrules General Objection No. 6 as it applies to every
interrogatory.
The Court overrules General Objection Nos. 7 and 8 as it is improper to purport to object
to every interrogatory on the basis that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome,
oppressive, and harassing when such is clearly not the case.
The Court also overrules General Objection No. 9. To the extent that the requests are
duplicative or overlap the disclosures called for in Rule 26 does not make it a proper basis for
objection.
The remainder of Tecnomatic’s General Objections are not overruled; however, those
objections shall be deemed waived to the extent Tecnomatic fails to timely assert such objections
on an interrogatory-by-interrogatory or request-by-request basis.
D.

Custodian Identification

Remy argues that Tecnomatic objected on several grounds to Interrogatory No. 3 of
Remy Inc.’s Second Set of Interrogatories and refused to answer. As to Tecnomatic’s specific
objections, the Court overrules Tecnomatic’s objections on the basis of vagueness, that it calls
for information not relevant to the claims or defenses in this matter, and that the information is
protected by the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine. The Court therefore grants
Remy’s Motion to compel and orders Tecnomatic to respond to Interrogatory No. 3 of Remy
Inc.’s Second Set of Interrogatories.

4

E.

Unresponsive Interrogatory Answer

Tecnomatic posed similar objections with regard to Interrogatory No. 4 in Remy Inc.’s
Second Set of Interrogatories. Tecnomatic now withdraws those objections. [Dkt. 362 at 147.]
F.

Incomplete Interrogatory Answer

Remy argues that Tecnomatic failed to provide complete answers to Interrogatory No. 5
of Remy Inc.’s Second Set of Interrogatories and Interrogatory No. 11 of Remy International
Inc.’s First Set of Interrogatories. Remy also argues that the answers to both interrogatories refer
to “examples” and suggest that Tecnomatic is withholding information. Tecnomatic objected to
Interrogatory No. 5 on the basis that the interrogatory was compound, vague, and ambiguous.
The Court overrules those objections. Tecnomatic also responded that “Remy, Eagle, and
Odawara have since produced documents further supporting the allegations in this complaint.”
Tecnomatic cannot refer to general examples. Such documents or information must be identified
by Bates number if a document, page and line number if a deposition, or some other means by
which the information on which Tecnomatic relies may be specifically identified. Tecnomatic
also responds with a list of other examples that are “by no means exhaustive.” The requirement
is that Tecnomatic needs to be exhaustive, not just provide examples. Therefore, the Court grants
Remy’s motion to compel a complete answer with regard to Interrogatory No. 5 and orders
Tecnomatic to provide a complete and unequivocal response.
Turning to Interrogatory No. 11, Tecnomatic objected on the basis that the interrogatory
is “vague and ambiguous to the extent it mischaracterizes Paragraph 46 of Tecnomatic’s
Complaint.” These objections are overruled. The Court strikes the sentence in Tecnomatic’s
response that states “The basis for Tecnomatic’s allegations are contained, for example, in
Paragraphs 36, 45-50, 61, 62, 118, 119, 130-138, 149-154, 159, 171, and 172 of Tecnomatic’s

5

Complaint” on the grounds that merely incorporating allegations from the Complaint fails to set
forth a proper factual response to the interrogatory. The next sentence states “The fact that Remy
never intended to enter into a joint venture with Tecnomatic was confirmed by testimony from at
least two Remy employees, namely Kevin Young and Rich Van Sickle.” Here, Tecnomatic needs
to cite to specific page and lines of the transcripts of the relevant depositions so it may be clear to
what testimony Tecnomatic is referring; this instruction also applies to the other examples of
deposition testimony provided in Tecnomatic’s responses. The following sentence states that
“Remy internal documents state that Tecnomatic was the only known source for this
application.” These documents need to be identified by Bates number as well. Therefore, the
Court grants Remy’s motion to compel a complete answer with regard to Interrogatory No. 11.
G.

Identification of Information Provided Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d)

Remy also argues that Tecnomatic failed to identify specific documents when referencing
Rule 33(d) in response to Interrogatory No. 6 of Remy Inc.’s Second Set of Interrogatories and
Interrogatory Nos. 7, 13, and 14 of Remy International Inc.’s First Set of Interrogatories. The
Court grants Remy’s motion here and orders Tecnomatic to provide specific Bates numbers of
the documents that are identified in response to all interrogatories to which Tecnomatic’s
response references Rule 33(d).
Remy also argues that Tecnomatic’s response to Interrogatory No. 7 in Remy
International Inc.’s First Set can be found “in deposition testimony produced in this action and
being produced in this action.” Remy argues that, based on this vague response, Remy has no
ability to determine which documents and deposition testimony it should examine. The Court
grants Remy’s motion here. To the extent that the response refers to documents, Tecnomatic is
ordered to specifically identify the documents by Bates number. To the extent that the response

6

refers to deposition testimony, Tecnomatic is ordered to specify deponent, date, page, and line
number. The Court also strikes the “See also” language in the last line of the response to
Interrogatory No. 7.
H.

Failure to Provide Information Regarding Purported Stator and Motor Sales

Remy argues that Tecnomatic’s response to Interrogatory No. 16 of Remy International
Inc.’s First Set of Interrogatories is not responsive or complete and Remy is entitled to test
whether Tecnomatic is a stator-producing competitor as Tecnomatic’s complaint alleges. This
interrogatory asks Tecnomatic to “describe each type of stator that Tecnomatic has sold or
attempted to sell since 2003.” Tecnomatic objected to this interrogatory on the basis that it is
overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
The representation was made in open court that Tecnomatic does not sell stators. Therefore, the
objections to Interrogatory No. 16 are overruled and Tecnomatic is ordered to provide a
complete and unequivocal response.
Remy also argues that for the same reason, Tecnomatic’s refusal to produce documents in
response to Request No. 40 of Remy Inc.’s Third Set of Requests for Production [Dkt. 300-5] is
also improper. Request No. 40 seeks “all documents reflecting Tecnomatic’s sales of stators
since 2003.” Tecnomatic objected on similar grounds as in Interrogatory No. 16. Remy
confirmed it is seeking only documents regarding Tecnomatic’s “sales of stators.” Remy’s
motion to compel is granted with regard to this Request, Tecnomatic’s objections are overruled
and Tecnomatic is ordered to respond fully to Request No. 40 and produce all documents
responsive thereto.
Remy also argues that Tecnomatic refused to provide an answer to Interrogatory No. 17
of Remy International Inc.’s First Set of Interrogatories relating to the types of motors that

7

Tecnomatic has sold or attempted to sell. Tecnomatic’s objections are overruled with regard to
Interrogatory No. 17 for the same reasons as set forth for Interrogatory No. 16 and Request No.
40. Therefore, the Court grants Remy’s motion to compel and orders Tecnomatic to respond and
provide a complete and unequivocal response to Interrogatory No. 17 as well.

II.
A.

Production of Documents

Failure to Respond to Requests for Production

Remy argues that, after the Court consolidated the actions, Remy re-served Remy Inc.’s
First Set of Requests for Production to Tecnomatic [Dkt. 300-8] and Tecnomatic has failed to
respond to the requests pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2). Tecnomatic argues that this request
is related to its counterclaim from the first action for which discovery is closed. The Court agrees
with Tecnomatic that Remy may not pursue new discovery in the original action, although
supplementation of prior discovery responses is appropriate. Accordingly, Remy agreed to
withdraw the Requests in question [Dkt. 300-8] without prejudice to their right to re-serve those
requests in a form that may be relevant to the revised allegations in the case.
B.

Production of Organizational Charts

In Request No. 33 of Remy Inc.’s Third Set of Requests for Production, Remy seeks “all
charts, lists, or other documents indicating the organizational structure of Tecnomatic for each
year between 2003 and 2012.” Tecnomatic objected on the basis that the request was vague,
ambiguous, and calls for information not relevant to any of the claims or defenses in this action.
Remy moves this Court to compel Tecnomatic to produce documents responsive to Request No.
33. The Court overrules Tecnomatic’s objections to Request No. 33 and grants Remy’s motion
here; however, the Court limits the requests to the production of documents, singularly or

8

collectively, that are sufficient to provide an accurate picture of the organizational structure of
the company. [See Dkt. 362 at 177-78, 180.] Tecnomatic is ordered to respond and produce
documents responsive to Request No. 33.
C.

Request for Production Nos. 37 and 39

Remy seeks complete responses to Request Nos. 37 and 39 of Remy Inc.’s Third Set of
Requests for Production. Tecnomatic objected on the basis that the requests were vague and
ambiguous. As for Request No. 37, Remy represented in open court that it only seeks documents
supporting the allegation made in Paragraph 89 of Tecnomatic’s Complaint relating to “valuable
technological know-how relating to complex stators, stator winding technology, and the
manufacturing of the same.” With this clarification, Tecnomatic’s objections to the request as
vague and ambiguous are overruled. With regard to withholding documents, Tecnomatic
represents in open court that it has not withheld any documents on the basis of confidentiality. In
light of that clarification, to the extent that Tecnomatic objects to responding to this request on
the basis of confidentiality, that objection is overruled.
With regard to Request No. 39, the Court limits the request to seek documents that
formed the basis for the allegation in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint. In light of that clarification,
Tecnomatic’s objections are overruled. To the extent that there was an objection to production
based on the confidential or proprietary nature of the documents, that objection is overruled as
well.
Subject to the modifications herein, Remy’s motion to compel with regard to Request
Nos. 37 and 39 is granted and Tecnomatic is ordered to provide complete and unequivocal
responses thereto.

9

For the aforementioned reasons, Remy’s Motion to Compel is GRANTED IN PART
and DENIED IN PART.

Date: _____________
03/28/2013
Mark J. Dinsmore
United States Magistrate Judge
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:
All Electronically Registered Counsel

10