CTP Innovations, LLC v. Cenveo Corporation

Filing 79

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying (386) Motion for Discovery in case 1:14-md-02581-MJG; denying (76) Motion for Discovery in case 1:15-cv-03124-MJG. Signed by Judge Marvin J. Garbis on 1/4/2017. Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02581-MJG, 1:15-cv-03124-MJG(bmhs, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
________________________________
IN RE: CTP INNOVATIONS, LLC,
)
PATENT LITIGATION
)
________________________________)
CTP INNOVATIONS, LLC v.
CENVEO CORPORATION
*

*

*

*

)
)
)
*

MDL No. 14-MD-2581

MJG-15-3124

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM & ORDER RE: DISCOVERY
The Court has before it Cenveo Corporation’s Motion for
Discovery [ECF No. 386 in 14-md-25811] and the materials
submitted relating thereto.

The Court finds a hearing

unnecessary.
On November 29, 2016, this Court issued a Memorandum and
Order Resolving Motions [ECF No. 381] granting Defendants’ Joint
Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter
Jurisdiction Due to Plaintiff’s Lack of Standing [ECF No. 354].
The Court dismissed all cases filed by CTP,2 including the
instant case, for lack of jurisdiction. Judgment, ECF No. 382.
Judgment was entered in the instant case on November 29, 2016.
Id.
Cenveo Corporation (“Cenveo”) now requests the Court to
order CTP to respond to discovery requests that had been served
1

All ECF Nos. referenced herein are in the Multi-district
case 14-md-2581 unless otherwise noted.
2
Taylor Publishing Company’s Declaratory Judgment Action was
dismissed as moot. Judgment, ECF No. 383.

in July 2015, prior to the stay issued by the District of
Pennsylvania and subsequent transfer of the instant case to the
multi-district litigation.

Cenveo asserts that the answers to

the discovery requests would reveal that CTP did not perform
adequate pre-filing investigation and contends that it requires
this information to properly assess its basis to recover
attorneys’ fees.3

Cenveo further contends that CTP’s lack of an

adequate pre-filing investigation in the instant case subjects
it to sanctions under Rule4 11.
The Court does not find that the requested discovery is
appropriate in the circumstances of the instant case.
“[D]iscovery [for Rule 11 purposes] should be conducted only by
leave of the court, and then only in extraordinary
circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, Advisory Committee Notes
(1983). As stated by the Seventh Circuit, “[t]he Advisory
Committee Notes to Rule 11 urge that the court limit the scope
of sanction proceedings to the record and allow discovery only
in extraordinary circumstances, lest the costs of satellite
litigation over sanctions outweigh the benefits intended from
Rule 11.”

Indianapolis Colts v. Mayor & City Council of

3

On December 13, 2016, Defendants jointly filed a motion for
“an award of attorney fees and/or sanctions pursuant to one or
all of 35 U.S.C. §285, 19 U.S.C. §1927 and the court’s inherent
power to sanction.” Mot. 7, ECF No. 385. Said motion will be
fully briefed and decided in due course.
4
All “Rule” references herein are to the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
2

Baltimore, 775 F.2d 177, 183 (7th Cir. 1985)(citing Fed. R. Civ.
P. 11, Advisory Committee Notes).
On July 17, 2015, CTP responded to Cenveo’s communication
regarding a proposed sanctions brief by providing an
infringement chart.

Cenveo did not then request further

information, although it had the opportunity to do so.

Had

Cenveo then pursued a Rule 11 motion, CTP would have then been
given the opportunity to withdraw offending papers. Rule
11(c)(1)(A).

Cenveo has not presented extraordinary

circumstances that would justify reopening the instant case to
allow the requested discovery so as to resurrect a long dormant
Rule 11 issue.
Accordingly, Cenveo Corporation’s Motion for Discovery [ECF
No. 386 in 14-md-2581, ECF No. 76 in MJG-15-3124] is DENIED.

SO ORDERED, on Thursday, January 04, 2017.

/s/__________
Marvin J. Garbis
United States District Judge

3