Pars Ice Cream Company, Inc. et al v. Conopco, Inc.

Filing 166

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (SCha)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

PARS ICE CREAM COMPANY, INC.,
a Michigan corporation, and
PARS ICE CREAM CALIFORNIA, INC.,
a Michigan corporation,
Plaintiffs,
Case No. 12-15598
Hon: AVERN COHN

-vsCONOPCO, INC., d/b/a UNILEVER,
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff,
-vsDAVOUD SADEGHI, SHELLEY
TRAYWICK, PARS ICE CREAM
COMPANY, INC., and PARS ICE
CREAM CALIFORNIA, INC.,
Counter-Defendants.
___________________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
This is a highly-fought business dispute. Unilever manufactured ice cream which
Pars distributed. Unilever owned the freezers which Pars placed in retail stores. Over
the course of the relationship, Unilever furnished Pars with over 1,500 freezers which
Pars placed. This lawsuit followed the breakup of the relationship. After the
relationship terminated, a dispute arose over which party was responsible for returning
the freezers to Unilever. To resolve the dispute, the Court appointed a special master
“to assist the parties in resolving freezer return issues.” The Special Master’s

Recommendations (Doc. 156-1) resulted in the Order Adopting Recommendations of
Special Master (Doc. 162). Under the order, it is the obligation of Unilever to collect the
freezers, and Pars’ obligation to pay the costs associated with collecting them, as well
as paying retailers for any product still in the freezers. Pars has moved for
reconsideration of the order, raising a number of objections (Doc. 165).
The Court does not understand the objections. The special master’s
recommendations include a provision reading as follows:
With respect to the dispute over the locations of the freezers,
the parties have agreed to the following process in which
Pars will produce additional records that may contain
information about the location of the Unilever owned
freezers: Unilever will highlight the files on the file list
produced by Stott [sic] Matthews that it wants Pars to
produce. Unilever will send that highlighted list to Pars by
12:00 pm on June 25, 2015. Pars will then send its
objections to Unilever and the Special Master by July 10,
2015. Mr. Matthews will produce any un-objected to files to
Unilever by July 17, 2015. If there is a dispute about
documents Pars objects to producing, the parties will meet
with the Special Master on July 22, 2015.
There is nothing said in the motion for reconsideration about this provision, and
whether or not the process described above has been followed. Obviously, to the
extent Unilever continued to sell ice cream to a new distributor who continued to sell to
the retailers once supplied by Pars with freezers, such freezers need not be returned.
Only freezers, the use of which have been discontinued, are subject to return.
There is no good reason to reconsider the order; the motion is DENIED.

2

If the parties are still in disagreement as to the status of the freezers, and the
parties are still disputing their responsibilities, the Court will consider the future course
of the “return of freezers” aspect of the case at the upcoming status conference on
September 08, 2015.
SO ORDERED.

S/Avern Cohn
AVERN COHN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: August 19, 2015

S:\WestKM\OPINIONS\August 2015\12-15598reonsiderationorder.wpd

3