Custom Hardware Engineering & Consulting, Inc. v. Dowell et al

Filing 321

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court finds Plaintiff CHE has fully satisfied its obligation to produce documents pursuant this Court's October 26, 2012 Order [ECF No. 293], and in compliance with the Courts March 25, 2011 Order. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on November 21, 2012. (MCB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
CUSTOM HARDWARE ENGINEERING
& CONSULTING, INC.,

Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,
vs.
JONATHAN D. DOWELL, et al.,

Defendants/Counterclaim-Plaintiffs.

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

Case No. 4:10CV000653 ERW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon review of Plaintiff Custom Hardware
Engineering & Consulting, Inc.’s (“CHE”) Response [ECF No. 305] to the Court’s October 26,
2012 Order [ECF No. 293].
On October 11, 2012, Defendants filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
37(b), asking this Court to enforce its March 25, 2011 Order [ECF No. 176], which directed CHE
to produce certain information sought by Defendants and pertaining to E-PET [ECF No. 277]. In
their Motion, Defendants alleged that they obtained a previously unproduced settlement
agreement between CHE and third parties, which specifically mentioned E-PET, and explicitly
referenced four other documents that “likely reference E-PET as well as two CHE customers
serviced by IBM that likely involve E-PET.” Defendants argued that this agreement shows that
CHE had not fully complied with the March 25, 2011 Order, and leads them to reasonably
believe that CHE had other unproduced documents mentioning E-PET. In an October 26, 2012
Memorandum and Order, this Court ordered CHE to produce all settlement agreements between
CHE and all third parties that mention e-PET, and produce all contracts all contracts or writings

between the parties and with third parties, and between Plaintiff and third parties, not previously
produced, that mentioned, in an respect, E-PET, to this Court for in camera review.
CHE has produced for this Court’s in camera review a copy of the Asset Purchase
Agreement with Microcoders, Inc., wherein CHE purchased all intellectual property rights to
PET and E-PET. In its Response, CHE states that the two agreements (one of which, according
to CHE, “fell through”) referenced in the settlement agreement dealt with the maintenance and
repair of the third party’s equipment, and therefore, did not involve the use of E-PET, or even
mention E-PET in the agreements. CHE further states that the IBM agreement, or one
substantially similar, was previously provided to the Court for in camera review.
CHE’s Response to this Court’s October 26, 2012 Order convinces the Court that it has
fully complied with the Court’s March 25, 2011 Order.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court finds Plaintiff CHE has fully satisfied its
obligation to produce documents pursuant this Court’s October 26, 2012 Order [ECF No. 293],
and in compliance with the Court’s March 25, 2011 Order.
Dated this 21st day of November, 2012.

E. RICHARD WEBBER
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2