SMART VENT PRODUCTS, INC. v. CRAWL SPACE DOOR SYSTEM INC.

Filing 169

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 4/11/2019. (tf, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

SMART VENT PRODUCTS, INC.

HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE

Plaintiff,
Civil Action
No. 13-5691 (JBS/KMW)

v.
CRAWL SPACE DOOR SYSTEM, INC.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Defendant.

SIMANDLE, District Judge:
1.

This matter comes before the Court by way of a motion

filed by Defendant Crawl Space Door System, Inc. (hereinafter,
“Defendant”) appealing Magistrate Judge Karen M. Williams’ March
11, 2019 Statement of Reasons and Supplemental Order [Docket Item
159]

requiring

Defendant

to

produce

certain

documents

in

connection with certifications created by Defendant as a result of
the permanent injunction entered in this case. (See Def.’s Mot.
[Docket Item 160].) The Court will affirm Judge Williams’ March
11, 2019 order because the Court finds that the documents in
question are relevant to certain claims and defenses that remain
in this case, and Judge Williams’ Order was neither clearly
erroneous nor contrary to law. The Court finds as follows:
2.

The Court thoroughly described the relevant background

of this case in Smart Vent Products, Inc. v. Crawl Space Door
System, Inc., No. 13-5691, 2016 WL 4408818 *2-*4 (D.N.J. Aug. 16,

2016), and shall not repeat it herein, except as relevant to the
present motion.
3.

On March 11, 2019, the Court filed a Memorandum Opinion

and Order, clarifying which claims and defenses remain in this
case. (See Memorandum Opinion [Docket Item 165]; Order [Docket
Item 166].) In conclusion, the Court stated:
[I]t is this Court’s understanding that the issues
remaining for trial consist of:
a. The aspects of Plaintiff’s Counts I, II,
and III alleging Defendant is liable for
unfair competition arising from Defendant’s
alleged false or misleading statements
regarding Defendant’s vents’ net open area
and coverage area, and those vents’
compliance with industry standards other
than NFIP and FEMA, as well as Defendant’s
alleged false or misleading statements
regarding the patent status of Defendant’s
vents;
b. The aspects of Plaintiff’s Count IV
alleging Defendant is liable for negligent
misrepresentation concerning the matters in
(a), above;
c. Plaintiff’s
Count
V,
asserting
that
Defendant
is
liable
for
misuse
of
Plaintiff’s trademark;
d. Defendant’s counterclaims.
(Memorandum Opinion [Docket Item 165], 9-10.) The Court further
stated that there was presently no motion before the Court seeking
to challenge Defendant’s compliance with the permanent injunction
entered in this case. (Id. at 3 n.2.)1

1

Judge Williams’ Statement of Reasons and Supplemental Order
states in part that “[t]he amended certifications bear directly on
Defendant’s compliance with the permanent injunction.” (Statement
of Reasons and Supplemental Order [Docket Item 159], 2.) The
2

4.

When

a

magistrate

judge

decides

a

non-dispositive

motion, the “district court may modify the magistrate [judge]’s
order

only

[judge]’s

if

the

ruling

district

was

clearly

court

finds

erroneous

that
or

the

contrary

magistrate
to

law.”

Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 785 F.2d 1108, 1120 (3d Cir.
1986); see also L. Civ. R. 72.1(c)(A)(1) (“A Judge shall consider
the appeal . . . and set aside any portion of the Magistrate
Judge’s order found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”).
5.

A magistrate judge’s finding is clearly erroneous when

“although there may be some evidence to support it, the reviewing
court, after considering the entirety of the evidence, is ‘left
with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
committed.’” Kounelis v. Sherrer, 529 F. Supp. 2d 503, 518 (D.N.J.
2008) (quoting Dome Petroleum Ltd. v. Emp’rs Mut. Liab. Ins. Co.,
131 F.R.D. 63, 65 (D.N.J. 1990); United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co.,
333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). A ruling is contrary to law if “the
magistrate judge has misinterpreted or misapplied applicable law.”
Id. Where a magistrate judge “is authorized to exercise his or her

undersigned subsequently stated, in the motion for clarification,
that the issue of compliance with the injunction is not presently
before the Court, (see Memorandum Opinion [Docket Item 165], 3
n.2), but nothing precludes future relief if Defendant’s breach of
injunction is alleged and proved. Nonetheless, at present, it does
not appear Plaintiff is alleging breach of the injunction, so this
reason for discoverability of the contested documents is not
present.
3

discretion, the decision will be reversed only for an abuse of
discretion.” Id.
6.

In the present case, Judge Williams’ order requiring

Defendant to produce certain certifications created by Defendant
as a result of the permanent injunction entered in this case was
neither clearly erroneous nor an abuse of discretion. Rule 26, FED.
R. CIV. P., states in relevant part that “[p]arties may obtain
discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to
any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the
case.” FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1). Judge Williams rejected Defendant’s
argument

that

the

documents

in

question

are

protected

from

disclosure by the work product doctrine, finding that Defendant
had failed to “set forth with any specificity information to
support the application of the doctrine.” (Statement of Reasons
and Supplemental Order [Docket Item 159], 2 (citing Louisiana Mun.
Police Employees Ret. Sys. v. Sealed Air Corp., 253 F.R.D. 300,
306 (D.N.J. 2008)).) Defendant does not assert that this conclusion
was incorrect in the present appeal. Neither does Defendant assert
that reasons of proportionality (such as undue burden or expense
or a tangential relationship to the claims and defenses) should
prevent the disclosure of these documents. Therefore the Court
shall focus on the question of the relevance of these documents to
the remaining claims and defenses in the case.

4

7.

Judge Williams stated that “[t]he amended certifications

are . . . relevant because Plaintiff contends that the amended
certifications misrepresent the performance of Defendant’s flood
vents.” (Statement of Reasons and Supplemental Order [Docket Item
159], 2 (citing Plaintiff’s Letter [Docket Item 130], 3).) The
Plaintiff’s letter cited by Judge Williams states, in relevant
part, that
[Defendant’s]
most
recent
certification,
dated
November
29,
2017,
continues
to
improperly state, as it did in the October 30,
2012 certification, that this 8” x 16” flood
vent serves 205 square feet of enclosed space.
[Plaintiff] has previously produced expert
testimony which demonstrates that this is
impossible, and that these vents actually
serve 50 square feet of enclosed space, not
205.
This
means
that
thousands
of
[Defendant’s] customers are under-protected.
(Plaintiff’s Letter [Docket Item 130], 3.) Defendant argues that
Defendant’s

“communications

regarding

the

2017

certifications

cannot make any facts of consequence in this case (which is limited
to pre-2013 certifications) more or less probable.” (Def.’s Br.
[Docket Item 160-1], 11.)2 Plaintiff asserts in its opposition
brief that the documents in question are relevant to whether

2

Defendant further argues that it “has the right to know which
statements in its amended certifications are allegedly false, as
well as the right to respond to such allegations.” (Def.’s Br.
[Docket Item 160-1], 11.) Given the clear statement in Plaintiff’s
letter, quoted supra, that Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s
statements regarding the coverage area of its vents are false, the
Court finds this argument without merit.
5

Defendant overstated the coverage area of its vents and whether
Defendant made misrepresentations regarding its vents’ compliance
with

standards

promulgated

by

the

American

Society

of

Civil

Engineers (hereinafter, “ASCE”) and as part of the International
Building Code (hereinafter, “IBC”), which are still undecided
issues in this case. (Pl.’s Opp’n [Docket Item 161], 14-18.)
Additionally, Plaintiff argues that the documents in question are
relevant to the determination of damages. (Id. at 18-19.)
8.

Defendant asserts in its reply brief that “[w]hether or

not [Defendant’s] net open area calculations for its flood vents
comply with ASCE and IBC requirements for engineered openings is
of no consequence to this case, because [Plaintiff] never pled a
claim for false statements based on those requirements.” (Def.’s
Reply [Docket Item 163], 4.) However, the Court has already held
that
Plaintiff’s
claims
regarding
unfair
competition or negligent misrepresentation as
they pertain to Plaintiff’s allegations that
Defendant made false or misleading statements
about the net open area of Defendant’s vents,
the coverage area that Defendant’s vents can
service, or Defendant’s vents’ compliance with
professional engineering standards, such as
those published by the ASCE or the IBC
remain issues for trial. (Memorandum Opinion [Docket Item 165],
6.)

Furthermore,

as

stated

supra,

Plaintiff

contends

that

Defendant’s 2017 certifications continue to make the same false or
misleading statements as Defendant’s prior certifications. As the

6

Court has held that the veracity of statements made by Defendant
regarding their products’ compliance with ASCE and IBC standards
are still issues for trial, and as Plaintiff has indicated that it
believes both sets of certifications are deficient in the same way
and for the same reasons, the Court finds that documents pertaining
to the creation of the 2017 certifications are relevant to whether
or not Defendant continues to make false or misleading statements
with respect to net coverage area or compliance with ASCE or IBC
standards or may be relevant to whether the allegedly false
statements from the earlier certification have subsequently been
altered.

Therefore,

keeping

in

mind

that

Defendant

has

not

challenged the proportionality of this discovery request, and that
Defendant has not preserved any claim of privilege or work product
protection pertaining to these documents in the present motion,
Defendant has not met its substantial burden to demonstrate that
Judge

Williams’

finding

that

documents

relating

to

the

2017

certifications are relevant to the claims or defenses remaining in
this case was “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” As such,
Defendant’s motion shall be denied.
9.

In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the

certifications in question are relevant to claims and defenses
that remain in this case, and Judge Williams’ March 11, 2019
Statement of Reasons and Supplemental Order [Docket Item 160] was
neither

clearly

erroneous

nor

7

contrary

to

law.

Therefore,

Defendant’s present motion [Docket Item 160] will be denied. The
accompanying Order shall be entered.

April 11, 2019
Date

s/ Jerome B. Simandle
JEROME B. SIMANDLE
U.S. District Judge

8