Tropp v. Conair Corporation et al

Filing 278

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying in substantial part 274 Motion for Reconsideration. As set forth in the attached Memorandum and Order, the Court concludes that Tropp has not sustained his heavy burden to establish that the Court erred in concluding, in its 3/20/13 M&O, that he is not entitled to the lengthy discovery schedule proposed by him (which would delay motion practice until 2014). The Court will, however, exercise its discretion to allow the parties a modest amount of additional time in both cases to serve and discover information concerning events occurring since the District Court ruled on the motions for summary judgment in 2010. In addition, the parties in both cases are directed to file, by April 23, 2013, stipulations that Tropp's infringement claims may be deemed to include inducement as well as direct infringement. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Roanne L. Mann on 4/16/2013.(Williams, Jennifer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------x
TRAVEL SENTRY, INC.,
Plaintiff,
-against-

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER
06-CV-6415 (ENV)

DAVID A. TROPP,
Defendant.
---------------------------------------------------------------x
DAVID A. TROPP,
Plaintiff,
-against-

08-CV-4446 (ENV)

CONAIR CORP., et al.,
Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------------x
ROANNE L. MANN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
On March 20, 2013, after having reviewed various competing proposed schedules
submitted by the parties, this Court issued a Memorandum and Order concerning scheduling in
both cases. See Memorandum and Order (Mar. 20, 2013) (“3/20/13 M&O”), Electronic Case
Filing (“ECF”) Docket Entry (“DE”) #179.1 Among other things, the Court concluded that
David Tropp (“Tropp”) had not shown good cause for reopening discovery in the TSI case, 06CV-6415, or for extending it beyond April 22, 2013 in the Conair case, 08-CV-4446. See

1

Unless otherwise indicated, docket entry numbers refer to the docket in the first-filed case,
06-CV-6415.

3/20/13 M&O at 3. In a two-page letter dated March 22, 2013, plaintiff moved for
reconsideration, complaining that the Federal Circuit’s decision on appeal had modified the
governing legal standards. See Motion for Reconsideration (Mar. 22, 2013) at 2, DE #274 in
Conair case, 08-CV-4446.2 Later that day, the Court noted that Tropp’s motion “fail[ed] to
particularize what additional discovery he wishes to conduct that he did not previously conduct
and that was not reasonably within the scope of discovery before the appeal.” Memorandum
and Order (Mar. 22, 2013) at 2, DE #180. Nevertheless, the Court deferred decision on
Tropp’s request for reconsideration, in order to afford him further opportunity to make the
requisite showing to support that motion. See id.
Tropp’s response to the Court’s invitation largely reiterates that the governing legal
standard has changed, and cites the following events that have occurred since September 10,
2010, which Tropp contends he should be allowed to explore on discovery: TSI has entered
into “new license agreements”; and (2) the Transportation Security Agency and TSI have
entered into a new Memorandum of Understanding. See Letter (Mar. 27, 2013) at 2, DE
#181. Tropp also seeks to “‘refresh’ his evidence on damages . . . .” Id.
TSI and the Conair defendants oppose the motion for reconsideration, and persuasively
demonstrate that Tropp’s previous discovery requests sought and yielded ample discovery
regarding the relationships of the alleged joint infringers, regardless of the applicable legal

2

Tropp failed to docket his motion for reconsideration into the TSI case file, even though he is
seeking relief in both cases.
-2-

standard. See Letter (Apr. 1, 2013) at 2-3 (and attachments thereto), DE #182. They further
note that the post-September 10, 2010 discovery identified by Tropp “would have no bearing
on the summary judgment motions” that TSI and the Conair defendants intend to file. Id. at 3.
The Court concludes that Tropp has not sustained his heavy burden to establish that the
Court erred in concluding, in its 3/20/13 M&O, that he is not entitled to the lengthy discovery
schedule proposed by him (which would delay motions practice until 2014). See 3/20/13
M&O at 2; see generally Quezada v. Brown, No. 08-CV-5088 (KAM), 2011 WL 4975343, at
*1 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2011) (reconsideration is “an extraordinary remedy to be employed
sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources”) (internal
quotation and citations omitted). The Court will, however, exercise its discretion to allow the
parties a modest amount of additional time in both cases to serve and discover information
concerning events occurring since the District Court ruled on the motions for summary
judgment in 2010. The Court will not allow parties to utilize the discovery period to “redo”
previously conducted discovery.
Accordingly, all parties are directed to supplement their previous discovery responses
in both cases by April 30, 2013. Reopened fact discovery in both cases must be completed by
May 31, 2013.
Motions for summary judgment in both cases must be served by June 28, 2013;
-3-

responses must be served by July 29, 2013; replies must be served, and submissions filed, by
August 12, 2013. Expert discovery in the Conair case is stayed pending resolution of the
dispositive motions.
Despite the Court’s 3/20/13 M&O, Tropp did not amend his pleadings by March 27,
2013. See 3/20/13 M&O at 4. The parties in both cases are directed to file, by April 23,
2013, stipulations that Tropp’s infringement claims may be deemed to include inducement as
well as direct infringement.
Objections to this Memorandum and Order will not stay the schedule set forth herein.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

Brooklyn, New York
April 16, 2013

Roanne L. Mann

/s/
ROANNE L. MANN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-4-