Sure Fit Home Products, LLC et al v. Maytex Mills Inc.

Filing 89

ORDER: Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs' request for an order compelling Defendant to respond to Plaintiffs' Interrogatory Number 1 is denied. A revised Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order will issue separately. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 7/16/2021) (cf)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------- X
:
SURE FIT HOME PRODUCTS, LLC et al.,
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
-against:
:
MAYTEX MILLS, INC.,
:
Defendant. :
------------------------------------------------------------ X

21 Civ. 2169 (LGS)
ORDER

LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge:
WHEREAS, the Order, dated July 12, 2021, directed the parties to submit a proposed plan
for (1) production of certain categories of documents relevant to claim construction and (2)
follow-on claim construction and other case management deadlines (Dkt. No. 84).
WHEREAS, the parties have submitted their plan, where they now dispute whether
Defendant must produce its full claim construction contentions pursuant to one of Plaintiffs’
interrogatories.
WHEREAS, at the May 20, 2021, conference, the Court stated that it required claim
construction briefing to ascertain which portions of the drawings in the asserted design patent
were functional, but proposed that the process be abbreviated to a brief discovery period and
exchange of briefs, rather than the full discovery schedule in the Court’s form Patent Case
Management Plan and Scheduling Order -- which requires exchange of terms to be construed,
preliminary constructions, full discovery, submission of final constructions and a hearing (Dkt.
No. 63 at 6:23-8:5). The parties agreed (Dkt. No. 63 at 8:6-9:19). The Court inquired as to
whether the parties needed to “exchange preliminary claim construction and extrinsic evidence,”
or if the parties were “past that point” (Dkt. No. 63 at 9:20-24) (emphasis added). Plaintiff stated
“We agree. We believe we’re past that point. It’s not necessary” (Dkt. No. 63 at 10:1-2).

Accordingly, the Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order set an opening claim
construction brief for Plaintiffs and an opposition for Defendant (Dkt. 53). After Plaintiffs raised
issues with their ability to respond to Defendant’s constructions, a First Amended CMP issued,
permitting Plaintiffs a reply brief as they requested (Dkt. No. 72).
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs’ request for an interrogatory response containing all of Defendant’s
proposed constructions is not warranted. The claim construction issues in this matter are not so
complex as to require exchanges of claim constructions before briefing, as the parties have
acknowledged. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ request for an order compelling Defendant to respond to
Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory Number 1 is denied. A revised Case Management Plan and Scheduling
Order will issue separately.
Dated: July 16, 2021
New York, New York

2