Retail Service Systems, Inc. v. Carolina Bedding Direct, LLC et al

Filing 42

DISCOVERY CONFERENCE ORDER re 41 Defendants must respond to plaintiff's MOTION to Compel on or before 3/28/2014. Carolina Bedding (NC)s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition should be rescheduled as ordered. Additional observations and rulings. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark R. Abel on 3/19/2014. (Abel, Mark)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
Retail Service Systems, Inc.,
Plaintiff

:

Carolina Bedding Direct, LLC, et al.,
Defendants

Civil Action 2:13-cv-00994

:

v.

:

Judge Smith

:

Magistrate Judge Abel

:

Discovery Dispute Conference Order
On March 18, 2014, counsel for the parties participated in a telephone discovery
dispute conference with the Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff’s March 17, 2014 motion compel. Defendants’ counsel requested additional time to respond to the motion. Their brief responding to the motion must be filed
on or before March 28, 2014.
Defendants’ counsel’s March 18, 2014 letter to the Magistrate Judge. If not resolved by negotiations, defendants should file a motion to compel addressing the issues
raised in the letter no later than March 28.
Plaintiff’s noticed Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of defendants. Late last week, plaintiff’s counsel noticed defendant Carolina Bedding (NC)’s deposition for March 19. Although the Rule 30(b)(6) deponent had prepared for the deposition and purchased an
airline ticket, those plans were canceled when plaintiff’s counsel indicated that the deposition would not be completed on the nineteenth because document production was

incomplete. It is ORDERED that counsel reschedule the deposition for a mutually convenient time and that defendant provide plaintiff’s counsel with the documents defendant’s Rule 30(b)(6) deponent(s) has or will review to prepare for and/or use during the
deposition 5 business days before the deposition. If plaintiff does not complete the Rule
30(b)(6) deposition the day it is held, any continuation of the deposition should be in the
county where the Rule 30(b)(6) deponent resides or works.
Additional observations. Defendant Carolina Bedding (NC) had identified documents regarding its dealers (characterized as customers) and their sales as highly confidential–attorneys’ eyes only. Defendant did not want to disclose those documents unless plaintiff’s counsel gave assurances that they were not shareholders in RSS. During
the conference, plaintiff’s counsel said that such assurances were not required because
they are officers of the court and would not violate the protective order. While I accept
that representation, I understand why defendant might be concerned about sensitive
commercial information residing in the mind of an attorney-shareholder, so I asked the
question directly. Plaintiff’s counsel responded that they held no stock in RSS. Consequently, I believe the documents should be produced, subject to the protective order.
Defendants also want RSS to identify its trade secrets before the hearing on the
motion for default judgment. During the discussion of the matter, plaintiff’s counsel
said that the materials identified in paragraph numbered 6 on page 3 of plaintiff’s counsel’s March 18, 2014 letter to me identified the trade secrets. If there are any other business plans, marketing plans, training materials, scripts, or the like containing the alleg2

edly misappropriated trade secrets, plaintiff’s counsel should promptly disclose them
defendants’ counsel.
Defendants’ counsel also sought plaintiff’s damages methodology. They are entitled to that information.

s/Mark R. Abel
United States Magistrate Judge

3