ALARMAX DISTRIBUTORS, INC. v. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.
Filing
66
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 52 Motion to Compel Discovery as set forth in the Memorandum itself. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly on 11/20/2015. (bb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ALARMAX DISTRIBUTORS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC., )
Defendant.
)
Civil Action No. 14-1527
Judge David Stewart Cercone/
Chief Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly
Re: ECF No. 52
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff, AlarMax Distributors, Inc. (“AlarMax”) initiated this action on November 6,
2014, alleging that Defendant Honeywell International, Inc. (“Honeywell”) has been engaging in
anticompetitive behavior, in part, by overcharging AlarMax for Honeywell electronic fire
products and by forcing other vendors to provide exclusive lower pricing and more favorable
terms and conditions to Honeywell’s wholesale distribution faction, ADI Global Distribution
(“ADI”), than it provides to AlarMax. AlarMax contends that Honeywell’s actions are in breach
of the Settlement and Supply Agreements entered into between the parties on September 20,
2004, and that they violate the Clayton Act, as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act, 15 U.S.C.
§ 13.
Presently before the Court is AlarMax’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s Full and
Complete Responses to Discovery Requests, ECF No. 52, in which AlarMax complains that the
responses Honeywell has provided to AlarMax’s discovery requests are deficient. In particular,
AlarMax objects to Honeywell’s decision to: (1) limit its production of documents relative to any
vendors and/or vendor agreements entered into by ADI regarding the purchase and sale of
electronic fire and security products to only ADI’s “current existing contracts” with the vendors
specifically identified by AlarMax in the Complaint; (2) produce only those documents reflecting
Honeywell’s sales of electronic fire products to ADI and no other distributors; (3) limit its
production of documents showing the current terms and conditions of purchases by ADI from
vendors to only a sample set of vendors and electronic fire and security products; and (4) limit
the scope of Honeywell’s responses to the last three years (2012-2015). AlarMax also complains
that Honeywell has failed to produce documents or a list of vendors that have sold electronic fire
and security products to ADI during the last three years despite Honeywell’s agreement that it
would do so. ECF No. 52, ¶¶ 13-18.
In response, Honeywell has filed an Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel along
with a Declaration of Alison L. MacGregor, in which Honeywell argues that AlarMax has not
shown good cause to justify the production of eleven years of material concerning nearly 300
ADI vendors and possibly thousands of products, and that such requests are overly burdensome.
ECF Nos. 55. Honeywell also notes that it has produced all of the documents that it can pending
the outcome of its appeal of the undersigned’s Order denying Honeywell’s request for a
protective order. See ECF Nos. 47-51, 59, 60. For the following reasons, AlarMax’s Motion
will be granted in part and denied in part.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governing discovery provide, in pertinent part, as
follows:
(1) Scope in General. Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of
discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged
matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense—including the existence,
description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any documents or other
tangible things and the identity and location of persons who know of any
discoverable matter. For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter
relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Relevant information need
not be admissible at trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence. All discovery is subject to the limitations
imposed by Rule 26(b)(2)(C).
2
(2) Limitations on Frequency and Extent.
*
*
*
(C) When Required. On motion or on its own, the court must limit the frequency
or extent of discovery otherwise allowed by these rules or by local rule if it
determines that:
(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or
can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less
burdensome, or less expensive;
(ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain
the information by discovery in the action; or
(iii) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its
likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the amount in
controversy, the parties' resources, the importance of the issues at
stake in the litigation, and the importance of the discovery in
resolving the issues.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) and (2)(C). Federal Courts have broad discretion in managing
discovery. Alexander v. Roadway Express, Inc., 2009 WL 793022, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 24,
2009), citing Sempier v. Johnson, 45 F.3d 724, 734 (3d Cir. 1995). And while it is well
recognized that the Federal Rules permit broad and liberal discovery, it is not without limits. Id.,
citing Pacitti v. Macy's, 193 F.3d 766, 777 (3d Cir. 1999); Huertas v. Beard, 2012 WL 3096430,
at *2 (W.D. Pa. July 30, 2012). “Discovery will not be permitted where the request is made in
bad faith, is unduly burdensome, is irrelevant to the subject matter at hand, or relates to
confidential or privileged information.” Id. The party objecting to discovery has the burden of
demonstrating in specific terms why a particular discovery request is improper. Id. The
objecting party must show that the requested materials do not fall “within the broad scope of
relevance . . . or else are of such marginal relevance that the potential harm occasioned by
discovery would outweigh the ordinary presumption in favor of broad disclosure. . . .” Id.,
quoting Bailey v. McMahon, 2012 WL 1246147, at *5 (M.D. Pa. April 12, 2012). See
Alexander v. Roadway Express, Inc., 2009 WL 793022, at *2, citing Josephs v. Harris Corp.,
3
677 F.2d 985, 992 (3d Cir. 1982) (“the party asserting that the [discovery] request is irrelevant or
unduly burdensome must show specifically how the request is burdensome, oppressive or
irrelevant”).
Applying these principles to the claims and discovery requests at issue in this case, and
after careful consideration of AlarMax’s Motion to Compel and supporting brief and
Honeywell’s Opposition thereto, the Court finds the following:
(1) that, given the allegations in the Complaint and the four year statute of limitations
applicable to AlarMax’s claims, the production of documents and/or information going back
eleven years is overly broad, and that the relevant time period is properly limited to four years
prior to the Complaint being filed -- or from November 6, 2010 -- to the present;
(2) that any and all ADI vendor agreements that were in effect during the relevant time
period and/or are currently in effect, and all documents and information relating to those vendor
agreements, are relevant to AlarMax’s claims, see ECF No. 1, ¶ 73, and are properly produced;
(3) that documents and information relating to Honeywell’s sales of electronic fire
products to any distributor, including ADI, during the relevant time period are relevant to
AlarMax’s claims, see ECF No. 1, ¶ 73, and are properly produced; and
(4) that, to the extent that AlarMax has requested discovery into all electronic fire
products purchased by ADI and/or sold by Honeywell, the request at this stage of the litigation
appears to be overly broad and is properly limited to the top 200 products that AlarMax
purchases. Accordingly, the following Order will be entered:
4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ALARMAX DISTRIBUTORS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC., )
Defendant.
)
Civil Action No. 14-1527
Judge David Stewart Cercone/
Chief Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly
Re: ECF No. 52
ORDER
AND NOW, this 20th day of November, 2015, after careful consideration of AlarMax’s
Motion to Compel and supporting brief and Honeywell’s Opposition thereto, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that:
(1) the scope of Honeywell’s discovery responses shall be limited in time to the
four years prior to the Complaint being filed -- or from November 6, 2010 -- to
the present;
(2) Honeywell shall produce any and all vendor agreements entered into by ADI
having to do with the purchase and sale of electronic fire and security products
that were in existence during the relevant time period and any related documents
and/or information as requested in AlarMax’s Requests for Production of
Documents Nos. 1, 2, 5, 7, and 8 and Interrogatories No. 3 and 5;
(3) Honeywell shall produce documents reflecting Honeywell’s sales of electronic
fire products to any and all distributors, including ADI, as requested in AlarMax’s
Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 3, 4, 6, and 10 and Interrogatories
No. 2, 4, and 6; and
(4) Honeywell shall produce information relative to the top 200 products that
AlarMax purchases with the reservation that AlarMax may seek reconsideration
after production is made.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Honeywell shall be prepared to make production in
accordance with this Order within fourteen days of Judge Cercone’s ruling on Honeywell’s
appeal of this Court’s Order denying Honeywell’s Motion for Protective Order.
5
In accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Rule 72.C.2 of
the Local Rules of Court, the parties are allowed fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order to
file an appeal to the District Judge which includes the basis for objection to this Order. Any
appeal is to be submitted to the Clerk of Court, United States District Court, 700 Grant Street,
Room 3110, Pittsburgh, PA 15219. Failure to file a timely appeal will constitute a waiver of any
appellate rights.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Maureen P. Kelly
MAUREEN P. KELLY
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
cc:
The Honorable David Stewart Cercone
United States District Judge
All Counsel of Record Via CM-ECF
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?