Markham Concepts, Inc. v. Hasbro, Inc.

Filing 174

ORDER denying as moot 129 Motion to Compel; denying 144 Motion for Attorney Fees- So Ordered by Chief Judge William E. Smith on 12/15/2017. (Barletta, Barbara)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
_______________________________________
)
MARKHAM CONCEPTS, INC.; SUSAN GARRETSON;)
and LORRAINE MARKHAM, individually and )
in her capacity as Trustee of the Bill )
and Lorraine Markham Exemption Trust
)
and the Lorraine Markham Family Trust, )
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
C.A. No. 15-419 WES
)
HASBRO, INC.; REUBEN KLAMER; DAWN
)
LINKLETTER GRIFFIN; SHARON LINKLETTER; )
MICHAEL LINKLETTER; LAURA LINKLETTER
)
RICH; DENNIS LINKLETTER; THOMAS FEIMAN, )
in his capacity as co-trustee of the
)
Irvin S. and Ida Mae Atkins Family
)
Trust; ROBERT MILLER, in his capacity
)
as co-trustee of the Irvin S. and Ida
)
Mae Atkins Family Trust; and MAX
)
CANDIOTTY, in his capacity as
)
co-trustee of the Irvin S. and Ida Mae )
Atkins Family Trust,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________________ )
ORDER
WILLIAM E. SMITH, Chief Judge.
This case is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel
Discovery (ECF No. 129) and Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (ECF No.
144).
In the former, Plaintiffs complained that Defendants Dawn
Linkletter Griffin, Sharon Linkletter, Michael Linkletter, Laura
Linkletter Rich, and Dennis Linkletter (collectively, “Linkletter
Defendants”) had not timely responded to certain of Plaintiffs’

discovery requests. However, because the Linkletter Defendants
answered these requests soon after Plaintiffs’ filed their Motion
to Compel, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery is DENIED as
moot.
And because the Linkletter Defendants served their requests
prior to conferring pursuant to Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, and while the Linkletter Defendants’ had a motion
to dismiss pending, their Motion for Attorneys’ Fees is DENIED.
See Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565 (1988) (noting that
imposition of attorneys’ fees for resisting discovery request
inappropriate where “reasonable people could differ as to the
appropriateness of the contested action” (brackets and quotations
omitted)).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

William E. Smith
Chief Judge
Date: December 15, 2017

2