Watson Carpet & Floor Covering, Inc. v. Mohawk Industries, Inc. et al

Filing 251

ORDER: For the reasons stated in this order, the undersigned Magistrate Judge GRANTS Mohawks motion to compel 99 . Signed by Magistrate Judge John S. Bryant on 9/19/13. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(tmw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
WATSON CARPET & FLOOR COVERING,
INC.,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., )
)
Defendants
)

No. 3:09-0487
Judge Sharp/Bryant
Jury Demand

O R D E R
Defendant Mohawk Industries, Inc. (“Mohawk”) has filed
its motion to compel (Docket Entry No. 99), seeking an order
requiring Plaintiff Watson Carpet & Floor Covering, Inc. (“Watson”)
to

respond

to

interrogatories

interrogatory
to

Watson.

19

Watson

in

Mohawk’s

has

filed

first
a

set

of

response

in

opposition (Docket Entry No. 141).
For the reasons stated in this order, the undersigned
Magistrate Judge GRANTS Mohawk’s motion to compel.
Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
provides generally that parties may obtain discovery regarding any
nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or
defense. Watson in this action alleges that Mohawk engaged in a
conspiracy to violate federal antitrust laws.
Interrogatory 19 of Mohawk’s first set of interrogatories
to Watson requires Watson to identify and describe “each act,
event,

transaction,

or

occurrence”

which

Watson

claims

“constitutes, embodies or was done in furtherance of the alleged

conspiracy,” to include the date, place and participants in each
such act, event, transaction or occurrence.
In
interrogatory

response,
on

grounds

Watson

initially

that

it

exceeded

objected
the

to

limit

this
of

25

interrogatories allowed by the rules and on the ground that this
interrogatory is “overly broad and unduly burdensome” (Docket Entry
No. 99-1 at 13). Apparently, after further discussions between
counsel, Watson has abandoned its objection based upon the 25interrogatory limit, but it stands on its objection that this
interrogatory is overly broad and unduly burdensome.
In its response in opposition to Mohawk’s motion to
compel, Watson explains that its conspiracy allegations in this
action are based upon “the exact same 1998 conspiracy that was at
issue in the prior lawsuit,” (Docket Entry No. 141 at 2), by which
Watson refers to an earlier state court action filed by Watson
against Mohawk and others in 1999. Watson asserts that this state
court lawsuit, following extensive discovery, went to trial in July
2004. The trial of that case allegedly generated a trial transcript
of almost 2,000 pages and involved 27 witnesses and 32 trial
exhibits as well as almost 2,000 pages of deposition transcript and
affidavits, as well as thousands of documents exchanged during
discovery. Watson maintains that a response to interrogatory 19
would require Watson to pore through the trial transcripts and the
discovery from this earlier state action and to describe each “act,

2

event, transaction or occurrence” contained therein in order to
answer Mohawk’s interrogatories. Watson urges that requiring it to
do so would be unduly burdensome, since Mohawk was a party to the
earlier state court action and participated fully in discovery and
the trial in that case.
Interestingly,

in

its

response

Watson

includes

the

following statement: “Although a properly framed interrogatory
requesting that Plaintiff identify acts carried out in furtherance
of the conspiracy since the 2004 trial, i.e., the 2005, 2006 and
2007 refusals to sell by Mohawk, would be proper, Plaintiff should
not be required to review the entire record in the prior lawsuit in
an attempt to respond to this interrogatory” (Docket Entry No. 141
at 2-3). Despite this concession by Watson that this interrogatory
would have been “properly framed” if limited to events since the
2004 trial of the state court action involving the parties, Watson
nevertheless has apparently declined to provide an interrogatory
response so limited.
Watson

makes

no

argument

that

the

acts,

events,

transactions or occurrences upon which it bases its claim of
conspiracy are not “relevant to any party’s claim or defense.”
Accordingly, the undersigned Magistrate Judge finds that Mohawk’s
motion to compel should be GRANTED, and that Watson shall file a
substantive response to interrogatory 19. However, Watson may, if
it wishes, respond with respect to those matters tried in the 2004

3

trial of the state court action by incorporating the record from
that trial by reference. With respect to any facts since this 2004
trial upon which Watson bases its claim of conspiracy, it shall
serve a substantive response to interrogatory 19 on or before
October 4, 2013.
It is so ORDERED.
/s/ John S. Bryant
JOHN S. BRYANT
United States Magistrate Judge

4