RMDI v. Remington Arms Company, Inc. et al
Filing
162
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting 140 Motion to Conduct Discovery. Discovery shall be completed by September 30, 2011. By October 31, 2011, each party may submit one additional memorandum concerning the issues raised in the parties' cross motions for summary judgment. Thereafter, the Court will take up the parties' cross motions for summary judgment. In addition, by September 30, 2011, Plaintiffs shall identify all claims of the '900 patent that it believes each of the Accused Products infringe. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 5/26/2011. (las)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
RMDI, LLC, a Utah limited liability
company, ZDF Import/Export, LLC d/b/a
Robinson Armament Co., a Utah limited
liability company,
Plaintiffs,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO CONDUCT
DISCOVERY AND DEFERRING
CONSIDERATION OF THE
PARTIES’ CROSS MOTIONS FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
vs.
REMINGTON ARMS CO., INC., a North
Carolina corporation, BUSHMASTER
FIREARMS INT’L, LLC, a Maine limited
liability company, ROCKER RIVER ARMS,
INC., an Illinois corporation, and MAGPUL
INDUSTRIES CORP., a Colorado
corporation,
Case No. 2:10-CV-29 TS
Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Conduct Discovery Pursuant to
Rule 56(f), now Rule 56(d). For the reasons discussed below, the Court will grant the Motion
and will permit additional discovery on the issue of whether Rock River suppressed or concealed
1
the LAR-8 firearm. The Court will defer ruling on the parties’ cross motions for summary
judgment pending completion of discovery.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs bring this action against Defendants asserting that certain firearms (“the
Accused Products”) infringe United States Patent No. 7,596,900 (“the ‘900 Patent”).1
Defendants argue that the ‘900 Patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(g) because of Rock
River’s prior development of the allegedly infringing LAR-8 rifle. Defendants have brought
separate motions for summary judgment seeking judgment on this issue.2 Plaintiffs have filed
their own Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, seeking dismissal of Defendants’ Section
102(g) defense.3 In addition, Plaintiffs have filed a Motion to Conduct Discovery Pursuant to
Rule 56(f),4 now Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(d).
II. DISCUSSION
In their Motion to Conduct Discovery, Plaintiffs seek to conduct additional discovery that
they believe will show that: (1) James Finn was not the inventor of the LAR-8 rifle; and (2) Rock
River suppressed or concealed the LAR-8 firearm.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(d), formerly Rule 56(f), states that “[i]f a nonmovant shows by affidavit
or declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition,
1
Docket No. 74.
2
Docket Nos. 98, 100 & 107.
3
Docket No. 139.
4
Docket No. 140.
2
the court may: (1) defer considering the motion or deny it; (2) allow time to obtain affidavits or
declarations or to take discovery; or (3) issue any other appropriate order.”5
“A party seeking to defer a ruling on summary judgment under Rule [56(d)] must ‘file an
affidavit that explain[s] why facts precluding summary judgment cannot be presented. This
includes identifying the probable facts not available and what steps have been taken to obtain
these facts.’”6 “[T]he nonmovant also must explain how additional time will enable him to rebut
movant’s allegations of no genuine issue of fact.”7 A party may not invoke Rule 56(d) “by
simply stating that discovery is incomplete but must ‘state with specificity how the additional
material will rebut the summary judgment motion.’”8
The Court will address each of the areas upon which Plaintiffs seek additional discovery.
As stated, Plaintiffs seek additional discovery on the issue of whether James Finn was the
inventor of the LAR-8 rifle. Plaintiffs’ request for discovery on this point relies on the
Declaration of Alexander J. Robinson, wherein Mr. Robinson testifies that both engineers
working at RMDI and himself had numerous discussions with Mr. Finn concerning new ideas
and designs for firearms from 1999 to 2001.9 From this limited statement, counsel surmises that
5
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(d).
6
Libertarian Party of N.M. v. Herrera, 506 F.3d 1303, 1308 (10th Cir. 2007) (quoting
Trask v. Franco, 446 F.3d 1036, 1042 (10th Cir. 2006)) (alteration in original).
7
Comm. for First Amendment v. Campbell, 962 F.2d 1517, 1522 (10th Cir. 1992)
(quotation marks and citation omitted).
8
Libertarian Party of N.M., 506 F.3d at 1308-09 (quoting Ben Ezra, Weinstein, & Co. v.
Am. Online Inc., 206 F.3d 980, 987 (10th Cir. 2000)).
9
Docket No. 145, ¶ 5.
3
evidence will “show that Finn had conversations with Plaintiffs’ personnel regarding Plaintiffs’
new ideas and designs for firearms, and that Finn learned of the ambidextrous controls of the
LAR-8 firearm during these conversations.”10 There is nothing in the record to support this
allegation by counsel. Without anything to support this claim, the Court will not permit
Plaintiffs to engage in a fishing expedition on this issue.
The Court will next consider the second issue upon which Plaintiffs seek discovery.
Plaintiffs seek further discovery on the issue of whether Rock River suppressed or concealed the
LAR-8 firearm. Plaintiff argues that Rock River had a commercially viable product as early as
November 2002, but did not begin selling the firearm until February 2004. Plaintiffs seek further
discovery as to Rock River’s activities during this time period.
Defendants oppose Plaintiffs’ request, pointing out that the parties have already engaged
in discovery in advance of the preliminary injunction hearing.11 However, that discovery was
limited, and by no means complete.
Considering Plaintiffs’ Motion, the Court finds that it is well-taken, as to this issue, and
will be granted. Plaintiffs have set forth the probable facts not available, why those facts cannot
be presented currently, the steps taken to obtain those facts, and how additional time will allow
Plaintiffs to obtain the facts necessary to oppose Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment.
Specifically, Plaintiffs have raised an issue as to Rock River’s activities from November 2002 to
February 2004 that may have a direct impact on the issue presented to the Court in the parties’
10
Docket No. 142, ¶ 10.
11
Docket No. 75.
4
cross motions for summary judgment: whether Rock River suppressed or concealed the LAR-8
firearm. Plaintiffs have provided an explanation as to why those facts are not presently available,
the steps already taken, and how additional time will allow them to obtain those facts. Based on
this, the Court finds that further discovery on Rock River’s activities from November 2002 to
February 2004 is appropriate and will, therefore, grant Plaintiffs’ Motion to Conduct Discovery.
The parties will be permitted to conduct additional discovery on the issue of whether
Rock River suppressed or concealed the LAR-8 firearm, specifically focusing on the time period
from November 2002 to February 2004. Discovery shall be completed by September 30, 2011.
By October 31, 2011, each party may submit one additional memorandum concerning the issues
raised in the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment. Thereafter, the Court will take up the
parties’ cross motions for summary judgment. In addition, by September 30, 2011, Plaintiffs
shall identify all claims of the ‘900 patent that it believes each of the Accused Products infringe.
III. CONCLUSION
It is therefore
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Conduct Discovery (Docket No. 140) is
GRANTED.
DATED May 26, 2011.
BY THE COURT:
_____________________________________
TED STEWART
United States District Judge
5
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?