CASCADE YARNS, INC. v. KNITTING FEVER, INC. et al

Filing 692

DISCOVERY ORDER - 8 granting in part, denying in part and reserving ruling in part dft's motion 647 to compel by Hon. James P. Donohue. (RS)

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

Case No. 10-cv-00861-RSM-JPD

CASCADE YARNS, INC.,

10

DISCOVERY ORDER – 8

Plaintiff,

11
v.
12
13

KNITTING FEVER, INC., et al.,
Defendants,

14
15
v.
16
17

ROBERT A. DUNBABIN, et al.,
Third Party Defendants.

18

I.

19
20

INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court on the KFI Defendants’1 submission regarding their

21

first set of requests for production (“RFPs”) to the Plaintiff. Dkt. 647. There are nine specific

22

RFPs at issue in this motion. For the reasons explained below, the Court GRANTS IN PART,

23

DENIES IN PART and RESERVES RULING IN PART on this motion (Dkt. 647).

24
25
1

26

“The KFI Defendants” collectively refers to Defendants Knitting Fever, Inc.; KFI, Inc.; Designer
Yarns, Ltd.; Debbie Bliss; Jay Opperman; and Sion Elalouf.

ORDER
PAGE - 1

1
2

II.
A.

BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS

3

RFP No. 3: Copies of all communications sent by Cascade to its customers regarding
the fiber content of the Yarns-at-Issue.

4

The Plaintiff objected to this RFP on multiple bases, including the vagueness of the

5

term “Yarns-at-Issue” and the duplicative nature of the request. The Plaintiff did offer to

6

product e-mails addressing all the yarns listed in the complaint and counterclaim, using the

7

search terms “fiber,” “mislabel*”, “controversy,” “Bliss,” “cashmere,” and “kfi.” The

8

Defendants contend that this production is not sufficient because the search terms proposed are

9

too narrow and because production should include non-e-mail documents. According to

10

Plaintiff, its production is adequate because the KFI Defendants have not offered any

11

additional search terms and because Plaintiff is not aware of any written communications other

12

than e-mails (because the only documentary form in which Plaintiff communicates is e-mail).

13

See Dunbabin Decl. (Dkt. 583) ¶ 3.
The Court will reserve this issue until the hearing.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20

B.

RFP No. 13: Complaints or other communications from consumers about Cascade’s
Yarns-at-Issue, including but not limited to complaints or other communications about
fiber content, labeling, quality, country of origin, and/or price, as well as Cascade’s
statements and actions concerning the same.
RFP No. 14: Complaints or other communications from consumers about Defendants’
Yarns-at-Issue, including but not limited to complaints or other communications about
fiber content, labeling, quality, country of origin, and/or price, as well as Defendants’
statements and actions concerning same.
Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s previous objections, Plaintiff now represents that it has

21
searched for and produced all documents responsive to RFPs No. 13 and 14. See Dkt. 647 at
22
8:3-4. Defendant’s motion to compel is GRANTED. The KFI Defendants seek confirmation
23
of this representation. See id. at 8:7-11. Plaintiff’s counsel is forewarned that he will be
24
directly asked by the Court if all responsive non-privileged documents have been produced,
25
and the Court will expect a straight-forward answer and representation to the question. In
26

ORDER
PAGE - 2

1

addition, to the extent that otherwise responsive documents have been withheld on the basis of

2

privilege, counsel will be asked if a privilege log relating to withheld documents has been

3

prepared and provided to counsel for Defendants. .

4

C.

5

RFP No. 15: Documents sufficient to identify all persons who determine the fiber
content of Cascade’s Yarns-at-Issue.
RFP No. 16: Documents sufficient to identify all persons who determine the fiber
content percentages that appear on the labels of Cascade’s Yarns-at-Issue.

6
7

Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s previous objections, Plaintiff now represents that it has
8
produced all non-privileged responsive documents. See Dkt. 647 at 10:23-24. Defendants
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Motion to Compel is GRANTED. The KFI Defendants seek confirmation of this
representation, and also seek clarification as to whether some responsive documents have been
withheld. See id. at 11:5-7. Plaintiff’s counsel is forewarned that he will be directly asked by
the Court if all responsive non-privileged documents have been produced, and the Court will
expect a straight-forward answer and representation to the question. In addition, to the extent
that otherwise responsive documents have been withheld on the basis of privilege, counsel will
be asked if a privilege log relating to withheld documents has been prepared and provided to
counsel for Defendants.
17
18

D.

RFP No. 19: All documents produced to you in response to third-party subpoenas
issued by you in this case.

19

It appears that the dispute regarding this RFP may have been resolved. See Dkt. 647 at

20

12. The Court will inquire of counsel at the June 25, 2012 hearing to determine whether there

21

is any lingering dispute as to this RFP.

22
23
24

E.

RFP No. 28: A copy of all advertisements by and communications from Cascade
regarding any blended yarn product, i.e., a yarn composed of more than one type of
fiber.
Plaintiff has produced electronic advertisements that it could locate on its computers,

25
but contends that it would be unduly burdensome to require Plaintiff to scour past publications
26

ORDER
PAGE - 3

1

(such as industry magazines) in search of advertisements. Plaintiff also contends that the

2

request for “all communications” “regarding any blended yarn product” is overbroad. The

3

Court will reserve this issue for argument.

4

F.

5
6

RFP No. 42/432: For the period of 1999 to the present, produce all period financial
statements of Cascade including profit and loss statements (income statements or
statements of operations), balance sheets, and statements of cash flows.

7

RFP No. 43/443: For the years 1999 to the present, product Cascade’s general ledger
(including chart of accounts) and any subsidiary ledgers.

8

It appears that after the parties met and conferred on May 30, 2012, Plaintiff produced

9

some responsive documents on June 1, 2012. Dkt. 647 at 17. According to the KFI

10

Defendants, the responsive documents include sales information for only some of the Yarns-at-

11

Issue, and incomplete (or entirely missing) information for 2009 forward. Id. Plaintiff’s

12

counsel is forewarned that he will be directly asked by the Court if all responsive non-

13

privileged documents have been produced, and the Court will expect a straight-forward answer

14

and representation to the question. In addition, to the extent that otherwise responsive

15

documents have been withheld on the basis of privilege, counsel will be asked if a privilege log

16

relating to withheld documents has been prepared and provided to counsel for Defendants.

17

//

18

//

19

//

20

//

21

//

22

//

23

//

24
25

2

This RFP is number 42 according to Plaintiff’s responses, and number 43 according to the KFI
Defendants’ request. See Dkt. 647 at 14 n.2.
3

26

This RFP is number 43 according to Plaintiff’s responses, and number 44 according to the KFI
Defendants’ request. See Dkt. 647 at 14 n.2.

ORDER
PAGE - 4

1

III.

CONCLUSION

2

For the reasons explained above, the Court GRANTS IN PART, DENIES IN PART,

3

and RESERVES RULING IN PART Defendants’ motion to compel. The Court will address

4

the remaining RFPs at the June 25, 2012 hearing.

5

DATED this 22nd day of June, 2012.

A

6
7

JAMES P. DONOHUE
United States Magistrate Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

ORDER
PAGE - 5