Broan-NuTone LLC v. Conglom Hong Kong Limited

Filing 67

ORDER signed by Judge J P Stadtmueller on 10/23/2024 GRANTING 64 Plaintiff's Expedited Motion to Compel Discovery Responses. Within 3 weeks, Defendant shall serve on Plaintiff responses to discovery requests as specified. See Order. (cc: all counsel)(jm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
BROAN-NUTONE LLC,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 23-CV-393-JPS-JPS

v.
CONGLOM HONG KONG LIMITED,

ORDER

Defendant.

Plaintiff Broan-NuTone LLC (“Plaintiff”) sues Defendants Conglom
Hong Kong Limited (“Conglom”), The Home Depot, Inc., and Home Depot
U.S.A., Inc. for patent infringement. ECF No. 37 at 1. Plaintiff now moves
under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to compel Conglom
to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. ECF No. 64 at 2.
The relevant procedural background is as follows. Plaintiff served
discovery on Conglom on January 23, 2024, rendering Conglom’s responses
due February 22, 2024. Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2) and Fed. R. Civ. P.
34(b)(2)(A)). On February 22, 2024, Conglom objected to the discovery on
the basis that “discovery should be delayed until after a ruling on its [thenpending] motion to dismiss.” Id. On March 1, 2024, the Court granted in
part and denied in part Plaintiff’s expedited motion to compel, ECF No. 32,
and mandated Conglom to respond to certain jurisdiction-related discovery
requests. ECF No. 36 at 10. Later that month, Conglom complied with the
Court’s order. See ECF No. 64 at 2.
On May 9, 2024, Plaintiff complained to Conglom regarding
Conglom’s refusal to provide substantive responses to Plaintiff’s discovery

requests. Id. Conglom responded that it would not provide discovery until
“after the Court decides the motion to dismiss, when the Court enters a
schedule delineating the time to do so.” Id. at 3. Conglom reiterated that
refusal later that month. Id.
On July 15, 2024, the Court denied Conglom’s motion to dismiss.
ECF No. 57. The Court also concurrently entered an abbreviated scheduling
order which noted that “[u]nless otherwise specified, the parties should
follow the standard deadlines as set by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and the local rules.” ECF No. 58 at 1.
On July 19, 2024, Plaintiff again followed up with Conglom
regarding the outstanding discovery. ECF No. 64 at 3. Conglom responded
that it would provide the requested discovery by August 14, 2024. Id.
Plaintiff represents that Conglom failed to provide the discovery on that
date, stating instead that “it would provide this information at some
unspecified future date following further negotiations concerning a
schedule.” Id. Conglom asserts that this is “a critical misrepresentation” and
that it “served amended responses . . . on August 14, 2024,” which Plaintiff
fails to acknowledge. ECF No. 65 at 1 (citing ECF Nos. 65-1 and 65-2).
Plaintiff further represents that on August 23, 2024, the parties met
and conferred regarding the discovery dispute and that Conglom at that
time agreed that it would provide the requested discovery, including
producing documents and things responsive to Plaintiff’s requests for
production numbers 3, 16, 30, 32, and 37 (“RFPs”) and Plaintiff’s
Interrogatories Nos. 2 and 3 (“ROGs”). ECF No. 64 at 3–4. Despite having
so agreed, Plaintiff represents that Conglom “has not produced any
additional documents or things, has not provided responses to [Plaintiff’s]
contention interrogatories (ROGs Nos. 2 and 3), and has refused to provide
Page 2 of 6

a date certain by which [Conglom] will produce” such responses and
materials. Id. at 4. Plaintiff accordingly seeks the Court to compel Conglom
to provide “full and complete responses to . . . Interrogatories Nos. 2–3” and
to “produce documents responsive to [RFPs] Nos. 1–6, 8–12, 15–17, 20–35,
40–44, 46, 51, and 53–57.” Id.
In response, Conglom points out that it did, in fact, serve amended
responses to Plaintiff on August 14, 2024; that it has, to date, produced over
40,000 pages of documents in response to Plaintiff’s document requests;
that Conglom’s counsel is currently finishing its review for responsive
documents and intends to further produce responsive documents in the
coming weeks; that it is currently working with its expert to develop further
argument and will update its responses accordingly; and that it is, in fact,
Plaintiff that has not produced any documents in the case and has failed to
respond to Conglom’s October 7, 2024 inquiry regarding the status of its
production. ECF No. 65 at 1–2. Conglom has not, however, moved to
compel, and “one party’s noncompliance with discovery requirements does
not excuse the other’s failure to comply.” Gropper v. David Ellis Real Estate,
L.P., No. 13 Civ. 2068 (ALC) (JCF), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16849, at *8
(S.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2014).
“A party may file a motion to compel discovery under Rule 37 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure where another party fails to respond to a
discovery request or where the party’s response is evasive or incomplete.”
Kodish v. Oakbrook Terrace Fire Prot. Dist., 235 F.R.D. 447, 449 (N.D. Ill. 2006)
(citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2)–(3)). “The burden rests upon the objecting
party to show why a particular discover request is improper.” Id. at 450
(citing Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 349 F. Supp. 2d 1108, 1111 (N.D. Ill.
2004)). “District courts have broad discretion in matters relating to
Page 3 of 6

discovery,” and “there is a strong public policy in favor of disclosure of
relevant materials . . . .” Patterson v. Avery Dennison Corp., 281 F.3d 676, 681
(7th Cir. 2002) (citing Packman v. Chi. Trib. Co., 267 F.3d 628, 646–47 (7th Cir.
2001) and Rennie v. Dalton, 3 F.3d 1100, 1110 (7th Cir. 1993)).
As an initial matter, Conglom does not argue in opposition to the
motion to compel that Interrogatories 2 and 3 and RFPs 1–6, 8–12, 15–17,
20–35, 40–44, 46, 51, and 53–57 seek to uncover irrelevant information or are
otherwise improper. See Kodish, 235 F.R.D. at 449 (citing Rubin, 349 F. Supp.
2d at 1111). As the party “opposing [the] motion to compel,” Conglom “has
the burden to show [that] the discovery requests are improper and to
explain precisely why its objections or responses are proper given the broad
and liberal construction of the federal discovery rules.” Hall v. Menard, Inc.,
No. 1:21-cv-02932-TWP-MG, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128857, at *4 (S.D. Ind.
July 25, 2023) (citing Bell v. Pension Comm. of ATH Holding Co., LLC, 330
F.R.D. 517, 520 (S.D. Ind. 2018) and Cunningham v. Smithkline Beecham, 255
F.R.D. 474, 478 (N.D. Ind. 2009)). Conglom has not attempted to meet that
burden in its opposition, apparently relying solely on its own assurances
that it will complete its discovery obligations “as soon as” it can. ECF No.
65 at 2.
Conglom’s responses to Interrogatories 2 and 3—that it will provide
the information according to a schedule that the parties apparently cannot
agree upon—is insufficient. Nor is Conglom’s assurance that it will update
its responses to Interrogatories 2 and 3 at some unspecified time “when it
completes [its] legal assessment” and when “its legal positions . . . are
complete” particularly reassuring. ECF No. 65 at 2.
Similarly, Conglom’s opposition to the motion to the extent it relates
to the outstanding RFPs is, essentially, that it has already produced many
Page 4 of 6

responsive documents, as well as computer components from China. Id. at
1–2. But the fact that Conglom has already produced many responsive
documents does not excuse it of its obligation to timely disclose others not
yet produced.
Conglom has been aware of these interrogatories and RFPs for
approximately nine months, see ECF Nos. 64-1 at 9 and 64-2 at 16 (reflecting
service of process in January 2024), and over three months have passed
since the Court denied Defendants’ motions to dismiss and set a dispositive
motion deadline in this case, see ECF Nos. 57, 58. The Court is not satisfied
to merely rely on Conglom’s assurance that it is “currently working” on it
and will provide appropriate responses and documents to Plaintiff at some
unspecified point in the future when it is able to do so. ECF No. 65 at 2. This
is a particularly unsatisfactory basis for opposition given the Court’s
admonition that its protocols are “designed to ensure that each . . . civil case
is . . . fully concluded within 12–14 months from the date of filing,” ECF No.
6 at 1, and given the fact that much of the delay in this case thus far is
attributable to Conglom. See ECF No. 7 at 1 (status report noting that
Conglom refused to waive service of process and objected to any
mechanism of service other than the Hague Convention); ECF No. 14 at 6
(order granting Plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve Conglom through
alternate means since Plaintiff “‘ha[d] attempted to effect service under the
Hague Convention’ to no avail” (quoting Parsons v. Shenzen Fest Tech. Co.,
No. 18 CV 08506, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35903, at *7–8 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 26,
2021))).
In light of the foregoing, the Court will order Conglom to serve on
Plaintiff appropriate, amended responses to Interrogatories 2 and 3 and

Page 5 of 6

appropriate materials as to outstanding RFPs 1–6, 8–12, 15–17, 20–35, 40–
44, 46, 51, and 53–57, all within three weeks of this Order.
The Court will also note that it does not as a default matter set
discovery deadlines, has never indicated that it would do so, and to the
contrary stated explicitly in its scheduling order that “[u]nless otherwise
specified, the parties should follow the standard deadlines as set by the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the local rules.” ECF No. 58 at 1.
Accordingly, to the extent that Conglom previously refused to provide any
substantive discovery responses on the ground that it was awaiting a
“schedule from the Court,” such refusal was improper and unfounded. See
ECF No. 64 at 3.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Broan-NuTone LLC’s expedited
motion to compel discovery responses, ECF No. 64, be and the same is
hereby GRANTED; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Conglom Hong Kong
Limited shall, within three weeks of this Order, serve on Plaintiff
appropriate, amended responses to Interrogatories 2 and 3 and appropriate
responsive materials as to outstanding Requests for Production Nos. 1–6,
8–12, 15–17, 20–35, 40–44, 46, 51, and 53–57.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 23rd day of October, 2024.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
J. P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge

Page 6 of 6