Prestige Flag Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Golf Solutions I, LLC

Filing 55

ORDER granting in part 52 Motion to Enforce September 13 Order. Plaintiff will bear defendant's expenses in bringing the motion. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 10/10/2018. (kwf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

PRESTIGE FLAG MFG. CO. INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
GOLF SOLUTIONS I, LLC,

ORDER
18-cv-98-jdp

Defendant.
The parties are once again before the court with a discovery dispute that reasonable
counsel should be able manage without court intervention. Defendant has filed a motion, Dkt.
52, to enforce the court’s previous discovery order, Dkt. 42. The court did not ask for a reply,
but defendant filed one anyway. Dkt. 54. The unsolicited reply should have been attached to
a request to file it. But the reply clarifies what issues are still disputed, so the court will accept
it.
The remaining dispute concerns defendant’s request for a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, for
which plaintiff has not yet provided acceptable dates. The court will grant defendant’s motion
in part and order the parties to proceed as follows. Defendant is to serve a new notice of
deposition, revising the topics as suggested by the court at the previous hearing. The date and
time for the deposition, which defendant may select during business hours at its convenience,
should be at least 14 days after service of the notice. The place of the deposition will be at
plaintiff’s offices, unless the parties agree otherwise. If plaintiff objects to the topics or the date
of the deposition, the parties should confer in good faith to resolve their differences. If the
parties cannot resolve their differences, one or both of them should file an appropriate motion
well before the date for which the deposition is noticed. But be forewarned: at least one party

will be ordered to engage local counsel if such a motion is filed. Until the parties agree or the
court orders otherwise, the deposition will proceed as noticed.
Defendant will not complete the deposition before the October 19, 2018 deadline for
exchanging proposed claim constructions. The court does not believe that defendant needs the
deposition to propose its claim constructions, so that deadline is not moving. But if defendant’s
counsel thinks that something learned in the deposition warrants a change in a proposed claim
construction, the court would be inclined to allow it. Of course, this is another issue that could
be worked out among reasonable counsel, but the court will consider a motion if one is needed.
Neither side has behaved particularly well so far in this case. But based on the
correspondence submitted in connection with the current motion, most of the blame for the
current impasse falls to plaintiff. Plaintiff’s counsel was evasive about whether the document
production was complete, and given the modest scale of the document production, the
difficulties in accomplishing it were unwarranted. Plaintiff’s counsel was also obstructive on
providing dates for the deposition. So the court will order that plaintiff pay defendant’s
reasonable actual attorney fees and expenses in bringing this motion. The parties are
encouraged agree on the amount to spare the parties and the court the effort and expense of
litigating it. In the absence of agreement, defendant must adhere to the court’s guidance
regarding fee requests. See Dkt. 16, at 48.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Defendant’s motion to enforce the court’s September 13, 2018 order is GRANTED
in part as provided above.

2

2. Plaintiff will bear defendant’s expenses in bringing the motion.
Entered October 10, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

3