Opinion
Civil No. 03-5277 (JRT/FLN).
May 23, 2005
David P. Pearson and Matthew D. Spohn, WINTHROP WEINSTINE, Minneapolis, MN, for plaintiff.
Paul E. Rice, PAUL E. RICE, APC, Robert C. Hill, HILL LAW OFFICE, San Francisco, CA and Peter J. Ims and Z. Peter Sawicki, WESTMAN CHAMPLIN KELLY, Minneapolis, MN, for defendant.
ORDER
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Sinco, Inc. ("Sinco"), who is suing defendant B O Manufacturing, Inc. ("BO") for patent infringement, filed a motion to compel discovery responses. Following a hearing, United States Magistrate Judge Franklin Noel issued an order granting in part and denying in part Sinco's motion to compel discovery responses. Specifically, and as is relevant to this appeal, the order compelled responses to Sinco's Interrogatory No. 5 and Document Request Nos. 10 and 12. These requests relate to sales and profit information for BO's shelving safety net and shelving net anchor products. BO requested permission to file a motion for reconsideration of the order, which the Magistrate Judge denied. BO filed an appeal from the Magistrate Judge's order and denial of its request for reconsideration. BO filed an amended appeal after receiving supplemental interrogatory responses from Sinco. For the following reasons, this Court denies BO's appeal.
BO did not appeal the remainder of the order granting plaintiff's motion to compel discovery with respect to Interrogatory No. 1, denying as moot plaintiff's motion with respect to Interrogatory No. 3 and Document Request Nos. 9 and 15, and granting in part and denying in part plaintiff's motion with respect to Interrogatories No. 6 and 7 and Document Request Nos. 8, 3, 4, and 5.
Document Request No. 12 seeks:
All documents relating to and/or reflecting BO's sales of any shelving safety net and/or shelving net anchor, including all documents which relate to, refer to, or reflect sales of such products . . . the number and amount of units of each such product manufactured and sold by you on a month-to-month basis, the costs of manufacturing such products, all documents relating to and reflecting gross revenues, gross profits, and net profits generated as a result of the sale of such products, and all documents relating to projected sales, sales growth, future revenues, future profits, and future earnings from sales of such products.
Interrogatory No. 5 and Document Request No. 10 seek similar information and documents.
ANALYSIS
I. Standard of Review
"The standard of review applicable to an appeal of a magistrate judge's order on a nondispositive issue is extremely deferential." Reko v. Creative Promotions, Inc., 70 F. Supp. 2d 1005, 1007 (D. Minn. 1999). This Court will reverse such an order only if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); D. Minn. LR 72.1(b)(2).
II. Court's Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Party's Motion to Compel Discovery
BO first argues that the Magistrate Judge's order compelling responses to Sinco's Interrogatory No. 5 and Document Request Nos. 10 and 12 was in error. BO contends that it was clearly erroneous or contrary to law for the Magistrate Judge to order the production of information and documents concerning BO's products because BO stopped selling these products prior to publication of Sinco's patent. Therefore, BO argues, the sale of these products cannot be the source of a damages claim.
Federal Rule 26 provides:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party. . . . For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). Generally, the discovery rules should be given broad, liberal interpretation. Edgar v. Finley, 312 F.2d 533, 535 (8th Cir. 1963). In particular, relevancy in the discovery context is extremely broad, and a court must consider a discovery request relevant unless it is clear that the information sought has no bearing upon the subject matter of the action. Mead Corp. v. Riverwood Natural Res. Corp., 145 F.R.D. 512, 522 (D. Minn. 1992); see also Gladfelter v. Walmart Stores, Inc., 162 F.R.D. 589 (D. Neb. 1995) (stating that a request for discovery should be considered relevant if there is any possibility that the information sought may be relevant to the subject matter of the action). In light of the deference accorded to orders of the Magistrate Judge and the broad, liberal interpretation granted to discovery rules, this Court finds that the Magistrate Judge's order compelling response to discovery was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law on this basis.
BO also argues that responding to Sinco's Interrogatory No. 5 and Document Request Nos. 10 and 12 will be overly burdensome because it will take approximately 300 hours to properly respond to these requests. According to Rule 26, the court may limit discovery
if it determines that: (i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity by discovery in the action to obtain the information sought; or (iii) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties' resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation, and the importance of the proposed discovery in resolving the issues.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2). The party opposing discovery bears the burden of showing that the discovery request is overly broad and burdensome by alleging facts demonstrating the extent and nature of the burden imposed by preparation of a proper response. Mead Corp., 145 F.R.D. at 515-16; see also Wagner v. Dryvit Systems, Inc., 208 F.R.D. 606, 610 (D. Neb. 2001) (denying party's motion to limit discovery because "a claim that answering the discovery will require the objecting party to expend considerable time and effort analyzing `huge volumes of documents and information'" is not a sufficient factual basis for sustaining the objection). This Court finds that the information BO presented to the Magistrate Judge and to this Court does not adequately demonstrate that responding will be unduly burdensome. The Magistrate Judge's order is, therefore, not clearly erroneous or contrary to law on this ground.
BO next argues that the Magistrate Judge erred in not joining a trend developing in other circuits requiring patent plaintiffs to identify which claims of the patent are infringed, how the patent is infringed, and which of the defendant's products infringed the patent in order to get discovery. In the hearing before the Magistrate Judge, he acknowledged the trend, but noted that the local rules of the District of Minnesota do not contain this requirement and, therefore, determined that he would not incorporate the rules from the Northern District of California relating to the showing required by the plaintiff in a patent suit. The Magistrate Judge's decision to follow the rules of this district rather than incorporate the rules of another district was not contrary to law.
Lastly, BO argues that the Magistrate Judge erred by failing to alter the sequence of discovery pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(d). Discovery may be conducted in any sequence "[u]nless the court upon motion, for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interests of justice, orders otherwise." Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(d). BO did not make a motion to alter the sequence of discovery. Further, Rule 26 makes clear that it is the exception, rather than the rule, that a court will alter the sequence of discovery. The Court therefore finds that the Magistrate Judge's failure to alter the sequence of discovery sua sponte was not contrary to law.
III. Clarification and Correction of the Court's Order
BO requests clarification of the Magistrate Judge's order, arguing that the Magistrate Judge stated his intent to modify or limit the scope of discovery to sales information during the hearing and that this modification is not reflected in the Magistrate Judge's order. The Magistrate Judge granted BO's motion to compel discovery with respect to Document Requests numbers 10 and 12 and Interrogatory 5. Document Requests numbers 10 and 12 and Interrogatory 5 seek information and documents such as "the number and amount of units of each such product manufactured and sold . . . on a month-to-month basis, the costs of manufacturing such products, all documents relating to and reflecting gross revenues, gross profits, and net profits generated as a result of the sale of such products, and all documents relating to projected sales, sales growth, future revenues, future profits, and future earnings from sales of such products" which is sales information. The Court, therefore, finds that the Magistrate Judge's statement in the hearing and the order are consistent and do not require clarification or correction, and the Magistrate Judge's denial of BO's request was proper.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, all the records, files, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant's appeal of magistrate judge decision [Docket No. 71] is DENIED and the Magistrate Judge's November 18, 2004 and December 3, 2004 Orders [Docket Nos. 66 and 68] are AFFIRMED.