Opinion
Case Number 00 C 7340
October 10, 2001
I have before me a motion to compel production of sales information for certain accused games sold by defendant. The response has been an objection accompanied by a request to stay these proceedings while other cases filed by Douglas Press are adjudicated in part or whole. These cases are against defendants other than International Gamco and are attempts to enforce the same patent at issue here.
I grant the motion to compel. My reasons are these. The sales data is clearly relevant not only to the trial but also to the merits of the case. It is important to plaintiff in two respects. First, it allows the plaintiff to formulate a proposal for settlement of the case. Without the sales data, I doubt that this case would have any possibility of settlement. Douglas Press has stated, without contradiction, that it and defendant have been exploring settlement. The exploration is a pointless exercise if the sales data is not produced. of course, International Gamco could simply state that it will never settle and thus obviate the immediate need for sales data. But, were this to occur, there remains an even stronger reason why the sales data is required. Plaintiff has not sought injunctive relief and, it seems to me, it is doubtful that an intelligent decision whether to expend the resources to pursue injunctive relief is cost effective.
I deny the motion to stay. There is no adequate reason to stay this case. It is true that if plaintiff loses the other cases, that result might be fine for defendant and this might save defendant the legal costs associated with processing this case. But this does not justify precluding the plaintiff from seeking its remedy against defendant here. One must also consider that if the other cases are decided in favor of plaintiff, there will be no collateral estoppel against defendant. If this is so, then plaintiff will have had his suit pointlessly delayed. There might be a circumstance where this result is appropriate. But not here where the discovery sought is not, I think, excessive and the costs of going forward are not exceptionally large and there is no showing that in the other cases plaintiff is likely to suffer losses which would cripple its case here.
Motion to compel is granted; motion to stay is denied.