Opinion
Case No. 2:02-cv-477-FtM-29DNF
October 23, 2003
ORDER
This cause came on for consideration on the following motion(s) filed herein:
MOTION: DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND FOR SANCTIONS (Doc. No. 25-1, 25-2)
FILED: September 29, 2003
THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.
The Defendant The Flood Company filed this Motion to Compel Discovery and for Sanctions (Doc. 25) arguing that the Plaintiff has failed to respond to Defendant's Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. Further, the Defendant is requesting reimbursement for expenses incurred for the Motion to Compel, Although the Defendant states that the Plaintiff has failed to respond to Requests for Production of Documents, the Defendant failed to set forth any argument regarding these Requests. Therefore, the Court will concentrate on the problematic interrogatories.
Interrogatory No. 2 requests the following: "Set forth each item of monetary damage incurred by you as a result of Flood's alleged wrongful conduct and specify the amount thereof." The Plaintiff responded that it cannot determine the amount of profits or monetary damages until the discovery is completed due to the information being in the possession and control of the Defendants. The Plaintiff argues that pursuant to the Lanham Act, the amount of damages is dependent on the Defendants' profits and the Defendants have not provided this information to the Plaintiff. The Court finds the Plaintiffs response to be sufficient, but reminds the Plaintiff of its continuing obligation to supplement its response when this information becomes available. See, Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(e).
Interrogatory No. 8 provides as follows: "Identify the number of gallons WoodRx sold in each of the last three calendar years." Interrogatory No. 9 provides as follows: "Identify the dollar amount of WoodRx sold in each of the last three calendar years." The Plaintiff states that it has now responded in writing to these two Interrogatories, Therefore based on the Plaintiffs representation, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has adequately responded.
Interrogatory No. 17 provides as follows: "Identify your customers or potential customers that have not purchased WoodRx because of the alleged wrongful conduct by Flood." Interrogatory No. 18 provides as follows: "Identify your customers or potential customers that have reduced their purchases of WoodRx because of the alleged wrongful conduct by Flood." Interrogatory No. 19, provides as follows: "Identify your customers or potential customers that have failed to increase their purchases of WoodRx because of the alleged wrongful conduct of Flood." Interrogatory No. 20 provides as follows: "Identify each person currently or formerly employed by Inseco who has communicated with those customers or potential customers identified in interrogatories #16, #17, #18 regarding the customer or potential customers not purchasing WoodRx, reducing its purchases of WoodRx or failing to increase its purchases of WoodRx." Plaintiff responds that it does not have this information at this time, and will have to depose the businesses or customers that were affected by the Defendants' business. These depositions have not occurred. The Court finds the Plaintiffs response to be sufficient, and again reminds the Plaintiff of its continuing obligation to supplement its response when this information becomes available. See, Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(e).
From the tone of the filings of the parties, it appears that they are not cooperating folly in the discovery process. The Court cautions the parties to cooperate fully and attempt to resolve issues without court intervention.
DONE and ORDERED