From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

MAGNETIC WORKS, LTD. v. KHAN

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
Sep 15, 2006
Case No. 4:06CV507 HEA (E.D. Mo. Sep. 15, 2006)

Opinion

Case No. 4:06CV507 HEA.

September 15, 2006


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER


This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery, Awarding Sanctions and Extending Discovery, [Doc. No. 12]. Defendant objects to the motion. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is granted in part and denied in part.

On July 5, 2006, this Court granted plaintiff's Motion to conduct jurisdictional discovery and gave the parties until August 4, 2006 to do so. Plaintiff now claims that defendant has insufficiently responded to its discovery and asks the Court Order defendant to comply with its jurisdictional discovery requests.

Plaintiff sets forth seven specific items of discovery sought from defendant. While defendant claims to have complied with plaintiff's discovery requests, glaringly absent from defendant's objection is an explanation from defendant as to why none of the discovery plaintiff seeks was produced. Defendant asserts that Artistic Creations is "unrelated" to this lawsuit, however, plaintiff contends that it is in fact selling infringing products. Defendant has failed to articulate why he claims Artistic Creations is "unrelated" to this suit in light of plaintiff's position. Discovery as to Artistic Creations vis a vis the subject mail box covers is indeed relevant to this issues before the Court.

Furthermore, defendant's assertion that he produced the relevant telephone records stretches the concept of production. Without explanation, defendant has redacted relevant information from the telephone records such that they are virtually useless. In his response to the motion to compel, defendant claims to have complied with plaintiff's requests, however, defendant's response carefully avoids even mentioning the redaction.

Plaintiff's requests are relevant to both kinds of personal jurisdiction. Defendant has not properly answered the requests and has failed to present sufficient justification for failing to do so.

Plaintiff is entitled to responses to its propounded discovery in order for it and this Court to ascertain whether the Court can exercise personal jurisdiction over defendant. The motion to compel, is therefore granted and discovery will be extended for an additional thirty days. The request for sanctions will be denied.

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery, Awarding Sanctions and Extending Discovery, [Doc. No. 12], is granted in part and denied in part.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant shall respond to plaintiff's seven requests detailed in its motion within 14 days from the date of this Order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that jurisdictional discovery is extended for an additional 30 days from the date of this Order.


Summaries of

MAGNETIC WORKS, LTD. v. KHAN

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
Sep 15, 2006
Case No. 4:06CV507 HEA (E.D. Mo. Sep. 15, 2006)
Case details for

MAGNETIC WORKS, LTD. v. KHAN

Case Details

Full title:MAGNETIC WORKS, LTD, a Missouri Corporation, Plaintiff, v. FARHAN KHAN, an…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division

Date published: Sep 15, 2006

Citations

Case No. 4:06CV507 HEA (E.D. Mo. Sep. 15, 2006)