Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_18-cv-02332/USCOURTS-azd-2_18-cv-02332-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1114 Trademark Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

BBK Tobacco & Foods LLP,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Skunk Incorporated, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-18-02332-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

On the deadline for discovery disputes, Plaintiff filed notices indicating the parties 

have two additional discovery disputes. Because the Court is currently holding a very 

limited calendar, the Court will permit the complaining party to file a motion to compel 

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 as to one of the issues. The motion must comply 

with Rule 37 in all respects. The motion must, with exacting specificity, state the relief 

sought by the movant. If the Court cannot determine what relief is sought, or if the relief 

sought is stated in such broad and general terms that the Court cannot craft an order 

granting relief, the motion to compel will be denied.

I. Dispute One

The first dispute involves Plaintiff seeking leave to file a motion to compel 

production of “reports from Defendants’ NetSuite database (or the data in native format) 

covering all of Defendants’ sales in 2014 and 2015.” (Doc. 241 at 2). Plaintiff may file a 

motion to compel, not to exceed 3 pages, on this issue by May 20, 2020. Plaintiff must 

attach the request for production (or MIDP response) that called for the production of this 

Case 2:18-cv-02332-JAT Document 243 Filed 05/19/20 Page 1 of 3
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

information. Defendants shall file a response, not to exceed 3 pages, by May 26, 2020. 

Plaintiff may reply, not to exceed 2 pages, by May 27, 2020.

Because the motion to compel is being filed under Rule 37, consistent with Rule 37, 

the party that loses the motion to compel will be assessed the other side’s attorney’s fees 

unless a specific exception is met. In filing any motion for attorney’s fees, the party seeking 

fees must state which specific section of Rule 37 it seeks fees under, and whether such fees 

are sought against the client, or counsel, or both (if both, in what percentages). Each side 

must keep detailed billing records of the time spent only on the motion to compel. The 

Court will call for fee statements after the Court rules on the motion to compel. 

The Court will not hold oral argument. Thus, a parties’ failure to raise or respond 

to an argument will be deemed a waiver. Any confusion the Court experiences as to the 

relief sought or the issues presented will be held against the movant for purposes of denying 

the motion and assessing fees. 

II. Dispute Two

Plaintiff seeks leave to move to compel a second Rule 30(b)(6) deposition because 

Plaintiff claims Defendants’ 30(b)(6) deponent was unprepared. (Doc. 242). Plaintiff 

admits the parties have not completed their meet and confer on this issue and may be able 

to reach a resolution. The Court will not set a briefing schedule on an issue on which the 

parties have not met and conferred. Further, the deadline for discovery disputes was May 

15, 2020, and the Court will not entertain a discovery dispute on this issue going forward. 

The parties may reach whatever resolution they deem appropriate within the discovery

deadline.

If Defendants choose to not continue the meet and confer process regarding this 

issue because the Court will not entertain a discovery dispute on it, Defendants do so at 

their peril. Specifically, the answers of a duly noticed 30(b)(6) deponent are binding on 

the company. Thus, hypothetically, if the duly noticed 30(b)(6) deponent was asked, “Do 

you make balloons?” and answered “I don’t know” – “I don’t know” is the binding answer 

on the company. See Memory Integrity, LLC v. Intel Corp., 308 F.R.D. 656, 660 (D. Or. 

Case 2:18-cv-02332-JAT Document 243 Filed 05/19/20 Page 2 of 3
- 3 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2015) (“The designee testifies on behalf of the corporation and thus holds it accountable.”) 

(quotations and citations omitted). Thus, the hypothetical company would likely not be 

permitted on summary judgment or at trial to offer evidence that contradicts or supplements 

the company’s final, binding answer from the 30(b)(6) deposition that it does not know if 

it produces balloons. See Great Am. Ins. Co. of New York v. Vegas Const. Co., 251 F.R.D. 

534, 543 (D. Nev. 2008) (“In Reilly v. Natwest Markets Group, [181 F.3d 253, 268 (2d Cir.

1999)] [applying a four-prong test for preclusion] the Second Circuit held that the district 

court did not abuse its discretion in precluding two witnesses from testifying on subject 

matters for which a Rule 30(b)(6) designee was unable to provide knowledgeable and 

specific responses.”).

III. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that a motion to compel on Dispute One above is due by May 

20, 2020. No extensions of this deadline will be granted.

Dated this 19th day of May, 2020.

Case 2:18-cv-02332-JAT Document 243 Filed 05/19/20 Page 3 of 3