Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00707/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00707-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HONOR PLASTIC INDUSTRIAL )

CO. LTD., et. al., )

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

LOLLICUP USA, INC., )

 et al., )

)

)

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:06cv0707 AWI DLB

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ 

MOTION TO COMPEL INITIAL

DISCLOSURES AND RESPONSES TO

DISCOVERY REQUESTS

(Document 46)

Plaintiffs Honor Plastic Industrial Co. Ltd. (“Honor”), and P&P International, Inc.(P&P)

(collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed the instant motion to compel initial disclosures and discovery

requests on October 3, 2006. The motion was heard on October 27, 2006, before the Honorable

Dennis L. Beck, United States Magistrate Judge. Wendell Harris appeared on behalf of

Plaintiffs. Charles Farano appeared on behalf of Defendant Lollicup USA, Inc. (“Lollicup”).

BACKGROUND

This is a trademark case involving plaintiff Honor, a manufacturer of plastic cups and

related items, its current distributor, P&P and its former distributor, defendant Lollicup. At one

time Honor permitted Lollicup to sell cups manufactured by Honor that bore Honor’s trademarks. 

Honor alleges this is no longer the case and Lollicup is no longer its distributor. Plaintiffs allege

that after termination as Honor’s distributor, Lollicup has continued to use Honor’s trademarks

Case 1:06-cv-00707-AWI-DLB Document 78 Filed 10/31/06 Page 1 of 4
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 The Court notes that this motion was denied by the Honorable District Court Judge Anthony Ishii on 1

September 28, 2006.

2

and falsely claim that it is Honor itself and that it owns Honor’s trademarks. Honor also claims

that Lollicup has manufactured and sold cups and lids bearing Honor’s trademarks.

This case is preceding on Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint filed June 27, 2006 in which

Plaintiffs allege trademark infringement under federal and California law and interference with

contractual relationship under California law. Plaintiffs seek monetary, declaratory and

injunctive relief.

On August 18, 2006, the parties conducted their Rule 26(f) conference. Thereafter on

August 21, 2006, Plaintiffs served their first set of interrogatories and requests for production of

documents to which responses were due September 25, 2006. Plaintiffs provided their Rule 26

initial disclosures on September 1, 2006. 

On October 12, 2006, the District Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary

restraining order against Lollicup precluding Lollicup from using Honor’s trademarks.

Plaintiffs contend that Lollicup has failed to provide initial disclosures pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and has also failed to respond to the discovery. Plaintiffs

filed the present motion on October 3, 2006. On October 13, 2006, Lollicup filed the Declaration

of Charles Farano in Response to Motion for Initial Disclosures and Responses to Discovery

Requests. Plaintiffs contend that Mr. Farano failed to return messages regarding the preparation

of a joint statement as required by Local Rule 37-251and therefore on October 23, 2006,

Plaintiffs submitted a statement without Lollicup’s participation.

In his declaration, Mr. Farano admits that Lollicup’s Rule 26 disclosures were due on

September 1, 2006 and that the responses to discovery were due on August 21, 2006. Mr. Farano

states that Lollicup failed to timely respond because it was waiting for the Court’s decision on its

motion to dismiss for improper venue/change of venue. Mr. Farano also argues that Lollicup’s 1

failure to comply with discovery has not prejudiced Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs disagree that the failure to provide disclosures and responses to discovery has

not been prejudicial in that the parties have just completed briefing Plaintiffs’ motion for

Case 1:06-cv-00707-AWI-DLB Document 78 Filed 10/31/06 Page 2 of 4
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

3

preliminary injunction which Plaintiffs had to do without the responses to discovery and without

Lollicup’s position on key issues. Plaintiffs also point out that Lollicup never sought an

extension from counsel or the Court regarding the disclosures or the responses to discovery. 

Additionally, Lollicup has recently filed a motion for preliminary inunction, further underscoring

the need for Lollicup to provide prompt discovery on the issues. Plaintiffs therefore seek an

Order compelling Lollicup to:

1. Provide Rule 26 disclosures;

2. Fully respond, without objection to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories served

on August 21, 2006;

3. Fully respond to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Requests for Production of Documents and

Things, served on August 21, 2006; 

4. Provide a privileged document log of any withheld documents pursuant to Rule 26

(b)(5), if applicable; and 

5. Reimburse Plaintiffs’ reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses in connection with

this motion.

DISCUSSION

Except as otherwise provided by stipulation or court order, each party must disclose to

other parties certain information regarding witnesses, documents, damage computations and

liability insurance without awaiting a discovery request. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1). Unless an

objection has been made or a different time is set by stipulation or court order, the initial

disclosures are due within 14 days after the Rule 26(f) early conference. Failure to respond to

discovery in the time permitted waives all objections thereto. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(b)(4), 34.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 provides for sanctions against a party who fails to provide

discovery or disclosures. A party who prevails on a motion to compel is entitled to his or her

expenses, including reasonable attorneys fees, unless the losing party was substantially justified

in making or opposing the motion. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(4). An award of expenses does not

require a showing of wilfulness or improper intent; rather, the standard is whether there was

substantial justification for the losing party’s conduct. Id. 

Lollicup has, without substantial justification, failed to provide the disclosures required

by Rule 26 and failed to respond to discovery within the time permitted. Plaintiffs’ motion is

therefore GRANTED. Lollicup is ordered to provide its initial disclosures in compliance with

Case 1:06-cv-00707-AWI-DLB Document 78 Filed 10/31/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Rule 26 within 10 days of this order. Lollicup is also ordered to provide responses, without

objection, to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for Documents,

along with a privilege log, within 10 days of this Order. Pursuant to Rule 37(a)(4)(A),

Plaintiffs’ motion for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs associated with this motion is

GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall submit a declaration evidencing these attorneys’ fees and costs

within 15 days of this Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 31, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00707-AWI-DLB Document 78 Filed 10/31/06 Page 4 of 4