Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_07-cv-05009/USCOURTS-arwd-5_07-cv-05009-11/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

ROTOWORKS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 07-5009

GRASSWORKS USA, LLC;

GRASSWORKS!!! L.L.C.;

ROBERT D. UMBERSON a/k/a/BOBBY 

UMBERSON; LINDA K. REED; and

METAL WORKS, L.L.C DEFENDANTS

O R D E R

Now on this 7th day of September, 2007, comes on for

consideration Defendants' First Motion To Compel (document #93),

and from said motion, the response thereto, and the supporting

documentation, the Court finds and orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff Rotoworks International Limited ("Rotoworks")

manufactures a type of farm implement known as a Rotowiper, used

to wipe herbicide on cropland. In its Amended Complaint,

Rotoworks alleges that defendants are liable to it for trademark

infringement by counterfeiting and implied passing off, in

violation of 15 U.S.C. §1114(1), and for trade dress and trademark

infringement, in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1125(a).

The Amended Complaint prays for an extension of the

preliminary injunction entered on March 5, 2007, to Metal Works,

L.L.C.; for permanent injunctive relief; for damages, attorney's

fees and costs; for removal of all references to Rotowiper

products from defendants' product literature and grassworks.net

website; and for destruction of all knock-off products

Case 5:07-cv-05009-JLH Document 100 Filed 09/07/07 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: <pageID>
-2-

manufactured by defendants. 

Defendants filed a Counterclaim, alleging that Rotoworks was

improperly using information obtained during discovery. The Court

struck this Counterclaim by Order dated September 4, 2007, and

ruled that -- to the extent they related solely to the

Counterclaim -- Rotoworks was not required to respond to

defendants' Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests for

Production of Documents. To the extent that discovery related to

the issues raised by the Amended Complaint or the Answer, the

Court directed that responses would be considered timely if filed

within fourteen (14) days of the September 4 Order.

On August 24, 2007, before the Court entered the Order

referred to above, defendants filed the motion now under

consideration. Plaintiff has responded, and the issues are ripe

for decision. 

2. Defendants have submitted two sets of Interrogatories

and Requests for Production of Documents to plaintiff.

Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for

Production of Documents ("First Set") contains Interrogatories 1-

15 and Requests for Production 1-18. Responses to the First Set

were submitted by plaintiff on June 25, 2007.

Defendants' Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests for

Production of Documents ("Second Set") contains Interrogatories

16-20 and Requests for Production 19-22. Plaintiff has not

Case 5:07-cv-05009-JLH Document 100 Filed 09/07/07 Page 2 of 12 PageID #: <pageID>
-3-

responded to the Second Set.

3. Certain Interrogatories and Requests for Production

appear to the Court to be related only to the Counterclaim, or to

otherwise be unrelated to the issues raised by the Amended

Complaint or the Answer, and plaintiff will not be required to

respond to those. The Court places the following in this

category:

* Interrogatory 8 (information about current and past

Rotoworks distributors), and Interrogatories 16, 17, 18, and 19

(all concerning information about plaintiff's use of discovered

information). 

* Request for Production No. 12 (seeking plaintiff's

telephone records), and Requests for Production 20 and 21

(concerning plaintiff's use of discovered information). 

4. Plaintiff has responded to some of the challenged

Interrogatories and Requests for Production, although in a manner

which defendants deem insufficient. The Court disagrees, and

finds the responses to Interrogatories No. 5 and 12, and Requests

for Production No. 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 16 sufficient, although

it will take this opportunity to remind the parties of the duty to

timely supplement their responses under F.R.C.P. 26(e), and to

point out that information withheld during discovery may prove

inadmissible at trial. These considerations may impel plaintiff

to revisit its responses to Interrogatories No. 5 and 12 and

Case 5:07-cv-05009-JLH Document 100 Filed 09/07/07 Page 3 of 12 PageID #: <pageID>
-4-

Requests for Production No. 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 11, 16.

5. Other Interrogatories and Requests for Production

clearly seek discoverable information related to issues raised by

the Amended Complaint or the Answer, and the responses thereto are

insufficient. The Court will, therefore, direct that Rotoworks

provide specific responses thereto. The Court places

Interrogatories seeking witness information in this category,

including:

* Interrogatory No. 1, which asks for a list of customers

"confused or deceived by Defendants, causing them to purchase a

Grassworks Weed Wiper instead of a Rotowiper Product." In

response to Interrogatory No. 1, plaintiffs offered only a list of

documents identified by number. I t i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t f o r

Rotoworks to simply identify documents from which they derived

such a list. The Interrogatory asks for names, and the

identification of these individuals is relevant, or at the very

least it is likely to lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence, which is all that is required by F.R.C.P. 26(b). The

Court does not, however, consider it necessary for plaintiff to

identify the customers as defendants define "identify" in their

discovery requests. Except as to expert witnesses, identification

by name and current or last known address of the individuals is

sufficient.

* Interrogatory No. 3, which asks for a list of people who

Case 5:07-cv-05009-JLH Document 100 Filed 09/07/07 Page 4 of 12 PageID #: <pageID>
-5-

received a Grassworks Weed Wiper instead of a Rotowiper. The

response is insufficient for the same reasons as the response to

Interrogatory No. 1.

* Interrogatory No. 4, which asks for a list of people who

received an Arkansas-made weed wiper when they intended to

purchase a Rotowiper product made in New Zealand. The response is

insufficient for the same reasons as the response to Interrogatory

No. 1.

* Interrogatory No. 6, which asks for a list of people who

will testify that they were deceived as part of a "bait and

switch" scheme on the part of defendants. The response is

insufficient for the same reasons as the response to Interrogatory

No. 1.

* Interrogatory No. 11, which asks for all "documents and

communications referring or relating to Rafe Essary." Plaintiff

objects that this information is protected by attorney-client

privilege, but does not explain why. The Court recalls that there

was testimony that Essary was instrumental in causing plaintiff to

become aware of alleged misconduct on the part of defendants,

which led to the filing of this lawsuit. For that reason, and to

the extent the Interrogatory relates to those circumstances, it

seeks discoverable information. The Court is also aware that

Essary became a distributor for Rotoworks after this lawsuit was

filed, and finds that information about communications between

Case 5:07-cv-05009-JLH Document 100 Filed 09/07/07 Page 5 of 12 PageID #: <pageID>
-6-

Essary and Rotoworks in that capacity are irrelevant to the issues

presented, and the Interrogatory need not be answered as to this

category of communications.

* Interrogatory No. 13, which asks for identification of

all fact and expert witnesses plaintiff expects to call at trial.

While plaintiff did identify some individuals, it also referred to

its response to Interrogatory No. 1, leaving defendants to their

own devices to sort through piles of documents and attempt to

guess who plaintiff might call as witnesses. This is not

sufficient.

The Court also places in this category Interrogatories that

ask for information that plaintiff will use to prove up its case,

or that defendants might use to prove up their defenses,

including:

* Interrogatory No. 14, which asks for all documents

plaintiff intends to offer at trial, or upon which plaintiff's

expert witnesses will rely. This is discoverable information.

* Interrogatory No. 20, which asks for plaintiff's damages

calculations and attorneys' fee calculations, although the Court

will limit this to damages calculations. Attorney's fees may come

into play after trial, but are a matter for the Court to consider,

and there is no basis for discovery as to them at this time.

Damages information is clearly discoverable.

* Request for Production No. 4, but only insofar as it

Case 5:07-cv-05009-JLH Document 100 Filed 09/07/07 Page 6 of 12 PageID #: <pageID>
-7-

seeks information on the costs of Rotoworks' products sold to

defendants for resale in the United States.

* Request for Production No. 14, which asks for documents

related to the sale of herbicide applicators in colors other than

aqua, although the Court will limit the geographical reach of this

Request to documents relating to such sales in the United States,

and will limit it to the sale of Rotowiper products.

* Request for Production No. 19, but only insofar as

plaintiff anticipates using the documents sought therein either in

its case in chief or in rebuttal.

* Request for Production No. 22, which asks for all

documents supporting plaintiff's damages calculations and attorney

fees, although the Court will limit such Request to documents

supporting damages calculations only.

6. Finally, Interrogatory No. 2 seeks discoverable

information, but asks for it in such sweeping terms that

production may be burdensome and deposition appears a more

appropriate discovery vehicle. It will be sufficient Response to

Interrogatory No. 2, asking for "every statement" by defendants to

persons deceived or confused, if plaintiff explains with

specificity the means by which it expects to demonstrate deceit or

confusion.

7. The Court has already ruled that discovery propounded in

defendants' Second Set will be timely answered on or before

Case 5:07-cv-05009-JLH Document 100 Filed 09/07/07 Page 7 of 12 PageID #: <pageID>
-8-

September 28, 2007. As to Interrogatories 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 11, 13,

and 14, and Requests for Production 4 and 14, which were contained

in defendants' First Set, the Court will order responses in line

with the instructions in this Order to be made no later than

September 14, 2007.

8. In addition to the foregoing issues arising out of

written discovery requests, defendants contend that plaintiff has

"refused to cooperate in the scheduling of the deposition of its

principal, Neil Barker in Fayetteville, Arkansas." The Court will

lay out the facts of this dispute as gleaned from the supporting

documents of the parties:

* Barker lives in New Zealand, but travels occasionally to

the United States on business. It was originally the

plan of the parties that Barker's deposition would be

scheduled when he was in the United States sometime

during July or August, 2007, but it was not known when

that would be.

* On June 21, 2007, defendants noticed up the deposition

of a Rule 30(b)(6) witness of Rotoworks for July 31,

2007, in Fayetteville, Arkansas. It appears that both

sides contemplated that this witness would be Barker.

* At some point -- it is not clear when -- plaintiff's

counsel learned that Barker would be available in midJuly, and sometime during the first week of July he was

Case 5:07-cv-05009-JLH Document 100 Filed 09/07/07 Page 8 of 12 PageID #: <pageID>
-9-

offered for deposition on July 12 or 13. Defense

counsel objected that he had other business scheduled

and could not take the deposition at that time. He

asked for another date in late July or late August. 

* The parties fell to bickering about whether Barker had

bought his plane ticket before the Notice of Deposition

was submitted, and whether defense counsel could have

rearranged his schedule to take the deposition when

Barker was in the country. Such bickering did not

resolve the dispute, nor even shed any light on it, but

it did harden the attorneys in their positions as

expressed in connection with the pending motion.

* Plaintiff offered to make Barker available for

deposition by videoconference on July 31, 2007, or some

other date convenient to defendants. It also appeared

willing to produce Barker live, if defendants bore the

travel expense. Defendants insisted on a live

deposition, and refused to pay Barker's expenses.

* On July 27, 2007, defendant's 30(b)(6) Notice was

revised to call for the deposition on August 21, 2007,

in Fayetteville. Not only was that date apparently

inconvenient for plaintiff's attorneys, the matter of

whether Barker would appear live, and if so, who would

pay, had not been resolved.

Case 5:07-cv-05009-JLH Document 100 Filed 09/07/07 Page 9 of 12 PageID #: <pageID>
-10-

F.R.C.P. 30(b)(7) allows the Court to "order that a

deposition be taken by telephone or other remote electronic

means." Defendants do not want to do this because "the deposition

will involve a large number of documents and Plaintiff had agree

[sic] to voluntarily appear for a deposition in Fayetteville at a

mutually convenient time for all the parties and attorneys."

The Court does not find either of these arguments against

videoconferencing particularly compelling, as documents can be

viewed and discussed using videoconference technology, and it is

apparent at this point that the parties are not going to find "a

mutually convenient time" to do anything in this case. However,

the Court has wide discretion in determining where a deposition

should be taken, Thompson v. Sun Oil Company, 523 F.2d 647 (8th

Cir. 1975), and in the exercise of that discretion it declines to

order Barker's deposition to be taken by videoconference for a

different reason. Given the problems this case has had, and the

disputatious nature and collateral personal issues of the

attorneys, the Court must -- regretfully -- anticipate that

Barker's deposition will occasion disputes that the Court will be

called upon to resolve. That will be much simpler, calling for

fewer layers of technology, if Barker is deposed in Fayetteville,

Arkansas, where this suit is pending. 

As for who should pay for Barker's travel, the Court has

combed the submissions of the parties to try to determine if

Case 5:07-cv-05009-JLH Document 100 Filed 09/07/07 Page 10 of 12 PageID #:

<pageID>
-11-

either side is more at fault in the failure of Barker to be

deposed when he was in the United States on other business, but

has been unable to make such a determination. Neither counsel

cooperated in trying to arrange for the deposition. Thus, the

Court finds that the cost of Barker's airfare, room and board in

coming to Fayetteville for this deposition should be borne equally

by the parties. 

Finally, there is the issue of when Barker will be deposed.

Counsel for plaintiff is directed to obtain all dates on which

Barker can feasibly -- even if not conveniently -- come to

Fayetteville in the next thirty (30) days, and to settle with

counsel for defendants on the date which is least inconvenient to

them both from among those given by Barker. Should Barker find it

inconvenient to appear, or counsel for either side find it

inconvenient to depose, within that time period, the Court will

select a date and direct all concerned to appear for the

deposition on pain of contempt.

In lieu of this rather harsh strategy for taking Barker's

deposition, and in spite of its reservations about problems that

might attend such, the Court will allow the parties -- if they are

able -- to agree to depose Barker using videoconference technology

or taking a telephone deposition.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants' First Motion To

Compel (document #93) is granted in part and denied in part.

Case 5:07-cv-05009-JLH Document 100 Filed 09/07/07 Page 11 of 12 PageID #:

<pageID>
-12-

The Motion is granted insofar as it seeks to compel responses

to defendants' Interrogatories 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 11, 13, and 14, and

Requests for Production 4 and 14, and plaintiff is directed to

submit its responses to those Interrogatories and Requests for

Production -- in line with the instructions in this Order to be

made no later than September 14, 2007.

The Motion is also granted insofar as it seeks to compel

responses to defendants' Interrogatory 20 and Requests for

Production 19 and 22, and plaintiff is directed to submit its

responses to those Interrogatories and Requests for Production --

in line with the instructions in this Order to be made no later

than September 28, 2007.

The Motion is also granted insofar as it seeks to compel the

deposition of Rotoworks' principal, Neil Barker, in Fayetteville,

Arkansas. The parties are directed to settle on a date for this

deposition with the thirty (30) days following this Order, and to

share equally in Barker's airfare, room, and board for travel to

Fayetteville, Arkansas, for that purpose.

The Motion is denied in all other respects.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Jimm Larry Hendren 

JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:07-cv-05009-JLH Document 100 Filed 09/07/07 Page 12 of 12 PageID #:

<pageID>