Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-05276/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-05276-0/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

ReBath LLC,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Baths & More of Georgia LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-19-05276-PHX-MTL

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff ReBath, LLC’s (“ReBath”) Motion for 

Sanctions Based on Defendants’ Failure to Comply With Court’s Mandatory Initial 

Discovery Requirements (Doc. 38.) For reasons that follow, the Motion is granted. 

I. BACKGROUND

ReBath filed a Complaint (Doc. 1) and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 

and Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 2) on September 26, 2019, alleging trademark 

infringement, false designation of origin, and breach of contract stemming from 

Defendants’ use of the RE-BATH brand. The next day, the Court gave notice to the parties 

that the case was subject to the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot (“MIDP”) and directed 

the parties to review General Order 17-08, which establishes key features and deadlines for 

initial discovery requests. (Doc. 10.) 

Defendants are Baths & More of Georgia LLC, Justin Hutto and Leslie Hutto. (Doc. 

1.) Baths & More of Georgia has not appeared in this action. The Hutto Defendants, who 

are proceeding pro se, filed an Answer on October 23, 2019 (Doc. 26) but did not respond 

Case 2:19-cv-05276-MTL Document 44 Filed 04/20/20 Page 1 of 4
- 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

to the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. (Doc. 24.) The

Court granted the Preliminary Injunction due to Defendants’ failure to respond. (Doc. 25.) 

In the Order Setting Rule 16 Scheduling Conference, issued November 5, 2019, the 

Court ordered the parties to meet and confer to develop a Joint Proposed Case Management 

Report. (Doc. 29 at 2.) Defendants declined to contribute to the joint report. (Doc. 36.) 

Pursuant to General Order 17-08, the parties’ MIDP responses were due on or before 

November 22, 2019. (Doc. 10.) ReBath timely served its MIDP responses by the deadline. 

(Doc. 30.) Defendants did not. 

Defendants also failed to appear at the scheduling conference on January 6, 2020. 

(Doc. 36.) In the Scheduling Order, filed January 6, 2020, the Court ordered Defendants 

to serve their MIDP responses by January 17, 2020. (Doc. 37.) Defendants have still not 

served their MIDP responses. 

ReBath filed the Motion for Sanctions on February 7, 2020, asking the Court to 

strike the Hutto’s Answer and enter a default judgment against them for their failure to 

serve MIDP responses. (Doc. 38.) ReBath emailed a copy of the Motion for Sanctions to 

Defendants on February 10, 2020. Defendants did not respond. On March 24, 2020, the 

Court ordered the Hutto Defendants to show cause by April 10, 2020 why sanctions should 

not be imposed for their failure to comply with the Court’s prior orders, including General 

Order 17-08. (Doc. 41.) To date, Defendants have not responded.

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

Under Rule 37(b)(2), if a party fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery, 

the court where the action is pending may issue further just orders, including “striking 

pleadings in whole or in part” and “rendering a default judgment against the disobedient 

party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(iii), (vi). General Order 17-08, which establishes the 

MIDP, provides that “Rule 37(b)(2) shall apply to mandatory discovery responses required 

by this order.” 

The Ninth Circuit has constructed a five-part test to determine whether a caseCase 2:19-cv-05276-MTL Document 44 Filed 04/20/20 Page 2 of 4
- 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

dispositive sanction under Rule 37(b)(2) is just: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious

resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its dockets; (3) the risk of prejudice

to the party seeking sanctions; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their

merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. 

New Images of Beverly Hills, 482 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2007). Although there are five

factors, the test is “not mechanical” and courts typically focus on factors three and five.

See id. Only “willfulness, bad faith, or fault” justify terminating sanctions. Jorgensen v. 

Cassiday, 320 F.3d 906, 912 (9th Cir. 2003).

III. DISCUSSION

The Court agrees that striking the Hutto’s Answer and entering a default judgment 

against them are appropriate sanctions for their failure to comply with the Court’s prior 

discovery orders, including General Order 17-08. First, the public’s interest in expeditious 

resolution of litigation and the court’s need to manage its docket weigh in favor of striking 

the Answer and entering a default judgment. Defendants have willfully and categorically 

refused to participate in this litigation since filing their Answer. They have also ignored 

the Court’s orders to participate in the drafting of the Joint Case Management Report, 

appear for the Rule 16 conference, respond to ReBath’s Motion for Sanctions, 

communicate with ReBath’s counsel and serve their MIDP responses. 

Next, the risk of prejudice to ReBath is great. Without Defendants’ MIDP 

responses, ReBath cannot fully ascertain the factual or legal bases of Defendants’ defenses. 

Defendants’ failure to comply with General Order 17-08 causes significant risk of 

prejudice to ReBath by thwarting ReBath’s ability to prosecute its case.

Finally, while the Court is mindful of the public policy favoring disposition on the 

merits, the Court anticipates that Defendants’ pattern of noncompliance will only continue 

if lesser sanctions are imposed. Defendants have had ample time, notice, and opportunity 

to comply with their MIDP disclosure obligations. Despite notice, however, Defendants 

have repeatedly failed to comply. In granting these case-dispositive sanctions, the Court 

Case 2:19-cv-05276-MTL Document 44 Filed 04/20/20 Page 3 of 4
- 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

also considered that Defendants did not respond to ReBath’s Motion for Sanctions, despite 

being given multiple opportunities to do so, and the failure to respond may be deemed

consent to granting the motion under LRCiv 7.2(i). 

IV. CONCLUSION 

IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions and Request for 

Summary Disposition. (Doc. 38.) 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED striking the Hutto Defendants’ Answer (Doc. 26). 

The Court anticipates that by striking Defendants’ Answer, Plaintiff will, consistent with 

this Order, seek default judgment. Thus, the striking of the Answer is a case-dispositive 

sanction.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall apply for entry of default against 

the Hutto Defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a) within fourteen (14) days of the date 

of this Order. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within fourteen (14) days of the clerk’s entry 

of default against the Hutto Defendants Plaintiff must apply to the Court for the entry of a 

default judgment against all three defendants. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED awarding Plaintiff, pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(C), 

reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in connection with the Motion for Sanctions 

and Notices of Defendants' Non-Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions and Request 

for Summary Disposition. Plaintiff shall include the application for such fees and costs in 

its application to the Court for default judgment. 

Dated this 20th day of April, 2020.

Case 2:19-cv-05276-MTL Document 44 Filed 04/20/20 Page 4 of 4