Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00121/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00121-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 Patent 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SUREFIRE, LLC,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12cv121-JLS (MDD)

ORDER ON JOINT MOTION

FOR DETERMINATION OF

DISCOVERY DISPUTE

[ECF NO. 44]

vs.

JETBEAM USA, et al.,

Defendants.

Background

Plaintiff manufactures, markets and sells high end flashlights. 

(ECF No. 1, ¶ 10). This case is one of five related cases filed by Plaintiff

asserting claims of patent infringement, trade dress infringement and

unfair competition against various Defendants. (See ECF No. 34). The

instant case is the lead case of the five and was filed on January 17,

2012. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff asserts claims of infringement of three

patents, trade dress infringement and unfair competition against

Defendants in this case. (Id.). Defendants filed their Answer on June

29, 2012, and have not asserted any counterclaims. (ECF No. 13).

Defendants asserted twelve affirmative defenses including a one

sentence claim that Plaintiff’s claims are “barred in whole or in party

[sic] by unclean hands.” (Id.). 

- 1 - 12cv121-JLS (MDD)

Case 3:12-cv-00121-JLS-MDD Document 49 Filed 04/16/14 Page 1 of 5
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

On April 3, 2014, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Determination

of Discovery Dispute. (ECF No. 44). The dispute seeks an order

compelling production of documents from Plaintiff in response to

requests 5 and 6 of Defendants’ First Set of Requests for Production. 

(Id.). Plaintiff has refused to produce any documents responsive to these

requests asserting that the requests are overbroad, unduly burdensome

and do not call for the production of relevant information. 

Legal Standard

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally allow for broad

discovery, authorizing parties to obtain discovery of “any nonprivileged

matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense . . . .” Fed. R. Civ.

P. 26(b)(1). Relevant information for discovery purposes includes any

information “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence,” and need not be admissible at trial to be discoverable. Id. 

District courts have broad discretion to determine relevancy for

discovery purposes. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir.

2002). Similarly, district courts have broad discretion to limit discovery

where the discovery sought is “unreasonably cumulative or duplicative,

or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less

burdensome, or less expensive.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). Limits also

should be imposed where the burden or expense outweighs the likely

benefits. Id.

A party may request the production of any document within the

scope of Rule 26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). “For each item or category, the

response must either state that inspection and related activities will be

permitted as requested or state an objection to the request, including the

reasons.” Id. at 34(b)(2)(B). 

- 2 - 12cv121-JLS (MDD)

Case 3:12-cv-00121-JLS-MDD Document 49 Filed 04/16/14 Page 2 of 5
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

Discussion

The two requests at issue are related allowing the Court to

consider them together. Request No. 5 requires Plaintiff to produce

“documents and communications concerning Plaintiff’s purchase of

components that are manufactured outside the USA, for use in any of

Plaintiff’s flashlight products sold in the USA.” (ECF No. 44-1). Request

No. 6 requires Plaintiff to produce “documents and communications

concerning Plaintiff’s flashlight products sold in the USA that are

manufactured or assembled outside of the USA.” (Id.). Plaintiff objected

to each request asserting that the request is “overbroad and unduly

burdensome . . . [and seeks] documents and communications outside the

scope of discovery in this matter.” (ECF No. 44-2).

Defendants contend that the requested documents are relevant to

damages, counterclaims and affirmative defenses. Specifically,

Defendants assert that “the origin of components, manufacture and

assembly of Plaintiff’s products labeled ‘Made in the USA’ is relevant to 

. . . Plaintiff’s alleged lost profits [and reasonable royalty].” (ECF No. 44

at 3). Defendants also claim that the information requested bears upon

a counterclaim of false advertising and an affirmative defense of unclean

hands. (Id.). In support of these contentions, Defendants argue that if

Plaintiff’s products labeled “Made in the USA” actually are made

elsewhere, it would impact the demand for Plaintiff’s products ultimately

affecting profits. Similarly, Defendants argue that any reasonable

royalty rate would be impacted by the actual origin of the products. 

Finally, Defendants argue that if Plaintiff is misrepresenting the origin

of its products, such conduct may support a counterclaim of false

advertising and that the conduct is inequitable. (Id. at 4-7).

- 3 - 12cv121-JLS (MDD)

Case 3:12-cv-00121-JLS-MDD Document 49 Filed 04/16/14 Page 3 of 5
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

In response, Plaintiff asserts first that Defendants have not

asserted any counterclaims and that the origin of components and place

of manufacture are not relevant to claims of patent infringement.

Finally, Plaintiff contends that the mere assertion of an affirmative

defense of unclean hands does not entitle Defendants to the discovery it

seeks. Plaintiff states that it does not advertise its products as “Made in

USA” and Defendants have made no showing to the contrary. 

Having reviewed the Complaint, Answer and the documents filed

in connection with this Joint Motion, the Court finds that Requests 5 and

6 are overbroad and do not call for the production of information relevant

to any claim or defense as required by Rule 26. Defendants have not

convinced the Court that the place of origin of any components of

Plaintiff’s products or where they are manufactured has any bearing on

lost profits or reasonable royalties in this case or that such information

is reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Even

if arguably relevant to a counterclaim of false advertising, Defendants

have not alleged it. In its motion papers, Defendants neither asserted

nor presented any evidence that Plaintiff advertises its products as

“Made in USA.” Plaintiff, however, specifically disclaims advertising

their products in that manner. (ECF No. 44 at 8). 

Regarding their affirmative defense of unclean hands, Defendants

are correct that the law requires a defendant to “‘demonstrate (1)

inequitable conduct by the plaintiff; (2) that the plaintiff's conduct

directly relates to the claim which it has asserted against the defendant;

and (3) plaintiff's conduct injured the defendant.’” Metro-GoldwynMayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 518 F.Supp.2d 1197, 1223 (C.D.

Cal. 2007) quoting Survivor Productions LLC v. Fox Broadcasting Co.,

- 4 - 12cv121-JLS (MDD)

Case 3:12-cv-00121-JLS-MDD Document 49 Filed 04/16/14 Page 4 of 5
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

2001 WL 35829270 at *3 (C.D. Cal. June 12, 2001). Here, the Court

finds that the evidence sought by Defendants is not relevant to their

asserted defense nor could lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Even if Plaintiff has components manufactured and products assembled

outside of the United States, the Court cannot accept Defendants’ theory

that such facts, if true, directly relates to Plaintiff’s claims of patent

infringement, trade dress infringement or unfair competition. Similarly,

the Court cannot accept Defendants’ theory that they would be injured

by the alleged misconduct. Finally, Defendants have presented no

support for their assertion that Plaintiff claimed their products to be

made in the United States. To the contrary, Plaintiff has expressly

stated that it does not advertise its products in this manner. (ECF No.

44 at 8). Even if arguably relevant to the affirmative defense of unclean

hands, Requests 5 and 6 are not limited in time or to products

manufactured incorporating the patents-in-suit. The Requests are

overbroad on their face and not enforceable by the Court. 

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to compel production

of documents, as presented in the instant Joint Motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 16, 2014

 

 Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

- 5 - 12cv121-JLS (MDD)

Case 3:12-cv-00121-JLS-MDD Document 49 Filed 04/16/14 Page 5 of 5