Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02412/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02412-26/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

1

 The Court notes that disputes between counsel have become the rule rather than

the exception, contrary to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of

Practice for the District of Arizona. Counsel are cautioned that while they are bickering

over discovery, the time for conducting discovery may expire leaving the parties scant

evidence to pursue their claims.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

AV Media, Pte, Ltd., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Omnimount Systems, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 06-2412-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Currently pending before the Court is the request of the parties to schedule a discovery

hearing in order for the Court to once again resolve various discovery disputes that have

arisen in this case. After considering the parties’ briefs, the Court finds that oral argument

is unnecessary in most instances.

The Court previously held a discovery hearing wherein counsel had an opportunity to

raise issues necessary to the efficient resolution of this case. Since then, however, a plethora

of issues, similar to the genre to the prior disputes, have arisen. Moreover, the Court has

found it necessary to appoint a special master.1

The Court will first address the issues raised by Defendant:

(1) Reconvening the Deposition of Sunny Tan: the Court finds that Defendants have

Case 2:06-cv-02412-SMM Document 232 Filed 02/13/08 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

2

 The issues raised in the table, but not elaborated on, will not be addressed in this

Order as the Court has nothing to base its decision upon.

-2-

established that additional time is both justified and necessary to the effective resolution of

several issues. Therefore, Plaintiffs must make Mr. Tan available to Defendants in Phoenix,

for a deposition, the duration no longer than 5 hours. Therefore, the request will be

GRANTED in favor of Defendant.

(2) AV Media’s Financial Statements: the Court finds that this information is essential to

evaluating the alleged harm that occurred arising from Omnimount’s alleged wrongdoing.

Therefore, Plaintiffs must produce the documents to Defendants. Therefore, the request will

be GRANTED in favor of Defendant.

(3) Eileen Goh Deposition: the Court finds that Ms. Goh is in fact a “managing agent”of

AV Media and thus is required to be made available for deposition here in Phoenix. The

deposition may exceed the presumptive time limit as did those of the other managing agents,

not to exceed eighteen hours. Therefore, the request will be GRANTED in favor of

Defendant.

Next, the Court will address several of the issues2

 raised by Plaintiffs: 

(1) Temporary 10% discount: the Court finds that Plaintiffs have not established that the

documents requested are not essential to developing or proving a claim in its case. The

request by Defendants for a 10% discount does not equate to “proof of a misrepresentation”

thereby demonstrating that Defendant and Yi Feng “plotted to structure a transaction by

which Yi Feng could become a large creditor of KSM-China.” Therefore Plaintiffs’ request

is DENIED.

(2) OmniMount’s establishment of a July 31, 2006 cut-off date: the Court finds that

documents pertaining to Shim Chia are relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims, and Defendant has not

demonstrated why the establishment of a July 31, 2006 cut-off date is reasonable. Therefore,

Defendant is to provide Plaintiffs with the documents requested in Plaintiffs’ Second R.34

Case 2:06-cv-02412-SMM Document 232 Filed 02/13/08 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

-3-

Request (3312-21, 31).

(3) Establishment of a New Supply Chain: the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to

establish how the information sought is relevant. The relationship between the reasons for

transitioning and the level of ease or difficulty associated with transitioning to a new supply

chain and Plaintiffs’ allegation that Defendant was “determined to destroy plaintiffs’

manufacturing capability to eliminate plaintiffs as a source of supply for Omnimount’s

competitors” is tenuous at best. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ request is DENIED.

(4) Communications between key actors: the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to

establish with sufficient specificity how the information sought is relevant. Therefore,

Plaintiffs’ request is DENIED

(5) Omnimountasia and CPR: the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to establish with

sufficient specificity how the information sought is relevant. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ request

is DENIED

(6) Non-production and suspected under-production of documents from certain

OmniMount custodians: the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to establish with sufficient

specificity how the information sought is relevant. Furthermore, Plaintiffs have failed to

provide the Court with a basis for its suspicion of underproduction of documents from email

boxes of Mr. Nakano and Ms. Jacobs. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ request is DENIED on the basis

that it is speculative.

(7) Whereabouts of key OmniMount personnel: the Court finds that given the recurring

issue of forum non conveniens and choice of law raised by Omnimount, the geographical

whereabouts of “key Omnimount personnel”are relevant to this case. However, without

providing the necessary information regarding key Omnimount personnel, Omnimount will

not have the requisite indicia to proceed with such an argument. Such is Omnimount’s

decision to make. The Plaintiffs have selected the District of Arizona as its forum and the

Defendant’s plea that it has a scattered work force-without more-leaves the Defendants

Case 2:06-cv-02412-SMM Document 232 Filed 02/13/08 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

-4-

without support for their claim. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ request is DENIED.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED DENYING the parties’ request for a discovery hearing

before the Court. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all relief granted by the Court must be completed

by March 14, 2008.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel shall reconvene by March 5, 2008, to

discuss each of the remaining issues in Plaintiffs’ table of issues (Doc. 218), as well as the

remaining issue raised by Defendant (Documents Re: Specific Third Party)(Doc. 219), in

order to attempt to resolve the issues without the assistance of the Court.

DATED this 13th day of February, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-02412-SMM Document 232 Filed 02/13/08 Page 4 of 4