Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04813/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04813-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

*E-FILED 3/9/06*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

BOB BARKER COMPANY, INC., 

Plaintiff,

 v.

FERGUSON SAFETY PRODUCTS, INC., et al.,

Defendants. /

NO. C 04 04813 JW (RS)

ORDER RE MOTION TO COMPEL

DISCOVERY AND MOTION FOR

SANCTIONS

I. INTRODUCTION

In this action for Lanham Act violations and related claims, plaintiff Bob Barker Company,

Inc. (“BBC”) moves to compel defendants to produce further documents in response to requests

seeking various financial information that BBC contends is relevant either to its remedy of

disgorgement of profits or to its punitive damages claim, or both. Defendants contend that the

requests are overbroad and that, as a small business operation, they do not maintain many of the

kinds of records sought. 

Defendants, however, have failed to identify clearly the extent to which they are refusing to

produce documents, as opposed to representing that the documents do not exist. The motion will

therefore be granted, subject to certain limitations as to requests that are overbroad or otherwise

inappropriate. No sanctions will be imposed.

Case 5:04-cv-04813-JW Document 55 Filed 03/09/06 Page 1 of 11
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER RE MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 

C 04 04813 JW (RS) 

2

 II. BACKGROUND

BBC and defendant Ferguson Safety Products, Inc. (“Ferguson”) are competitors in the

business of supplying equipment to state and federal correctional facilities. As characterized by

BBC in its complaint in this action, Ferguson is a “relatively small” business that manufactures and

markets only three basic products--a “suicide prevention smock,” a blanket, and a sleeping bag. 

Complaint paras. 17-18. BBC, in contrast, “manufactures and sells a vast array of products . . .

[including] personal care items, metal furnishings, mattresses, uniforms, clothing and linens.” 

Complaint para. 8. In its opposition to these motions, Ferguson endorses this characterization of the

parties’ relative sizes, describing itself as being “David to BBC’s Goliath.” Opposition at p. 10.

This action is the second case between these two litigants. In the prior action Ferguson was

the plaintiff, and obtained a jury verdict against BBC. The matter was then settled prior to appeal. 

Complaint, paras. 22-24.

This case arose after Ferguson distributed a promotional flier containing certain statements

regarding BBC and its products that BBC contends are defamatory. In its opposition to this motion,

Ferguson repeatedly characterizes the present dispute as involving only the distribution of “less than

50” copies of a single flier. The complaint, however, specifically alleges that Ferguson also 1)

caused defamatory statements about BBC to be published in a nationally-distributed industry

publication—Correctional News; 2) verbally defamed BBC to one of its customers at a trade show

after this action was first filed and a stipulated restraining order entered; and 3) sent a letter to a

correctional facility as recently as August of 2004 that enclosed the same or another defamatory

flier, in alleged violation of the restraining order. Complaint, paras. 28-32. On “information and

belief” BBC further alleges that defendants have “issued hundreds, if not thousands, of other

inaccurate, false and defamatory communications concerning BBC” and its products. Complaint

para. 34.

Case 5:04-cv-04813-JW Document 55 Filed 03/09/06 Page 2 of 11
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER RE MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 

C 04 04813 JW (RS) 

3

III. STANDARDS

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 26(b)(1),

 [p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, 

that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party . . .For good cause, 

the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter 

involved in the action. Relevant information need not be admissible at the 

trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the 

discovery of admissible evidence.

Evidence is relevant if it has “any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of

consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be

without the evidence.” Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 401. Discovery may be limited by the court

for good cause shown “to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or

undue burden or expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (c)).

Discovery requests for documents and tangible things are governed by Rule 34 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. The rule in relevant part states that, 

Any party may serve on any other party a request to produce and permit the party

making the request, or someone acting on the requestor's behalf, to inspect and copy,

any designated documents (including writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs,

phonorecords, and other data compilations from which information can be obtained,

translated, if necessary, by the respondent through detection devices into reasonably

usable form), or to inspect and copy, test, or sample any tangible things which

constitute or contain matters within the scope of and which are in the possession,

custody or control of the party upon whom the request is served.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). 

Motions to compel are authorized by Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

[If] a party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 33, or if a

party, in response to a request for inspection submitted under Rule 34, fails

to respond that inspection will be permitted as requested or fails to permit

inspection as requested, the discovering party may move for an order

compelling an answer, or a designation, or an order compelling inspection in

accordance with the request. The motion must include a certification that

the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the

person or party failing to make the discovery in an effort to secure the

information or material without court action. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2)(B). 

Case 5:04-cv-04813-JW Document 55 Filed 03/09/06 Page 3 of 11
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER RE MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 

C 04 04813 JW (RS) 

4

IV. DISCUSSION

A. General Findings

BBC’s motion seeks to compel Ferguson to produce further documents in response to 25

specific document requests, all of which generally relate to Ferguson’s financial condition or its

sales, including its costs of goods sold. As noted, BBC contends that the requested documents are

material to its alleged right for disgorgement of profits or its claim for punitive damages, or both. 

BBC explains that it formulated the document requests in consultation with a financial consulting

firm that it retained to quantify and establish Ferguson’s profits and net worth, and that the requests

were tailored to elicit the information needed for that purpose.

Ferguson does not challenge the basic notion that BBC is entitled to information regarding its

net worth and profits. Ferguson has already produced tax returns for 2002 through 2004 and a profit

and loss statement for 2005. (Ferguson asserts that its 2005 tax return is not yet available). 

Ferguson asserts that these documents are sufficient to “show BBC how much gross revenue the

company made in each year, its cost of goods sold, salaries, rents, etc., and the company’s bottom

line profit each year. BBC, however, complains that the corporate tax returns appear “incomplete”

and that the profit and loss statement is only “three lines, non-detailed.” Nor, BBC points out, do

these few documents even come close to being responsive to all of the 25 separate requests.

Ferguson’s proffered basis for not producing additional documents is two fold. First, in its

responses and in opposition to this motion Ferguson explained that it is a “just a small company”

that employs “just a few people who work hard” and that it “has never relied on expensive or

sophisticated computer programs or software or related financial printouts, and does not track

inventory, income, payables or receivables in the way contemplated by the document requests.” 

Second, Ferguson argues that the document requests are overbroad and go far beyond matters

directly related to net worth or profits. Ferguson asserts that the requests would allow BBC “to learn

about every aspect of a competitor’s business” and suggests that is the true motive behind the

requests.

Having reviewed the requests at issue, the Court concludes that many of the requests are in

Case 5:04-cv-04813-JW Document 55 Filed 03/09/06 Page 4 of 11
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER RE MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 

C 04 04813 JW (RS) 

5

fact overbroad, particularly to the extent that they seek information related to sales and marketing

strategies or future planning, rather than actual historical sales data. BBC’s claim for

disgorgement of profits entitles it to inquire into what profits were in fact made, and to the

production of sufficient back up documentation to allow it to test any figures listed on tax returns,

profit and loss statements, or the like. Neither the claim for disgorgement of profits nor the punitive

damages claim, however, opens the door for an unbridled examination into Ferguson’s business

planning and strategies. Also, as will appear in the discussion of specific requests below, in some

instances BBC seeks materials that are so far removed from the sales and related data that will

ultimately be admissible at trial that the requests cannot be deemed “reasonably calculated to lead to

the discovery of admissible evidence,” even if there is some theoretical possibility that the materials

sought could contain information bearing on the issues.

Finally, all of the document requests set a time frame of January 1, 2001 through the present.

Even though there appears to be no dispute that the allegedly wrongful conduct complained of began

no earlier than January of 2003, BBC contends that it needs sufficient historical data to permit a

reliable analysis of the effect, if any, such allegedly wrongful conduct had on Ferguson’s sales. In

balancing that need against the relatively minimal burden created by extending the time frame back

to January 1, 2001, the Court concludes that the time period set forth in the requests should be

permitted to stand.

As to Ferguson’s claim that it simply does not create or maintain many of the kinds of

records “contemplated by the document requests,” Ferguson’s responses are too ambiguous to

permit BBC or the Court to determine the extent to which Ferguson may be withholding responsive

documents based on its other objections rather than asserting that no responsive documents exist. 

While Ferguson’s responses were not “boilerplate” in the sense of containing only generalized

objections of a sort that might be found in any case, Ferguson did repeat the same long paragraph of

objections and explanations in all of its responses, regardless of the applicability of that recitation to

the particular request. That practice may have been sufficient to make clear that Ferguson does not

possess many of types of records sought by the requests, but it does not establish that all responsive

Case 5:04-cv-04813-JW Document 55 Filed 03/09/06 Page 5 of 11
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 At the hearing, Ferguson’s counsel’s comments implied that additional responsive

documents exist in at least some of the categories.

2

 Ferguson’s suggestion at the hearing that these requests somehow be limited to apply only

as to customers who received the “approximately 50” fliers is impractical and unwarranted. 

Ferguson was unable to suggest how such a limitation could be crafted that would be reliable and,

more fundamentally, BBC’s claims are based on allegations that the defamatory material was

distributed far more widely than just through 50 fliers--including through publication in a national

trade magazine.

ORDER RE MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 

C 04 04813 JW (RS) 

6

documents that may exist have been produced.1

Accordingly, while nothing in this order requires Ferguson to produce what it does not have,

where this order compels a further response to a request, Ferguson must either produce all

documents responsive to the request (as limited by this order), or serve a further response plainly

and unequivocally stating that no documents exist in its possession, custody, or control that are

responsive to that specific request.

B. Specific Requests

Requests 33 through 42; Requests 47 through 48; Request 50; Request 52; and Request 54.

With the exception of Request 40, these requests all seek primary internal documents or tax

returns that relate directly to the disgorgement of profits or net worth or both. Request 40 is

somewhat more tangential as it calls for reports of commission payments on sales, but it is

sufficiently related to the issues to be permissible discovery. Ferguson shall produce all documents

responsive to these requests, or a further response where no responsive documents exist.2 

Requests 43 through 46

These requests seek projections and planning information that is not sufficiently related to

the actual sales or net worth data at issue to be discoverable, as discussed above. No further

responses to these requests will be required.

Request 49

This request seeks “all external and internal correspondence concerning items described in”

the preceding requests. As to those of the preceding requests that the Court has found need no

Case 5:04-cv-04813-JW Document 55 Filed 03/09/06 Page 6 of 11
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER RE MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 

C 04 04813 JW (RS) 

7

further response, this request obviously also needs no further response. Even as to those of the

preceding requests that do require further response, it is too speculative to presume that “all external

and internal correspondence” would contain or lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to

justify the burden of producing such correspondence. Accordingly, no further response to this

request will be required.

Request 51

This request seeks “[a]ll financial software databases utilized in the operation of the

business.” From Ferguson’s responses, it appears that it may not have any such software. Assuming

that Ferguson does have some form of financial database software, however, no further production

specific to this request need be made, because it is unclear how a party could go about producing “a

database,” which ordinarily is a dynamic collection of data that changes over time. BBC’s other

requests for various reports and data are broad enough to require Ferguson to produce any data that

may now exist, regardless of whether it was ever maintained in a “financial software database.” 

Thus, Ferguson may not withhold any documents (including electronic documents) that are

responsive to any other request simply because they were created by or exist in a financial database

program, but it need not produce documents specifically under this request. 

Additionally, at the hearing, BBC raised the concept of permitting its expert direct access to

whatever database software Ferguson may have, so that he or she could directly generate reports

containing the information BBC contends it needs, even if Ferguson does not presently have such

reports in its possession. While permitting such an intrusive procedure might be warranted in some

cases upon an adequate showing of need, and with adequate procedural safeguards in place to

minimize business disruption and to restrict disclosure of irrelevant or proprietary material, it would

be premature to authorize such a procedure here. If, after reviewing the responses Ferguson

provides in response to this order, BBC believes good cause exists to permit its expert to have direct

access to any such database, BBC may seek such access by making an adequate showing of why it

is necessary, and by proposing a procedure containing adequate safeguards to protect Ferguson’s

interests.

Case 5:04-cv-04813-JW Document 55 Filed 03/09/06 Page 7 of 11
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER RE MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 

C 04 04813 JW (RS) 

8

Request 53

This request seeks production of all “bank statements, cancelled checks, deposit slips and

deposit books.” Such documents are cumulative to the other requests and likely would contain no

additional admissible evidence or lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, absent fraud in the

other documents. Without any indicia of fraud, the possibility of discovering admissible evidence in

or from these documents is too speculative to justify the burden of production. Accordingly, no

further response to this request will be required.

Request 55 

This request seeks “all adjusting journal entries prepared by an outside CPA or accounting

firm.” It is sufficiently related to the issues to require further production of any responsive

documents, or a statement that none exist.

Requests 56 and 57

These requests seek correspondence with any outside CPA or accounting firm, and any

“workpapers” used by such accountants in the preparation of financial statements or tax returns. It is

possible that any accountants’ “workpapers” included documents that must be produced in response

to other requests, and Ferguson shall not use the Court’s decision on this request as a basis to

withhold any documents responsive to other requests. However, production of “workpapers” as

such, or of correspondence between Ferguson and accountants, would be cumulative to the other

requests and likely would contain no additional admissible evidence or lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence, absent fraud in the other documents. For the same reasons as discussed

regarding Request 53, no further response to these requests will be required.

C. Status of Defendant Lonna Speer

Defendant Lonna Speer is a principal of Ferguson. The moving papers were not entirely

clear as to whether BBC intended this motion to apply to her individual document responses and

production or not. The papers in places refer to defendants in the plural, and elsewhere in the

singular. No argument is specifically directed to Speer individually. The accompanying motion

Case 5:04-cv-04813-JW Document 55 Filed 03/09/06 Page 8 of 11
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 Also, the declaration of Donald Hunt in support of the motion to compel asserts that

Speer’s individual responses would be attached as exhibit 2, but no exhibit 2 was included in the

document as electronically filed or as an attachment to the chambers copy. At the hearing, BBC’s

counsel explained that exhibit 2 was omitted because Speer served no responses concurrently with

Ferguson’s initial responses, but that her responses were served with Ferguson’s supplemental

responses and were therefore attached as exhibit 14 to the Hunt declaration. 

4

 BBC initially submitted its request for sanctions as part of its motion to compel. It then

withdrew that portion of the motion, and refiled the sanctions request as a separate motion, as

required by the local rules.

ORDER RE MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 

C 04 04813 JW (RS) 

9

for sanctions omits any mention of the requests directed at Speer individually.3 

Although it is now apparent that BBC did intend to compel further responses from Speer

individually as well as from Ferguson, the briefing does not permit the Court to evaluate the extent

to which differences in the requests directed at Speer individually or differences arising from her

status as an individual might warrant a different analysis with respect to any specific requests. The

Court therefore declines to issue specific rulings regarding Speer and instead directs the parties to

meet and confer further regarding her responses in light of the rulings the Court has made as to

Ferguson. Should any issues remain as to Speer that the parties cannot resolve taking this order as a

guide, BBC may renew its motion as to Speer. 

 

D. Motion for Sanctions4

As reflected in the rulings above, Ferguson’s prior responses and document production were

not adequate. Even where a document request is overbroad or contains portions to which legitimate

objections may be made, a party must respond as to those requests for which no objection is

invoked. Conversely, however, the requests here were overbroad in certain respects, as discussed

above. Under these circumstances, the Court finds that the imposition of sanctions is not warranted. 

Case 5:04-cv-04813-JW Document 55 Filed 03/09/06 Page 9 of 11
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER RE MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 

C 04 04813 JW (RS) 

10

V. CONCLUSION

The motion to compel is GRANTED, IN PART. Ferguson shall produce documents or

further responses, as described and limited above, to Requests 33 through 42, 47 through 48, 50

through 52 and 54 through 55.

The motion to compel is otherwise DENIED.

The motion for sanctions is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 9, 2006 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:04-cv-04813-JW Document 55 Filed 03/09/06 Page 10 of 11
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER RE MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 

C 04 04813 JW (RS) 

11

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS ORDER HAS BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Mark D. Baute mbaute@bautelaw.com, llarios@bautelaw.com

Allison B. Short abs@hogefenton.com,

Jeffrey Alan Tidus jtidus@bautelaw.com, aleung@bautelaw.com; ncardeno@bautelaw.com;

dcrochetiere@bautelaw.com

James E. Towery jet@hogefenton.com, slq@hogefenton.com; apb@hogefenton.com 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not

registered for e-filing under the Court's CM/ECF program. 

Dated: March 9, 2006 Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

By: /s/ BAK 

Case 5:04-cv-04813-JW Document 55 Filed 03/09/06 Page 11 of 11