Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_07-cv-05009/USCOURTS-arwd-5_07-cv-05009-9/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; and LINDA K. REED DEFENDANTS

O R D E R

Now on this 4th day of September, 2007, come on for

consideration Plaintiff's Second Motion To Compel (document #69)

and Plaintiff's Motion For Attorneys' Fees And Costs (document

#75), and from said motions, and the responses thereto, the Court

finds and orders as follows:

1. This trademark infringement case has been plagued, from

its inception, with discovery problems. On May 8, 2007, the Court

entered an Order denying defendants' request for a protective

order, and directing that defendants "fully respond" to

plaintiff's outstanding discovery requests.

Plaintiff now contends that defendants have failed to comply

with the May 8 Order in several respects, and it seeks compliance,

plus attorney's fees for the pending motions and for other,

previously-filed, discovery motions.

Defendants respond that they have produced 6,000 pages of

documents and 11 compact discs containing requested information.

They say this amounts to full compliance, while reiterating their

Case 5:07-cv-05009-JLH Document 96 Filed 09/04/07 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
-2-

objections that the information is irrelevant and personal or

confidential.

The Court has read the submissions of the parties, which

amount to literally hundreds of pages, much of it devoted to

bickering about who has done what to whom, or failed to do it, or

might do it in the future. None of this is particularly helpful

to the Court in trying to resolve whether there is some

discoverable piece of information about which plaintiff has

inquired, and about which one or more defendants has failed to

permit discovery. Nor does it advance the preparation of this

case for trial; in the Court's view, the case is being delayed by

the acrimonious turn discovery has taken.

The Court declines to sort through the masses of material

submitted to it in connection with the pending motions and try to

separate the legitimate issues from the bickering of the parties.

It is the responsibility of the parties to present a concise

motion to the Court setting forth matters that are really, truly,

in dispute.

The Court will, therefore, deny plaintiff's motions, without

prejudice to plaintiff filing a short motion, devoid of acrimony,

accusations, and hyperbole, stating what it has sought through

discovery that has not been produced. Defendants will be allowed

the usual time to file a short response, likewise devoid of

fireworks, indicating whether or not they have the information,

Case 5:07-cv-05009-JLH Document 96 Filed 09/04/07 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
-3-

and whether or not it has been produced.

The issue of whether either party is entitled to attorney's

fees or costs related to discovery may be reasserted when the

substantive issues in this case have been resolved. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Second Motion To

Compel (document #69) and Plaintiff's Motion For Attorneys' Fees

And Costs (document #75) are denied, without prejudice to their

resubmission in proper form and at the proper time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Jimm Larry Hendren 

JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:07-cv-05009-JLH Document 96 Filed 09/04/07 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>