Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02797/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02797-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

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

AMERITOX, LTD,

Plaintiff,

CASE 12-CV-2797 W (RBB)

ORDER:

(1) DENYING EX PARTE

APPLICATION TO STAY

[DOC. 48];

(2) SETTING BRIEFING

SCHEDULE; and

(3) GRANTING EX PARTE

APPLICATION TO LODGE

DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL

[DOC. 53]

vs.

MILLENNIUM LABORATORIES

CLINICAL SUPPLY, INC.,

Defendant.

Pending before the Court is Defendant Millennium Laboratories Clinical Supply,

Inc.’s ex parte application for an emergency stay of Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks’

October 25, 2013 order granting Plaintiff Ameritox, Ltd.’s motion to compel (the

“Enforcement Order”). Millennium also seeks an order allowing it to file certain

documents under seal and to provide the Court with a CD copy of the documents.

The Court decides the matters on the papers submitted and without oral

argument pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). For the reasons discussed below, the Court

- 1 - 12cv2797

Case 3:12-cv-02797-W-RBB Document 55 Filed 11/13/13 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

27

28

DENIES the ex parte application to stay Judge Brooks’ Enforcement Order [Doc. 48] and

GRANTS the ex parte application to lodge documents under seal [Doc. 53].

I. Ex Parte Application to Stay.

Relevant to Millennium’s stay request are (1) whether it has made a strong

showing that Millennium will prevail on the merits, (2) irreparable injuryto Millennium,

(3) any injury to Ameritox, and (4) the public interest at stake. Hilton v. Braunskill 481

U.S. 770, 776 (1987). These factors do not support Millennium’s stay request.

As an initial matter, it is important to point out that the standard of review isclear

error. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). This standard is highly deferential, requiring a finding that

the magistrate judge’s findings of fact are clearly erroneous and the district court is left

with a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Burdick v.

Comm’r Internal Rev. Serv., 979 F.2d 1369, 1370 (9th Cir. 1992). Millennium’s ex

parte application fails to demonstrate a likelihood of prevailing on the merits under this

standard.

For example, Millennium objects to Judge Brooks’ finding with respect to Request

No. 2 on the ground that the request does not require Millennium to produce linked-byname information. Request No. 2 provides:

Documents sufficient to identify, for each customer or account for whom

MLCS has provided, arranged, facilitated, or been involved in any manner

with providing or arranging POCT Cups (including reagents), the amount

charged for each POCT Cup, the amount the customer or account actually

paid for the POCT Cups, the terms under which the customer or account

received the POCT Cups, and any written agreement under which the

customer or account received the POCT Cups. 

See Millennium’s Obj [Doc. 52], 10:24–11:3.) According to Millennium, this language

only requires it to produce “all aspects of the transaction data” but without the customer

names. (Id., 13:4–15.) 

But Millennium’s reading of this request arguably ignores the “each customer or

account” language. Although the request specificallyseekstransaction information, such

as the amount actually paid for cups, it seeks the information in relation to “each

- 2 - 12cv2797

Case 3:12-cv-02797-W-RBB Document 55 Filed 11/13/13 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

27

28

customer,” whose identity is therefore part-and-parcel of the discovery request. At the

very least, assuming the request is somewhat vague with respect to whether it requires

Millennium to link the transaction information to the customer, Judge Brooks’

interpretation appears reasonable and, therefore, is not clearly erroneous. 

Moreover, Millennium’s objection may be untimely. To the extent Millennium

is asserting that the request is vague with respect to whether it requires linked-by-name

information, Millennium arguably should have raised the objection in connection with

Judge Brooks’ consideration of the motion to enforce the out-of-district subpoena. 

Millennium also fails to establish irreparable harm. Millennium argues that the

Enforcement Order requires it to disclose proprietary information to one of its primary

competitors. However, pursuant to Judge Brooks’ Protective Order, Millennium may

designate the documents as “Attorneys’ Eyes Only.” (See Protective Order [Doc. 21], ¶11.)

Based on this available designation, the Court finds Millennium’s claim of irreparable

harm unpersuasive.

Finally, the Court also finds that further delay in producing the documents would

harm Ameritox given the fast-approaching trial date in the Florida litigation. 

For all these reasons, Millennium’s ex parte application to stay Judge Brooks’

Enforcement Order is DENIED. 

II. Briefing Schedule & Ex Parte Application to Seal Documents.

In light of Millennium’s Objection, the Court ORDERS the following briefing

schedule:

1. Ameritox’s opposition to Millennium’s objections is due on or before

Monday, November 18, 2013.

2. Millennium’sreplyto Ameritox’s opposition is due on or before Thursday,

November 21, 2013.

Millennium’s ex parte application to file documents under seal and provide the

Court with a CD copy of the documents is GRANTED [Doc. 53]. However, rather than

- 3 - 12cv2797

Case 3:12-cv-02797-W-RBB Document 55 Filed 11/13/13 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

27

28

file the CD, Millennium shall lodge the CD under seal with the Clerk’s Office and

provide a courtesy copy to Chambers on or before Monday, November 18, 2013.

The Court will not independently scour the CD for supporting documents. To

the extent either party believes certain documents support its position, the party must

provide a pin-point cite to the exact document. General citations to large groups of

documents will not be reviewed by the Court. 

Upon submission of the above briefing, the matter shall be deemed under

submission. There shall be no oral argument.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 13, 2013

Hon. Thomas J. Whelan

United States District Judge

- 4 - 12cv2797

Case 3:12-cv-02797-W-RBB Document 55 Filed 11/13/13 Page 4 of 4