Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01996/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01996-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract 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

1

 MR alleges that after the sale Defendants opened a “copy cat” steak house. MR’s

complaint raises claims of unfair competition, false endorsement, and false designation of

origin under the Lanham Act, as well as several state law claims, including breach of

contract.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Mastro’s Restaurants LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

The Dominick Group LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 11-1996-PHX-PGR

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Compel. (Doc. 56.) Plaintiff Mastro’s

Restaurants (“MR”) opposes the motion. (Doc. 58.) On April 16, 2012, the Court issued an

order directing the parties to engage in face-to-face or telephone consultation concerning the

status of the discovery requests contained in the motion. (Doc. 67.) The parties subsequently

filed a status report, indicating that they had resolved all but one issue. (Doc. 71.) The Court

held oral argument on May 5, 2012.

DISCUSSION

In 2007 Defendants sold Mastro’s Restaurants to MR. The terms of the sale are set

forth in an Asset Purchase Agreement (“APA”).1

 At issue here is Defendants’ requests for

the production of communications between the parties relating to the Seventh Amendment

Case 2:11-cv-01996-PGR Document 100 Filed 11/05/12 Page 1 of 2
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 - 2 -

of the APA, in which MR negotiated to have an Amended Seller Note issued by RRG Group

LLC.

MR has refused to produce any communications between MR and Defendants

regarding the Seventh Amendment. MR contends that the communications are relevant to

other litigation in Arizona between the parties, but not relevant to the sale of intellectual

property which is at issue in this case. (Doc. 59 at 9–10.) According to MR, Defendants seek

this information in order to get a “head start” on discovery in the state case. (Id. at 10.)

Defendants contend that MR’s communications to Defendants “may implicate the parties’

intentions regarding MR’s expectations under the APA or related to the Amended Seller Note

and, therefore, are clearly relevant to this litigation.” (Doc. 56 at 10–11.)

The Court concludes that Defendants are entitled to the communications. Under Rule

26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “Parties may obtain discovery regarding any

nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense. . . . Relevant

information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated

to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). As Defendants

argue, communications about the Seventh Amendment and the promissory note are

potentially relevant to MR’s intent and expectations with respect to the APA. Plaintiffs do

not contend that the information is privileged or burdensome to produce. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED granting Defendants’ Motion to Compel (Doc. 56). Plaintiff MR

shall produce, no later than November 26, 2012, all communications between MR and

Defendants relating to the Seventh Amendment to the APA.

DATED this 5th day of November, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-01996-PGR Document 100 Filed 11/05/12 Page 2 of 2