UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

ZIEBART 

INTERNATIONAL 

CORPORATION, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Z TECHNOLGIES 

CORPORATION, 

 Defendant. 

 

Case No. 5:15-cv-11745 

Judge Judith E. Levy 

Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti 

_________________________/ 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 

Z TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION’S MOTION (DE 27) TO COMPEL 

ZIEBART INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION TO PROVIDE 

DISCOVERY REGARDING FORMULAS OTHER THAN FORMULA Q 

 

Plaintiff Ziebart International Corporation (“Ziebart”) filed the instant 

lawsuit against Defendant Z Technologies Corporation (“Z Technologies”) on May 

15, 2015. The causes of action include (I) federal trademark infringement under 15 

U.S.C. § 1114, (II) common law trademark infringement, (III) false designation of 

origin or sponsorship, false advertising and trademark infringement under 15 

U.S.C. § 1125(a), and (IV) breach of contract. (DE 1.) 

On July 20, 2015, Defendant Z Technologies filed an answer, which 

included counterclaims of (I) breach of contract against Ziebart, (II) 

misappropriation of trade secrets against Ziebart, (III) misappropriation of trade 

5:15-cv-11745-JEL-APP Doc # 34 Filed 01/22/16 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 435
2

secrets against Pure Asphalt, (IV) declaratory judgment against Ziebart and Pure 

Asphalt, and (V) cancellation of trademark registration against Ziebart. (DE 9 at 

30-37.) Of particular import here are Paragraph 35 of Z Technologies’ 

counterclaims, which concerns formulas and other confidential and proprietary 

information aside from Formula Q (DE 9 at 27), and Paragraph 17(b) of the 

September 18, 2001 amended supply agreement, which concerns, among other 

things, confidentiality and disclosure (DE 9-5 at 10).1

 

 Currently before the Court is Z Technologies’ December 9, 2015 motion to 

compel Ziebart to provide discovery regarding formulas other than Formula Q, 

Ziebart’s response, Z Technologies’ reply and the parties’ joint statement of 

unresolved issues. (DE 27, 28, 30, 32 and 33.).2

 Counsel for each of the parties 

appeared before me for an extensive oral argument on January 21, 2016. 

For the reasons stated on the record, Z Technologies Corporation’s motion 

to compel Ziebart International Corporation to provide discovery regarding 

formulas other than Formula Q (DE 27) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED 

IN PART as follows: 

                                                            

1

 Exhibit D to Defendant’s Answer (DE 9-5) has been placed under seal. (DE 11.) 

2 Judge Levy has referred this motion for hearing and determination (DE 29). 

Plaintiff has filed a response (DE 30), Defendants have filed a reply (DE 32) and 

the parties have provided a joint list of unresolved issues (DE 33). 

5:15-cv-11745-JEL-APP Doc # 34 Filed 01/22/16 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 436
3

 Plaintiff Ziebart SHALL answer Z Technologies’ Requests for 

Admission Nos. 2-22 & 25 in compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 

36(a)(4). 

 Defendant Z Technologies’ motion is DENIED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE to the extent it sought further answers to 

Interrogatories Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6 & 7. 

 Plaintiff Ziebart SHALL supplement its answer to a modified 

version of Interrogatory No. 5, which is now limited in scope 

to seeking information regarding disclosure of any formulas 

and performance specifications (of those items transferred in 

1996) to third parties from 2006 forward, including the identity 

of any supplier(s) to which the disclosure was made. 

 Plaintiff Ziebart SHALL modify its answer to Interrogatory 

No. 8 to clarify whether it applies to all formulas, rather than 

limiting its answer to Formula Q only. 

 Defendant Z Technologies’ motion is DENIED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE to the extent it sought further responses to 

Requests for Production Nos. 2 & 9-14. 

 

Plaintiff Ziebart SHALL produce the information ordered above within twentyone (21) days of the date of this order or within twenty-one (21) days of the entry 

of a protective order, whichever is later, the parties having mutually represented 

that a stipulated protective order is very soon to be filed. 

Fees and costs will not be awarded, neither party having fully prevailed and 

unusual factual and legal issues having been necessarily considered by the Court. 

Finally, the parties are encouraged to mutually agree upon a mediator in an 

effort to resolve this matter. 

5:15-cv-11745-JEL-APP Doc # 34 Filed 01/22/16 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 437
4

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 22, 2016 s/Anthony P. Patti 

 Anthony P. Patti 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record 

on January 22, 2016, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail. 

 s/Michael Williams 

 Case Manager to the 

 Honorable Anthony P. Patti 

5:15-cv-11745-JEL-APP Doc # 34 Filed 01/22/16 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 438