UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

AVCO CORPORATION, 

 Plaintiff 

 

 v. 

TURN AND BANK HOLDINGS, INC., 

 

 Defendant. 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:12-CV-01313 

(BRANN, J.) 

(MEHALCHICK, M.J.) 

MEMORANDUM 

The above-captioned case was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge on 

September 9, 2015, for the purpose of pre-trial management and the resolution of discovery 

issues. (Doc. 165). Now before this Court is the latest motion in an ongoing discovery dispute 

dispute between Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff Turn and Bank Holdings, Inc. (“TNB”), 

(“TNB”), and Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant AVStar Fuel Systems, Inc (“AVStar”). In 

In the instant motion, AVStar seeks a protective order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 26(c)(1) to limit the scope of inquiry at the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition scheduled to take 

take place on September 29, 2016, in which Ron Weaver will serve as the corporate deponent 

deponent on behalf of AVStar. (Doc. 197). AVCO seeks to preclude or partially limit all but 13 

13 of the 68 topics raised in TNB’s revised supplemental notice of deposition dated September 

September 19, 2016. (Doc. 197; Doc. 197-5). Specifically, AVStar seeks to entirely preclude 

discussion of Topics 12-13, 16-17, 20-21, 24-25, 28-29, 32-34, 37-38, 44-49, 52-53, 55-56, and 

and 59-61, and also to partially limit discussion of Topics 10-11, 14-15, 18-19, 22-23, 26-27, 30-

30-31, 35, 39, 50, 51, 54, and 62-68. (Doc. 197, at 1-2). The motion is fully briefed and ripe for 

Case 4:12-cv-01313-MWB Document 212 Filed 09/28/16 Page 1 of 11
- 2 - 

for decision.1 (Doc. 203; Doc. 206; Doc. 208). For the following reasons, the Court will 

GRANT AVStar’s motion for a protective order in part and DENY it in part. 

I. DISCOVERY STANDARD

“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any 

party’s claim or defense . . . . Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible 

in evidence to be discoverable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “Rule 26(c) authorizes a court to issue 

a protective order where justice so requires and upon good cause shown. The party seeking a 

protective order bears the burden of demonstrating the ‘good cause’ required to support such an 

order.” Trans Pacific Ins. Co. v. Trans-Pacific Ins. Co., 136 F.R.D. 385, 391 (E.D. Pa. 1991). 

“Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning, do 

not satisfy the Rule 26(c) test.” Cipollone v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 785 F.2d 1108, 1121 (3d Cir. 1986). 

The decision of whether or not to grant a protective order pursuant to Rule 26(c) rests in the 

sound discretion of the trial court. Glenmede Trust Co. v. Thompson, 56 F.3d 476, 483 (3d Cir. 

1995). In determining whether “good cause” exists, courts may consider several factors, 

including but not limited to: (1) whether disclosure will violate any privacy interests; (2) 

whether the information is sought for a legitimate or an improper purpose; (3) whether 

disclosure of the information will cause a party embarrassment; and (4) whether the sharing of 

information among litigants will promote fairness and efficiency. Glenmede, 56 F.3d at 483

(citing Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 787-91 (3d Cir. 1994)). 

 

1

 In addition, oral argument was held on this motion via telephone conference on 

September 27, 2016. 

Case 4:12-cv-01313-MWB Document 212 Filed 09/28/16 Page 2 of 11
- 3 - 

II. DISCUSSION

A. TOPICS 47-48: CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

AVStar first argues that any inquiry into Topics 47 and 48 should be prohibited because 

TNB seeks information that would require the breach of a confidential settlement agreement in 

federal court in North Carolina (the “North Carolina action”). (Doc. 203, at 6-7). TNB counters 

by asserting that it does not seek inquiry into the terms of the confidential settlement agreement, 

and that earlier in this same action Judge Brann previously ruled that the publically-available 

general facts surrounding the North Carolina action should not precluded in their entirety. 

(Doc. 206, at 5-7 (citing Doc. 141, at 47-48 (transcript of evidentiary hearing on TNB’s second 

motion for a preliminary injunction before Judge Brann))). Furthermore, TNB describes how 

the underlying facts of the North Carolina action are relevant to this case because both 

instances involve AVStar’s alleged transition away from infringing model designator marks, 

which goes to AVStar’s intent and awareness of the marks. (Doc. 206, at 6). Given these 

contentions, and cognizant that information and requests may be raised during discovery that 

are not necessarily admissible at trial, the Court DENIES AVStar’s motion to the extent that it 

seeks to preclude discussion of the underlying facts of the North Carolina action as they pertain 

to AVStar’s intent and awareness concerning the marks. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 

Nonetheless, TNB may not inquire into the actual details of the settlement agreement or ask 

about AVCO’s motivations in settling the case. In the event that a dispute arises at the Rule 

30(b)(6) deposition as to whether a particular line of inquiry requires Mr. Weaver to breach the 

confidentiality of the settlement agreement, the parties may contact the Court for resolution. 

Case 4:12-cv-01313-MWB Document 212 Filed 09/28/16 Page 3 of 11
- 4 - 

B. TOPICS 12-13, 16-17, 20-21, 24-25, 28-29, 32-34, 37, 39, 50-51, AND 54:OVERHAULED 

AND EXPERIMENTAL SERVOS

AVStar also objects to any Topics that could involve inquiry into overhauled rather than 

than newly manufactured servos because TNB does not claim that AVStar/AVCO cannot 

overhaul TNB/Precision servos. (Doc. 203, at 7-8). However, as TNB points out, overhauled 

overhauled servos were discussed at length in TNB’s counterclaim against AVStar and AVCO 

AVCO that was filed on January 30, 2015. (Doc. 206, at 7 (citing Doc. 144, at 14-15, 19, 21-

22)). Moreover, the Court already devoted significant time to the consideration of this topic at 

at the August 18, 2016 in-person discovery hearing and concluded that TNB’s inquiry into 

overhauled servos was relevant and permissible for discovery purposes. (Doc. 206-4, at 130-

133). Accordingly, the Court DENIES AVStar’s motion to the extent that it seeks to prohibit 

prohibit inquiry into servo overhauls since June of 2012.2

 

C. TOPICS 10-11, 14-15, 18-19, 22-23, 26-27, AND 30-31:PARTICULARITY AND UNDULY 

BURDENSOME

AVStar next contends that numerous Topics involving costs, profits, and other financial 

financial information pertaining to AVStar servos are unduly broad and overly burdensome. 

(Doc. 203, at 9-10). Specifically, AVStar argues that Mr. Weaver should not be obligated to 

testify to financial information on a month-by-month basis because AVStar only maintained 

financial records on an annual basis in the ordinary course of business. During the September 

 

2

 The Court also DENIES AVStar’s attempt to preclude inquiry into “experimental” 

AVStar servos, which are defined in TNB’s notice of deposition as “newly manufactured . . . 

servos sold or distributed by AVStar not bearing on incorporating any of the Marks. (Doc. 197-

5, at 8; Doc. 203, at 8-9). TNB argues that this Topic is relevant because it AVStar’s decision 

not to use the marks for some newly manufactured servos may be evidence to refute 

AVCO/AVStar’s claim that the marks are generic. (Doc. 206, at 9). AVStar fails to sufficiently 

refute TNB’s argument and support its own claim that experimental servos are irrelevant. 

Case 4:12-cv-01313-MWB Document 212 Filed 09/28/16 Page 4 of 11
- 5 - 

27, 2016 telephone conference with the Court, TNB conceded that annual financial information 

will suffice. AVStar also argues that many of these Topics are overly broad in that they seek 

financial data from before June of 2012, the month that AVStar allegedly first started selling 

new servos. In its brief in opposition, TNB appears to backtrack on it its request for financial 

information from before June of 2012. (Doc. 206, at 10 (“[T]he Topics are . . . tied to the 

relevant time period; namely, the date of AVStar’s first sale of New AVStar Servos (purportedly 

June 2012) to present.”)). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS AVStar’s motion to the extent that 

it seeks to limit inquiry to AVStar’s financial information on an annual basis and from June of 

2012 until present, with the exception of financial information, such as costs, recorded prior to 

June of 2012 that specifically pertains to new servos. However, the Court DENIES AVStar’s 

motion to the extent it seeks to narrow the scope of inquiry as to the specific categories of 

financial information noticed in the Topics (i.e.: sales volume, revenue, direct and indirect costs 

for manufacturing, promoting, selling and distributing, gross and net profits). If AVStar is 

unable to produce a corporate witness that can speak to a particular category of financial 

information at the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, it will be precluded from introducing this same 

financial information on its own behalf at trial. 

D. TOPIC 35: AFFILIATES

AVStar also calls for the Court to limit TNB’s inquiry into its relationship with and 

common ownership of its affiliates. (Doc. 203, at 10-11). AVStar argues that these affiliates are 

are irrelevant to the instant case and merely designed to oppress, embarrass, annoy, and harass 

harass AVStar. (Doc. 203, at 10). TNB counters by asserting that AVStar fails to point out how 

how AVStar’s relationship with its affiliates is irrelevant or oppressive, embarrassing, annoying, 

or harassing. (Doc. 206, at 11). Further, TNB contends that inquiry into AVStar’s relationship 

Case 4:12-cv-01313-MWB Document 212 Filed 09/28/16 Page 5 of 11
- 6 - 

with these affiliates could lead to evidence regarding sources of damages, witness bias, 

inducement of infringement, and details surrounding AVStar’s formation. (Doc. 206, at 11). 

The Court agrees that AVStar fails to satisfy its burden here with respect to limiting inquiry into 

its relationship with affiliates. See Cipollone, 785 F.2d at 1121 (“Broad allegations of harm, 

unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning, do not satisfy the Rule 26(c)

test.”). Accordingly, the Court DENIES AVStar’s motion to the extent that it seeks to limit 

inquiry into its affiliates. 

E. TOPIC 38: THIRD PARTIES

AVStar next seeks to preclude Topic 38 on the grounds of overbreadth. (Doc. 203, at 

11). Topic 38 requests the identification of an third party that AVStar knows to have used the 

marks. (Doc. 197-5, at 14). As TNB points out, AVCO specifically asserts in its amended 

complaint that the marks were used by “others in the aviation industry for decades . . . .” (Doc. 

206, at 11 (quoting Doc. 94, ¶ 1)). Moreover, TNB merely seeks inquiry into the identity of any 

of these third parties that AVStar may know of, not an investigation into how the marks were 

used by third parties. The Court therefore finds that Topic 38 is not overly broad, and thus 

DENIES AVStar’s motion to the extent that it seeks to preclude this Topic. 

Case 4:12-cv-01313-MWB Document 212 Filed 09/28/16 Page 6 of 11
- 7 - 

F. TOPICS 40, 41, 43 AND 43: PARTS

AVStar requests that Topics 40, 41, 43, and 44 “should be limited to new AVStar servos 

servos and not discrete parts.”3 (Doc. 203, at 11). However, as noted by TNB, AVStar fails to 

to provide any rationale as to why these particular Topics may not satisfy the Rule 26(c) test. 

Because AVStar has not carried its burden of establishing “good cause,” the Court DENIES its 

its motion with respect to Topics 40, 41, 43, and 44. See Trans Pacific Ins. Co. v. Trans-Pacific Ins. 

Ins. Co., 136 F.R.D. 385, 391 (E.D. Pa. 1991). 

G. TOPIC 45: MANUALS

AVStar argues that TNB’s inquiry into AVStar’s reference to or use of manuals 

originating from Precision and its predecessors is overly broad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, 

and harassing because the inquiry potentially spans several decades. (Doc. 203, at 11). TNB 

asserts, on the other hand, that the Topic is not overly broad because it is limited to AVStar’s 

own use of the manuals throughout its “relatively short history.” (Doc. 203, at 12-13). In any 

event, AVStar fails to carry its burden of demonstrating with articulated examples or specific 

reasoning “good cause” as to why AVStar should not be required to have a Rule 30(b)(6)

deponent prepared to testify as to AVStar’s own use of Precision manuals. Accordingly, the 

Court DENIES AVStar’s motion as it pertains to Topic 45. 

 

3

 Although AVStar objects to all four of these Topics in its supporting brief, it makes no 

reference to Topics 40, 41, and 43 in the actual motion for protective order or in the proposed 

order. (Doc. 197; Doc. 197-2). 

Case 4:12-cv-01313-MWB Document 212 Filed 09/28/16 Page 7 of 11
- 8 - 

H. TOPIC 49: BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS

In its supporting brief, AVStar requests the Court to prohibit TNB’s inquiry into “all 

issues regarding” AVStar’s bankruptcy filing in the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of Florida. (Doc. 203, at 11-12 (quoting Doc. 197-5, at 15)). TNB counters 

that the bankruptcy is highly relevant to this case, as noted by the fact that multiple orders from 

that proceeding have been entered onto the docket in the case at bar. (Doc. 206, at 13 (citing 

Doc. 43; Doc. 83)). The Court concludes that inquiry into the Florida bankruptcy proceeding 

should be subject to the same rules as the North Carolina action. Namely, TNB may not seek 

disclosure of legal opinions and privileged information regarding the bankruptcy proceeding but 

the Court DENIES AVStar’s motion to the extent it seeks to preclude any nonprivileged facts 

regarding the proceedings. 

I. TOPIC 52: MAXIMUM AMOUNT OWED 

AVStar next contends that the Court should prohibit inquiry into the factual basis 

regarding the maximum amount owed if AVStar is found liable at trial. (Doc. 203, at 12). 

AVStar argues that this Topic seeks to invade the attorney-client privilege and work product, as 

it does not believe that it has any liability in this action. (Doc. 203, at 12). TNB reiterates that it 

only seeks the factual basis for any particular liability, and specifically the potential amount of 

lost profits. (Doc. 206, at 13). The Court agrees that the factual basis in terms of dollar value for 

any damages as a result of AVStar’s alleged infringement does not invade attorney-client 

privilege, and therefore DENIES AVStar’s motion to the extent it seeks to preclude any 

nonprivileged facts regarding TNB’s potential lost profits and other damages sustained from 

AVStar’s alleged infringement. 

Case 4:12-cv-01313-MWB Document 212 Filed 09/28/16 Page 8 of 11
- 9 - 

J. TOPIC 53: REGULARLY MAINTAINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

AVStar also seeks to preclude inquiry into its regularly-maintained financial statements, 

arguing that such questioning is unrelated to AVStar’s sale of new servos, irrelevant, and 

designed to oppress, annoy, and embarrass. (Doc. 203, at 12-13). However, TNB argues that 

this Topic is relevant for the purposes of determining potential damages and AVStar’s financial 

health, and moreover that AVStar generally fails to show that “good cause” exists to prohibit 

this inquiry. (Doc. 206, at 14). Given that AVStar’s financial disclosures were a central 

component of TNB’s discovery requests and that AVStar has failed to establish “good cause” 

for the preclusion of this Topic, the Court DENIES AVStar’s motion as it pertains to Topic 53. 

K. TOPIC 55: COMMUNICATIONS

In its oppositional brief, AVStar seeks the preclusion of TNB’s inquiry into internal or 

or third-party communications relating to any of the other Topics, and specifically any 

communication relating to any defense of AVStar by AVCO in the instant action, arguing that 

that this inquiry is overly broad, impermissibly designed as a “catch-all” provision, and could 

could invade attorney-client privilege and work product. (Doc. 203, at 13). TNB responds by 

by asserting that it does not seek any privileged information, but that Topic 55 is otherwise 

proper. (Doc. 206, at 14). This Court agrees with AVStar that “[t]his is an unreasonable catchunreasonable catch-all topic” for a Rule 30(b)(6) witness to be prepared to adequately testify 

about, and thus need be included in the deposition notice. See Doe v. Swift Transp. Co., No. 2:10-

2:10-CV-00899 JWS, 2015 WL 11110892, at *4 (D. Ariz. Nov. 13, 2015). Furthermore, given 

given the scope of the other Topics noticed in this deposition and that this Court has approved, 

approved, the Court does not see how Topic 55 seeks any relevant information that has not 

Case 4:12-cv-01313-MWB Document 212 Filed 09/28/16 Page 9 of 11
- 10 - 

already been noticed by other Topics elsewhere in this deposition. Accordingly the Court 

GRANTS AVStar’s motion to preclude Topic 55 because it is a catch-all provision duplicative 

duplicative of the other Topics. 

L. TOPIC 59: AVSTAR’S DISCOVERY RESPONSES

AVStar also argues that inquiries into its own discovery responses should be prohibited 

as overly broad and impermissibly trespassing into attorney-client privilege and work product. 

(Doc. 203, at 13). TNB responds that it only seeks the factual basis for these discovery 

responses. (Doc. 206, at 14). Given that the sufficiency of AVStar’s discovery responses has 

been a recurring dispute throughout discovery proceedings and one of the impetuses behind the 

scheduling of the instant Rule 30(b)(6) depositions, the Court deems the discussion of AVStar’s 

discovery responses to be entirely appropriate. Thus, the Court DENIES AVStar’s motion with 

respect to Topic 59 to the extent that TNB seeks to discuss nonprivileged facts relating to 

AVStar’s discovery responses. 

M. TOPIC 61: WARRANTY REPAIRS

AVStar also seeks to preclude discussion of communications regarding warranty repairs 

of new AVStar servos on the ground that this Topic is irrelevant. (Doc. 203, at 14). TNB 

counters that repairs of new AVStar servos are relevant to their claim of confusion because this 

Topic could lead to evidence about the quality of AVStar’s goods and harm to Precision’s 

reputation. (Doc. 206, at 15). The Court finds TNB’s explanation for the relevance of this topic 

convincing, and therefore DENIES AVStar’s motion as it pertains to Topic 61. 

Case 4:12-cv-01313-MWB Document 212 Filed 09/28/16 Page 10 of 11
- 11 - 

N. TOPICS 62-68: AVSTAR’S RELATIONSHIP AND COMMUNICATIONS WITH SPECIFIC 

INDIVIDUALS

In its final argument, AVStar asks the Court to limit inquiry into certain aspects of 

AVStar’s business relationship and communications with specific individuals. (Doc. 203, at 14). 

TNB characterizes this objection as “nonsensical,” because it has attempted to narrow down its 

inquiry to specific facets of AVStar’s business relationship with each of these individuals. 

Although Topics 62-68 are perhaps confusingly worded, the Court agrees with TNB that a 

general inquiry into AVStar’s business relationship with these individuals, which AVStar 

concedes is permissible, does not somehow become overly broad because TNB narrows these 

Topics even further. (Doc. 203, at 14; Doc. 206, at 15). Accordingly, the Court DENIES

AVStar’s motion as it pertains to Topics 62-68. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, AVStar’s motion for a protective order (Doc. 197) will be 

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 

An appropriate Order follows. 

 BY THE COURT: 

Dated: September 28, 2016 s/ Karoline Mehalchick 

 KAROLINE MEHALCHICK 

 United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:12-cv-01313-MWB Document 212 Filed 09/28/16 Page 11 of 11