-4-
calls and confidential business contacts. He expresses concern
over Armament using this information for “meddlesome purposes.” At
the status hearing held in this case today, counsel for the parties
agreed to work together to avoid privacy issues.
CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, third party Robert Fallon, Jr.'s
motion to quash the subpoena for telephone records is denied. A
status hearing is set for July 21, 2004, for a report on the
information obtained in discovery, including the deposition of
Robert Fallon, Jr., concerning the question of personal
jurisdiction. The briefing schedule previously set on Sun Coast's
motion to dismiss or transfer is vacated, and briefing on that

motion is suspended.

DATE: June 16, 2004

~ ,
5
ENTER: ~

John F rady, United States Distrzet Judge



~3-
and details of calls made and received, from January 1, 2002 to the
present for the following telephone numbers 847.304.7874 and
847.304.4846.” According to Mr. Fallon, these numbers are for
respectively, his office telephone and his home telephone. Mr.
Fallon now moves to quash the subpoena on several grounds.

Mr. Fallon first objects to the subpoena on a variety of
procedural grounds, none of which persuade us that the subpoena
should be quashed. He also contends that the telephone records are
irrelevant to this action. We reject that argument as well.
Attached to Armament’s response to the motion are copies of
business cards obtained by Armament. Each card identifies Sun
Coast Merchandise Corporation and either “Robert D. Fallon, Jr.,
Director, Sales & Marketing” or simply “Robert D. Fallon” at 20933
N. Laurel Dr., Barrington, Illinois. Both cards provide the e-mail
address of bfallon@suncoastmc.com. One card lists the telephone
number (847) 304-7874, for which records were subpoenaed. That
number is listed to “Sun Coast Marketing Inc., 20933 Laurel Dr.
Barrington, IL.” The other telephone number for which records were
subpoenaed, (847) 304-4846, is listed to “Robert D. Fallon” at the
same address. Given these circumstances, we believe that the
telephone records could lead to relevant evidence regarding
jurisdiction in this district over Sun Coast.

Mr. Fallon also argues that the subpoena violates his and

others’ rights of privacy by seeking records of personal telephone



* Minute Order Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge Sitting Judge if 0
nae Magistrate Judge John F. Grady than Assigned fudge
CASE NUMBER 02 C 5310/03C6515 DATE 6/16/2004
CASE Armament Systems & Procedures, Inc. vs. Suncoast Merchandise Corporation
TITLE Sun Coast Merchandise Corp. v. Armament Systems and Procedures, Inc.

[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
of the motion being presented.]

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY:

a) a Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) o Brief in support of motion due

(3) a Answer brief to motion due____. Reply to answer briefdue___.

(4) Q Ruling/Hearing onset ffor___at

(5) 0 Status hearing{held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on setfor at

(6) oO Pretrial conference[held/continued to} [set for/re-set for]on___—setfor_ ss at__.

(©) a Trial{set for/re-set for]on_____att

(8) oO [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued toa

(9) im) This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to}
OOFRCP4(m) Local Rule 41.1. COFRCP41(a)(1) (©) FRCP41(a)(2).

(10) a [Other docket entry] For the foregoing reasons, third party Robert

Fallon, Jr.’s motion to quash the subpoena for telephone records is
denied. A status hearing is set for July 21, 2004, for a report on
the information obtained in discovery, including the deposition of
Robert Fallon, Jr., concerning the question of personal jurisdiction.
The briefing schedule previously set on Sun Coast’s motion to dismiss
or transfer is vacated, and briefing on that motion is suspended.

daly a [For further detail see order (on reverse side of/attached to) the original minute order,]

No notices required, advised in open court

No notices required.
umber of notices

JUN 3 8 2004

o | Notices mailed by judge’s staff.

Notified counsel by telephone.

Dogketing to mail notices.

Mail AO 450 form.

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.
eneo04

Ld wil 40g. ‘
courtroom date mailed notice
kM deputy’s 7 om
initials a
r Datetimbsgegfgd inf fi =|
contrat Clerk's Office” rating deputy iis



02-5310.041-JCD June 16, 2004

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

ARMAMENT SYSTEMS AND PROCEDURES,
INC.,
Plaintiff,

v.

No. 02 C 5310

SUNCOAST MERCHANDISE CORPORATION,

Defendant.

SUN COAST MERCHANDISE CORP.,
Plaintiff,
v.

ARMAMENT SYSTEMS AND PROCEDURES,
INC.,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before the court is third party Robert Fallon, Jr.’s motion to

quash a subpoena for telephone records. For the reasons stated
below, the motion is denied.

BACKGROUND

This is a patent infringement action brought by Armament

Systems and Procedures, Inc. (“Armament”). Armament originally

brought this action against only one defendant, Shell Oil Company

(“Shell”). On May 12, 2003, Armament filed a Second Amended



~2-
Complaint adding Sun Coast Merchandise Corporation (“Sun Coast”
and Capital Cities Marketing, Inc. (“Capital Cities”). On October
30, 2003, we entered summary judgment in favor of Shell and against
Armament. Therefore, the remaining defendants are Sun Coast and
Capital Cities.

Armament manufactures and sells handheld miniature LED
flashlights and owns a “Miniature LED Flashlight” patent, U.S.
Patent No. 6,190,018. Armament alleges that Sun Coast and Capital
Cities are “manufacturing, importing, distributing, using, selling,
and/or offering to sell . . . miniature LED flashlights” that
infringe Armament’s patent. (Second Amended Complaint, §@4 13, 17.)
Armament’s claim arises from a merchandise offer included in an
attachment to the envelope included with a Shelli credit card
billing statement.

In addition, Sun Coast filed a declaratory judgment action
against Armament in the Central District of California. That
action was transferred to this court in September 2003. Sun Coast
has moved to dismiss or transfer the cases to California. The
parties are conducting discovery regarding this court’s
jurisdiction over Sun Coast.

The instant motion arises in connection with that discovery.
Armament believes that Sun Coast has an agent, Robert Fallon, Jr.
doing business in this district. Armament served a subpoena on

Ameritech for “[{a]l1l records, including monthly Billing Statements