AFDOCS/13512389.1 1

Kenneth R. Davis II, OSB No. 971132 

davisk@lanepowell.com 

Parna A. Mehrbani, OSB No. 053235 

mehrbanip@lanepowell.com 

LANE POWELL PC 

601 SW Second Avenue, Suite 2100 

Portland, Oregon 97204-3158 

Telephone: 503.778.2121 

Facsimile: 503.778.2200 

Michelle Mancino Marsh, pro hac vice

michelle.marsh@arentfox.com 

Allen G. Reiter, pro hac vice 

allen.reiter@arentfoxcom 

Eric Roman, pro hac vice 

eric.roman@arentfox.com 

Lindsay Korotkin, pro hac vice

lindsay.korotkin@arentfox.com 

ARENT FOX LLP 

1675 Broadway 

New York, NY 10019 

Telephone: 212.484.3900 

Facsimile: 212.484.3990 

Attorneys for Defendant TRB Acquisitions LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

ADIDAS AMERICA, INC., a Delaware 

corporation; ADIDAS AG, a foreign entity; 

ADIDAS INTERNATIONAL MARKETING 

B.V., a foreign entity; REEBOK 

INTERNATIONAL LTD., a Massachusetts 

corporation; and REEBOK 

INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, a foreign 

entity,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TRB ACQUISITIONS LLC, a New York 

limited liability company,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:15-CV-02113-SI

DEFENDANT’S RESPONSES AND 

OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF 

DOCUMENTS AND THINGS

Defendant TRB Acquisitions, LLC (“TRB” or “Defendant”) hereby responds as follows 

to the Second Request for Production of Documents and Things (collectively, the “Requests” 

and each individually, a “Request”) served by Plaintiffs in the above-referenced action on May 

Exhibit F - Page 1 of 26

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 132-6 Filed 10/11/16 Page 1 of 26
AFDOCS/13512389.1 2

18, 2016. These objections and responses are based on documents and things currently known 

by, and reasonably available to, Defendant. Defendant will supplement these objections and 

responses if it learns of additional or different responsive documents and things. 

GENERAL OBJECTIONS 

Defendant adopts and incorporates by reference the General Objections from Defendant’s 

Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs’ First Request for the Production of Documents 

(“Plaintiffs’ First Request”), served on February 26, 2016. In addition, Defendant makes the 

following general objections to each of the Requests: 

1. Any information produced by Defendant in response to the Requests shall be subject to

the protective order stipulated to by the parties in this action and so ordered by the Court on 

April 22, 2016. 

2. To the extent Defendant has already produced documents responsive to the Requests,

Defendant will not re-produce such documents. 

3. Defendants objects to the Requests to the extent that they seek documents that are equally

available to, or in the possession, custody, or control of, Plaintiffs. 

4. Defendant objects to this Requests to the extent they are duplicative of any of the requests

contained in Plaintiffs’ First Request.

5. Defendant objects to the Requests to the extent they call for the production of documents

which are confidential, sensitive, or proprietary, or call for the production of other confidential 

research, development, commercial, financial, or proprietary information (including business 

information). 

6. Defendant objects to the Requests to the extent they call for an expert conclusion.

Exhibit F - Page 2 of 26

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 132-6 Filed 10/11/16 Page 2 of 26
AFDOCS/13512389.1 3

7. Defendant objects to the definition of “Disputed Stripe Design” on the grounds that it is 

overly broad, vague, and ambiguous. 

8. Defendant objects to the definition of “Disputed Marks” on the ground that it 

incorporates the contested definition of “Disputed Stripe Design.”

9. Defendant objects to the definition of “Disputed Product” on the ground that it 

incorporates the contested definition of “Disputed Marks.”

10. Defendant objects to the definition of “Customer” on the ground that it incorporates the 

contested definition of “Disputed Product.”

11. Defendant objects to the definition of “Licensee” on the ground that it incorporates the 

contested definition of “Disputed Product.”

12. Defendant objects to the definition of “Rugged Bear” to the extent it incorporates persons 

or entities other than The Rugged Bear Company f/d/b/a RB Acquisition Corp such as “corporate 

affiliates”, “wholly owned or partially owned subsidiaries, parent corporations, owners, and 

predecessors-in-interest.”

13. Defendant objects to the definition of “TRB” to the extent that it incorporates “corporate 

affiliates”, “wholly owned or partially owned subsidiaries”, “parent corporations, owners, 

predecessors-in-interest, successors, assignees, agents, intermediaries, legal representatives, 

trustees, consultants, and all representatives and other persons acting on its behalf[.]”

Without waiving the General Objections applicable to all of the Requests, Defendant 

responds to the Requests as follows: 

Exhibit F - Page 3 of 26

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 132-6 Filed 10/11/16 Page 3 of 26
AFDOCS/13512389.1 4

SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES 

REQUEST NO. 91: 

Documents sufficient to identify the article, style, SKU, or other identifying number for 

each Disputed Product. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 91: 

Defendant objects to Request No. 91 on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly 

burdensome, and requests the production of documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably 

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and the documents sought are not 

proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Request on the ground 

that the term “article” is vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this Request on the 

ground that it incorporates the contested definition of “Disputed Product.” Defendant further 

objects to this Request on the ground that it is duplicative. 

 Subject to and without waiver of these specific objections and the General Objections, 

Defendant will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this Request No. 91, if any, in 

its possession, custody or control. 

REQUEST NO. 92: 

Documents sufficient to identify TRB’s competitors with regard to sales of Disputed 

Products. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 92: 

 Defendant objects to Request No. 92 on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly 

burdensome, and requests the production of documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably 

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and the documents sought are not 

proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Request on the ground 

Exhibit F - Page 4 of 26

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 132-6 Filed 10/11/16 Page 4 of 26
AFDOCS/13512389.1 5

that the term “sales” is vague and ambiguous, and it is unclear whose “sales” are being referred 

to. Defendant further objects to this Request on the ground that it incorporates the contested 

definitions of “Disputed Product[s]” and “TRB.”

 Subject to and without waiver of these specific objections and the General Objections, 

Defendant will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this Request No. 92, if any, in 

its possession, custody or control. 

REQUEST NO. 93: 

 Documents that refer or relate to any research concerning the U.S. market for athletic 

footwear, including documents that refer or relate to market size, TRB’s market share, 

competitor’s market share, market potential, market segments, and/or current or anticipated 

trends that may impact demand. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 93: 

 Defendant objects to Request No. 93 on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly 

broad, unduly burdensome, and requests the production of documents that are neither relevant 

nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and the documents 

sought are not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Request on 

the ground that it seeks the production of confidential business and research information. 

Defendant further objects to this Request on the ground that it incorporates the contested 

definition of “TRB.” Defendant further objects to this Request on the ground that it is 

duplicative. 

 Subject to and without waiver of these specific objections and the General Objections, 

Defendant will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this Request No. 93, if any, in 

its possession, custody or control. 

Exhibit F - Page 5 of 26

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 132-6 Filed 10/11/16 Page 5 of 26
AFDOCS/13512389.1 6

REQUEST NO. 94: 

 Documents that refer or relate to any research concerning the U.S. market for athletic 

apparel, including documents that refer or relate to market size, TRB’s market share, 

competitor’s market share, market potential, market segments, and/or current or anticipated 

trends that may impact demand. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 94: 

Defendant objects to Request No. 94 on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly 

broad, unduly burdensome, and requests the production of documents that are neither relevant 

nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and the documents 

sought are not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Request on 

the ground that it seeks the production of confidential business and research information. 

Defendant further objects to this Request on the ground that it incorporates the contested 

definition of “TRB.” Defendant further objects to this Request on the ground that it is 

duplicative.

 Subject to and without waiver of these specific objections and the General Objections, 

Defendant will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this Request No. 94, if any, in 

its possession, custody or control. 

REQUEST NO. 95: 

 Documents that refer or relate to consumer opinion or perception of athletic footwear, 

including trends, factors that influence purchasing decisions, the role and importance of brand 

names, and desired attributes. 

Exhibit F - Page 6 of 26

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 132-6 Filed 10/11/16 Page 6 of 26
AFDOCS/13512389.1 7

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 95: 

 Defendant objects to Request No. 95 on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly 

broad, unduly burdensome, and requests the production of documents that are neither relevant 

nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and the documents 

sought are not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Request on 

the ground that it seeks confidential business information. 

 Subject to and without waiver of these specific objections and the General Objections, 

Defendant will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this Request No. 95, if any, in 

its possession, custody or control. 

REQUEST NO. 96: 

 Documents that refer or relate to consumer opinion or perception of athletic apparel, 

including trends, factors that influence purchasing decisions, the role and importance of brand 

names, and desired attributes. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 96: 

 Defendant objects to Request No. 96 on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly 

broad, unduly burdensome, and requests the production of documents that are neither relevant 

nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and the documents 

sought are not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Request on 

the ground that it seeks confidential business information. 

 Subject to and without waiver of these specific objections and the General Objections, 

Defendant will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this Request No. 96, if any, in 

its possession, custody or control. 

Exhibit F - Page 7 of 26

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 132-6 Filed 10/11/16 Page 7 of 26
AFDOCS/13512389.1 8

REQUEST NO. 97: 

 Documents that refer or relate to any research, including studies or surveys, concerning 

the price elasticity of demand for athletic footwear. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 97: 

 Defendant objects to Request No. 97 on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly 

burdensome, and requests the production of documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably 

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and the documents sought are not 

proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Request on the ground 

that the term “price elasticity of demand” is vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to 

this Request on the ground that it seeks the production of confidential business and research 

information. 

REQUEST NO. 98: 

 Documents that refer or relate to any research, including studies or surveys, concerning 

the price elasticity of demand for athletic apparel. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 98:

 Defendant objects to Request No. 98 on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly 

burdensome, and requests the production of documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably 

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and the documents sought are not 

proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Request on the ground 

that the term “price elasticity of demand” is vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to 

this Request on the ground that it seeks the production of confidential business and research 

information. 

Exhibit F - Page 8 of 26

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 132-6 Filed 10/11/16 Page 8 of 26
AFDOCS/13512389.1 9

REQUEST NO. 99: 

 Any strategic business plans that refer or relate to Disputed Products. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 99: 

 Defendant objects to Request No. 99 on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly 

broad, unduly burdensome, and requests the production of documents that are neither relevant 

nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and the documents 

sought are not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Request on 

the ground that it incorporates the contested definition of “Disputed Product[s].” Defendant 

further objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks the production of confidential and/or 

proprietary business information. 

Subject to and without waiver of these specific objections and the General Objections, 

Defendant responds that, at this time, it does not believe that it has any documents responsive to 

this Request No. 99. 

REQUEST NO. 100: 

 Any marketing plans that refer or relate to Disputed Products. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 100: 

 Defendant objects to Request No. 100 on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly 

broad, unduly burdensome, and requests the production of documents that are neither relevant 

nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and the documents 

sought are not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Request on 

the ground that it incorporates the contested definition of “Disputed Product[s].” Defendant 

further objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks the production of confidential and/or 

proprietary business information. 

Exhibit F - Page 9 of 26

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 132-6 Filed 10/11/16 Page 9 of 26
AFDOCS/13512389.1 10

 Subject to and without waiver of these specific objections and the General Objections, 

Defendant will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this Request No. 100, if any, in 

its possession, custody or control. 

REQUEST NO. 101: 

 Documents that refer or relate to forecasts or projections of sales, revenue, or profit for 

the Disputed Products. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 101: 

 Defendant objects to Request No. 101 on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly 

broad, unduly burdensome, and requests the production of documents that are neither relevant 

nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and the documents 

sought are not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Request on 

the ground that it incorporates the contested definition of “Disputed Product[s].” Defendant 

further objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks confidential business information. 

REQUEST NO. 102: 

 Documents sufficient to identify all revenues earned by TRB (or any business unit of 

TRB) in connection with the Disputed Products. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 102: 

 Defendant objects to Request No. 102 on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly 

burdensome, and requests the production of documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably 

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and the documents sought are not 

proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Request on the ground 

that the terms “all revenues” and “business unit” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant further 

objects to this Request on the ground that it incorporates the contested definitions of “Disputed 

Exhibit F - Page 10 of 26

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 132-6 Filed 10/11/16 Page 10 of 26
AFDOCS/13512389.1 11

Product[s]” and “TRB.” Defendant further objects to this Request on the ground that it is 

duplicative. 

REQUEST NO. 103: 

 Documents sufficient to identify all costs or expenses – whether fixed or variable –

incurred by TRB (or any business unit of TRB) in connection with the Disputed Products, 

including profit and loss statements. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 103: 

 Defendant objects to Request No. 103 on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly 

burdensome, and requests the production of documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably 

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and the documents sought are not 

proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Request on the ground 

that the term “business unit” is vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this Request 

on the ground that it incorporates the contested definitions of “Disputed Product[s]” and “TRB.”

REQUEST NO. 104: 

 Documents sufficient to identify the profit margin realized by TRB (or any business unit 

of TRB) in connection with the Disputed Products, including contribution margin statements. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 104: 

 Defendant objects to Request No. 104 on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly 

burdensome, and requests the production of documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably 

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and the documents sought are not 

proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Request on the ground 

that the term “business unit” is vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this Request 

on the ground that it incorporates the contested definitions of “Disputed Product[s]” and “TRB.”

Exhibit F - Page 11 of 26

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 132-6 Filed 10/11/16 Page 11 of 26
AFDOCS/13512389.1 12

REQUEST NO. 105: 

 Documents sufficient to identify the net profits earned or the net losses suffered by TRB 

(or any business unit of TRB) in connection with the Disputed Products, including income 

statements. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 105: 

 Defendant objects to Request No. 105 on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly 

burdensome, and requests the production of documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably 

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and the documents sought are not 

proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Request on the ground 

that the term “business unit” is vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this Request 

on the ground that it incorporates the contested definitions of “Disputed Product[s]” and “TRB.”

REQUEST NO. 106: 

 Documents sufficient to show (i) the number of units and (ii) the dollar value of Disputed 

Products returned to TRB. If available, please produce the information by month, by year, and by 

Customer for each Disputed Product. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 106: 

 Defendant objects to Request No. 106 on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly 

broad, unduly burdensome, and requests the production of documents that are neither relevant 

nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and the documents 

sought are not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Request on 

the ground that it incorporates the contested definitions of “Disputed Product”, “Customer”, and 

Exhibit F - Page 12 of 26

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 132-6 Filed 10/11/16 Page 12 of 26
AFDOCS/13512389.1 13

“TRB.” Defendant further objects to this Request on the ground that it wrongly assumes that 

RBX branded products are “returned to TRB.” Defendant further objects to this Request on the 

ground that it seeks confidential business information. 

REQUEST NO. 107: 

 Documents sufficient to show the discounts or allowances applied by TRB to the sales 

price of any of the Disputed Products. If available, please produce the information by month, by 

year, and by Customer for each Disputed Product. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 107: 

 Defendant objects to Request No. 107 on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly 

broad, unduly burdensome, and requests the production of documents that are neither relevant 

nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and the documents 

sought are not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Request on 

the ground that it incorporates the contested definitions of “Disputed Product[s]”, “Customer”, 

and “TRB.” Defendant further objects to this Request on the ground that it wrongly assumes that 

“discounts or allowances” are “applied by TRB to the sales price” of RBX branded products. 

Defendant further objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks confidential business 

information. 

REQUEST NO. 108: 

Documents sufficient to identify TRB’s monthly net sales by Customer for each Disputed 

Product. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 108: 

 Defendant objects to Request No. 108 on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly 

broad, unduly burdensome, and requests the production of documents that are neither relevant 

Exhibit F - Page 13 of 26

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 132-6 Filed 10/11/16 Page 13 of 26
AFDOCS/13512389.1 14

nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and the documents 

sought are not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Request on 

the ground that it incorporates the contested definitions of “Disputed Product”, “Customer”, and 

“TRB.” Defendant further objects to this Request on the ground that it wrongly assumes that 

TRB has “monthly net sales” for RBX branded products. Defendant further objects to this 

Request on the ground that it seeks confidential business information. 

REQUEST NO. 109: 

Documents sufficient to identify TRB’s annual net sales by Customer for each Disputed 

Product. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 109: 

 Defendant objects to Request No. 109 on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly 

burdensome, and requests the production of documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably 

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and the documents sought are not 

proportional to the needs of the case. TRB further objects to this Request on the ground that it 

wrongly assumes that TRB makes “annual net sales” of RBX branded products. Defendant 

further objects to this Request on the ground that it incorporates the contested definitions of 

“Disputed Product”, “Customer”, and “TRB.” Defendant further objects to this Request on the 

ground that it wrongly assumes that TRB has “annual net sales” for RBX branded products. 

Defendant further objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks confidential business 

information. 

REQUEST NO. 110: 

 Documents that refer or relate to the value or valuation of the RBX Logo. 

Exhibit F - Page 14 of 26

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 132-6 Filed 10/11/16 Page 14 of 26
AFDOCS/13512389.1 15

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 110: 

 Defendant objects to Request No. 110 on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly 

broad, unduly burdensome, and requests the production of documents that are neither relevant 

nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and the documents 

sought are not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Request to 

the extent that it requests the production of information subject to the attorney-client privilege, 

work product doctrine, or any other applicable evidentiary privilege or immunity, including, 

without limitation, the common interest or joint defense doctrines. Defendant further objects to 

this Request on the ground that it seeks confidential business information. Defendant further 

objects to this Request on the ground that it calls for an expert conclusion. 

 Subject to and without waiver of these specific objections and the General Objections, 

Defendant responds that, at this time, it does not believe it has documents reflecting a value or 

valuation of the RBX Logo. 

REQUEST NO. 111: 

 Documents that refer or relate to the value or valuation of the RBX Mark. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 111: 

 Defendant objects to Request No. 111 on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly 

broad, unduly burdensome, and requests the production of documents that are neither relevant 

nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and the documents 

sought are not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Request to 

the extent that it requests the production of information subject to the attorney-client privilege, 

work product doctrine, or any other applicable evidentiary privilege or immunity, including, 

Exhibit F - Page 15 of 26

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 132-6 Filed 10/11/16 Page 15 of 26
AFDOCS/13512389.1 16

without limitation, the common interest or joint defense doctrines. Defendant further objects to 

this Request on the ground that it seeks confidential business information. Defendant further 

objects to this Request on the ground that it calls for an expert conclusion. 

 Subject to and without waiver of these specific objections and the General Objections, 

Defendant responds that, at this time, it does not believe it has documents reflecting a value or 

valuation of the RBX Mark. 

REQUEST NO. 112: 

 Documents that refer or relate to the value or valuation of a Disputed Stripe Design. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 112: 

 Defendant objects to Request No. 112 on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly 

broad, unduly burdensome, and requests the production of documents that are neither relevant 

nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and the documents 

sought are not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Request on 

the ground that it incorporates the contested definition of “Disputed Stripe Design.” Defendant 

further objects to this Request to the extent that it requests the production of information subject 

to the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or any other applicable evidentiary 

privilege or immunity, including, without limitation, the common interest or joint defense 

doctrines. Defendant further objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks confidential 

business information. Defendant further objects to this Request on the ground that it calls for an 

expert conclusion. 

REQUEST NO. 113: 

 Documents that refer or relate to the value or valuation of any intangible asset(s) owned or 

licensed by TRB -- other than the Disputed Marks -- used on the Disputed Products. 

Exhibit F - Page 16 of 26

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 132-6 Filed 10/11/16 Page 16 of 26
AFDOCS/13512389.1 17

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 113: 

 Defendant objects to Request No. 113 on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly 

burdensome, and requests the production of documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably 

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and the documents sought are not 

proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Request on the ground 

that the term “intangible asset(s)” is vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this 

Request on the ground that it incorporates the contested definitions of “Disputed Marks”, 

“Disputed Product[s]”, and “TRB.” Defendant further objects to this Request to the extent that it 

requests the production of information subject to the attorney-client privilege, work product 

doctrine, or any other applicable evidentiary privilege or immunity, including, without limitation, 

the common interest or joint defense doctrines. Defendant further objects to this Request on the 

ground that it seeks confidential business information. Defendant further objects to this Request 

on the ground that it calls for an expert conclusion. 

REQUEST NO. 114: 

 Documents that refer or relate to the value or valuation of any of Plaintiffs’ Marks.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 114: 

Defendant objects to Request No. 114 on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly 

broad, unduly burdensome, and requests the production of documents that are neither relevant 

nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and the documents 

sought are not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Request on 

the ground that the term “Plaintiffs’ Marks” falsely suggest that Plaintiffs own rights in those 

marks as described in the Complaint and as shown in the registration certificates attached to the 

Exhibit F - Page 17 of 26

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 132-6 Filed 10/11/16 Page 17 of 26
AFDOCS/13512389.1 18

Complaint when in fact a number of these registration rights have been abandoned and/or limited 

in scope. Defendant further objects to this Request on the ground that it calls for an expert 

conclusion. Defendant further objects to this Request on the ground that the documents sought 

are equally available to, or in already in the possession, custody or control of, Plaintiffs. 

Defendant further objects to this Request on the ground that it calls for an expert conclusion. 

REQUEST NO. 115: 

Documents that refer or relate to TRB’s efforts to account for the intangible value of the 

RBX Logo, including goodwill. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 115: 

 Defendant objects to Request No. 115 on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly 

burdensome, and requests the production of documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably 

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and the documents sought are not 

proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Request on the ground 

that the term “intangible value” is vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this 

Request on the ground that it incorporates the contested definition of “TRB.” Defendant further 

objects to this Request to the extent that it requests the production of information subject to the 

attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or any other applicable evidentiary privilege or 

immunity, including, without limitation, the common interest or joint defense doctrines. 

Defendant further objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks confidential business 

information. Defendant further objects to this Request on the ground that it is duplicative. 

REQUEST NO. 116: 

Documents that refer or relate to TRB’s efforts to account for the intangible value of the 

RBX Mark, including goodwill. 

Exhibit F - Page 18 of 26

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 132-6 Filed 10/11/16 Page 18 of 26
AFDOCS/13512389.1 19

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 116: 

 Defendant objects to Request No. 116 on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly 

burdensome, and requests the production of documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably 

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and the documents sought are not 

proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Request on the ground 

that the term “intangible value” is vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this 

Request on the ground that it incorporates the contested definition of “TRB.” Defendant further 

objects to this Request to the extent that it requests the production of information subject to the 

attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or any other applicable evidentiary privilege or 

immunity, including, without limitation, the common interest or joint defense doctrines. 

Defendant further objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks confidential business 

information. Defendant further objects to this Request on the ground that it is duplicative. 

REQUEST NO. 117: 

Documents that refer or relate to TRB’s efforts to account for the intangible value of any 

Disputed Stripe Design, including goodwill. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 117: 

 Defendant objects to Request No. 117 on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly 

burdensome, and requests the production of documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably 

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and the documents sought are not 

proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Request on the ground 

that the term “intangible value” is vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this 

Request on the ground that it incorporates the contested definitions of “Disputed Stripe Design” 

and “TRB.” Defendant further objects to this Request to the extent that it requests the production 

Exhibit F - Page 19 of 26

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 132-6 Filed 10/11/16 Page 19 of 26
AFDOCS/13512389.1 20

of information subject to the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or any other 

applicable evidentiary privilege or immunity, including, without limitation, the common interest 

or joint defense doctrines. Defendant further objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks 

confidential business information. Defendant further objects to this Request on the ground that it 

is duplicative. 

REQUEST NO. 118: 

Documents that refer or relate to TRB’s efforts to account for the intangible value of any 

of Plaintiffs’ Marks, including goodwill.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 118: 

Defendant objects to Request No. 118 on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly 

burdensome, and requests the production of documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably 

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and the documents sought are not 

proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Request on the ground 

that the term “intangible value” is vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this 

Request on the ground that the term “Plaintiffs’ Marks” falsely suggest that Plaintiffs own rights 

in those marks as described in the Complaint and as shown in the registration certificates attached 

to the Complaint when in fact a number of these registration rights have been abandoned and/or 

limited in scope. Defendant further objects to this Request on the ground that it incorporates the 

contested definition of “TRB.” Defendant further objects to this Request to the extent that it 

requests the production of information subject to the attorney-client privilege, work product 

doctrine, or any other applicable evidentiary privilege or immunity, including, without limitation, 

the common interest or joint defense doctrines. Defendant further objects to this Request on the 

ground that it is duplicative. 

Exhibit F - Page 20 of 26

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 132-6 Filed 10/11/16 Page 20 of 26
AFDOCS/13512389.1 21

REQUEST NO. 119: 

Documents that refer or relate to TRB’s approval of the appearance, design, or placement 

by a Licensee of one or more of the Disputed Marks on a Disputed Product. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 119: 

 Defendant objects to Request No. 119 on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly 

broad, unduly burdensome, and requests the production of documents that are neither relevant 

nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and the documents 

sought are not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Request on 

the ground that it incorporates the contested definitions of “Licensee”, “Disputed Marks”, 

“Disputed Product”, and “TRB.” Defendant further objects to this Request to the extent that it 

requests the production of information subject to the attorney-client privilege, work product 

doctrine, or any other applicable evidentiary privilege or immunity, including, without limitation, 

the common interest or joint defense doctrines. 

REQUEST NO. 120: 

Documents that refer or relate to TRB’s approval of the appearance, design, or placement 

by a Licensee of one or more of the Disputed Marks on packaging, labels or tags for a Disputed 

Product. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 120: 

 Defendant objects to Request No. 120 on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly 

broad, unduly burdensome, and requests the production of documents that are neither relevant 

nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and the documents 

sought are not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Request on 

the ground that it incorporates the contested definitions of “Licensee”, “Disputed Marks”, 

Exhibit F - Page 21 of 26

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 132-6 Filed 10/11/16 Page 21 of 26
AFDOCS/13512389.1 22

“Disputed Product”, and “TRB”. Defendant further objects to this Request to the extent that it 

requests the production of information subject to the attorney-client privilege, work product 

doctrine, or any other applicable evidentiary privilege or immunity, including, without limitation, 

the common interest or joint defense doctrines. Defendant further objects to this Request on the 

ground that it is duplicative. 

REQUEST NO. 121: 

Documents that refer or relate to TRB’s disapproval of the appearance, design, or 

placement by a Licensee of one or more of the Disputed Marks on a Disputed Product. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 121: 

 Defendant objects to Request No. 121 on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly 

broad, unduly burdensome, and requests the production of documents that are neither relevant 

nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and the documents 

sought are not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Request on 

the ground that it incorporates the contested definitions of “Licensee”, “Disputed Marks”, 

“Disputed Product”, and “TRB.” Defendant further objects to this Request to the extent that it 

requests the production of information subject to the attorney-client privilege, work product 

doctrine, or any other applicable evidentiary privilege or immunity, including, without limitation, 

the common interest or joint defense doctrines. Defendant further objects to this Request on the 

ground that it is duplicative. 

REQUEST NO. 122: 

Documents that refer or relate to TRB’s disapproval of the appearance, design, or 

placement by a Licensee of one or more of the Disputed Marks on packaging, labels or tags for a 

Disputed Product. 

Exhibit F - Page 22 of 26

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 132-6 Filed 10/11/16 Page 22 of 26
AFDOCS/13512389.1 23

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 122: 

 Defendant objects to Request No. 122 on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly 

broad, unduly burdensome, and requests the production of documents that are neither relevant 

nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and the documents 

sought are not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Request on 

the ground that it incorporates the contested definitions of “Licensee”, “Disputed Marks”, 

“Disputed Product”, and “TRB.” Defendant further objects to this Request to the extent that it 

requests the production of information subject to the attorney-client privilege, work product 

doctrine, or any other applicable evidentiary privilege or immunity, including, without limitation, 

the common interest or joint defense doctrines. Defendant further objects to this Request on the 

ground that it is duplicative. 

REQUEST NO. 123: 

Documents that refer or relate to TRB’s efforts to review, monitor, or control the quality 

of Disputed Products designed, manufactured, produced, distributed, offered for sale or sold by 

Licensees. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 123: 

 Defendant objects to Request No. 123 on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly 

broad, unduly burdensome, and requests the production of documents that are neither relevant 

nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and the documents 

sought are not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Request on 

the ground that it incorporates the contested definitions of “Licensee[s]”, “Disputed Product[s]”, 

and “TRB.” Defendant further objects to this Request on the ground that it is duplicative.

Exhibit F - Page 23 of 26

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 132-6 Filed 10/11/16 Page 23 of 26
AFDOCS/13512389.1 24

REQUEST NO. 124: 

 Documents regarding the purchase, transfer of assets, merger, or acquisition of Rugged 

Bear by TRB, including any due diligence concerning the RBX Mark or the RBX Logo. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 124: 

 Defendant objects to Request No. 124 on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly 

broad, unduly burdensome, and requests the production of documents that are neither relevant 

nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and the documents 

sought are not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Request on 

the ground that it incorporates the contested definitions of “Rugged Bear” and “TRB.” Defendant 

further objects to this Request to the extent that it requests the production of information subject 

to the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or any other applicable evidentiary 

privilege or immunity, including, without limitation, the common interest or joint defense 

doctrines. Defendant further objects to this Request on the ground that it is duplicative. 

 Subject to and without waiver of these specific objections and the General Objections, 

Defendant will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this Request No. 124, if any, in 

its possession, custody or control. 

Dated: New York, New York 

June 27, 2016 

 ARENT FOX LLP 

By: _____________________________ 

Michelle Mancino Marsh, pro hac vice

Allen G. Reiter, pro hac vice

Eric Roman, pro hac vice

Alissa Friedman, pro hac vice

Lindsay Korotkin, pro hac vice 

1675 Broadway 

New York, New York 10019 

Exhibit F - Page 24 of 26

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 132-6 Filed 10/11/16 Page 24 of 26
AFDOCS/13512389.1 25

Tel: (212) 484-3900 

Fax: (212) 484-3990 

LANE POWELL PC

Kenneth R. Davis II, OSB No. 97113 

Parna A. Mehrbani, OSB No. 053235 

601 SW Second Avenue, Suite 2100 

Portland, Oregon 97204-3158

Tel: 503-778-2100 

Fax: 503-778-2200 

Exhibit F - Page 25 of 26

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 132-6 Filed 10/11/16 Page 25 of 26
Exhibit F - Page 26 of 26

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 132-6 Filed 10/11/16 Page 26 of 26