IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

SHERMAN DIVISION 

USA FOOTBALL, INC., § 

 § 

 Plaintiff, § 

 § 

v. § Civil Action No. 4:23-cv-00516-ALM 

 § 

FFWCT, LLC; USA FLAG, LLC; AND § 

TRAVIS BURNETT § 

 § 

 Defendants. § 

PLAINTIFF USA FOOTBALL, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO 

DEFENDANT FFWCT, LLC’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 

 Plaintiff USA Football, Inc. (“USAFB”) responds and objects to Defendant FFWCT, LLC 

(“FFWCT”), First Set of Interrogatories as follows. 

GENERAL OBJECTIONS TO ALL DISCOVERY 

1. USAFB objects to Defendants’ instructions to the extent the instructions impose 

obligations beyond what is required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of 

this Court, or any applicable orders. 

2. USAFB objects to each request on the basis of the attorney-client privilege to the 

extent the request seeks discovery of confidential communications between USAFB and their 

attorneys or information that is otherwise protected by the attorney-client privilege. 

3. USAFB objects to each request on the basis of the work-product privilege and Rule 

26(B)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to the extent the request seeks discovery of work 

product or information that is otherwise protected from discovery. 

Case 4:23-cv-00465-ALM Document 76-3 Filed 06/28/24 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 2878
2 

4. USAFB objects to each request to the extent it seeks information that is not within 

the possession, custody, or control of the Plaintiffs. 

5. USAFB reserves the right to object to further discovery on the same or related 

matters and do not waive any objections by providing information set forth in these answers. 

Plaintiffs further reserve the right to object to the admissibility of any of these responses in full or 

in part at trial or other hearing in this action on any ground including, but not limited to, materiality 

and relevance. 

6. USAFB reserves the right to supplement their answers if new information is 

gathered, discovered, or located at a later date. Discovery is ongoing and Plaintiffs have not 

completed their investigation of the facts related to this matter. Thus, these answers are based upon 

information reasonably available to Plaintiffs at this time and subject to change as discovery 

progresses. 

7. USAFB states that information that is confidential shall be provided only in 

accordance with a reasonable protective order governing the disclosure and use of confidential and 

proprietary business information entered in this case. 

8. USAFB objects to these Interrogatories generally as premature contention 

interrogatories seeking answers early in the discovery process. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

33(a)(2); see also, e.g., Kaist IP US LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 216CV01314JRGRSP, 2017 

WL 9937763, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 15, 2017) (“This Court has consistently recognized that 

answers to contention interrogatories change over time [and] answers to such interrogatories are 

often best left until the close of discovery”); DaVita, Inc. v. Scot Indus., Inc., No. CV 17-480, 2018 

WL 11443618, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 3, 2018) (“This Court dislikes contention interrogatories, 

Case 4:23-cv-00465-ALM Document 76-3 Filed 06/28/24 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 2879
3 

and, in the past, has only ordered compliance with them toward the close of discovery.”). USA 

Flag’s first set of Interrogatories are largely incapable of complete responses where they cannot be 

answered until the parties progress further in discovery, particularly where they seek answers 

regarding information likely to be in USA Flag’s own possession.

9. USAFB objects to each and every Interrogatory requesting it “[s]et forth ALL 

FACTS” or “[s]et forth the complete basis” as overly broad and burdensome, oppressive, vague, 

and ambiguous. “Any interrogatory which is too general and all-inclusive need not be answered.” 

Stovall v. Gulf & S. Am. S. S. Co., 30 F.R.D. 152, 154 (S.D. Tex. 1961) (questioning in reference 

to such interrogatories how a court can “make enforceable orders with reference to ‘all’ of 

anything?”). 

10. USAFB objects to these Interrogatories to the extent they seek information 

irrelevant to any parties’ claims or defenses in this case or are otherwise not limited in time and 

scope. 

11. USAFB objects to these Interrogatories to the extent they seek information that is a 

matter of public record or as easily accessible to Defendants as it is to Plaintiff. 

12. USAFB objects to these Interrogatories to the extent they are duplicative of 

Requests posed by other Defendants to USAFB, and therefore oppressively burdensome. 

Interrogatory No. 1: 

Set forth the complete basis for YOUR Section 2(f) Claim of Acquired Distinctiveness in 

Trademark Application Serial No. 97724956, including acquired distinctiveness as of December 

20, 2022, February 13, 2023, and presently. 

RESPONSE: 

USAFB’s General Objections are incorporated by reference as if set fully forth herein. 

Case 4:23-cv-00465-ALM Document 76-3 Filed 06/28/24 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 2880
9 

RESPONSE: 

USAFB’s General Objections are incorporated by reference as if set fully forth herein. 

USAFB objects to this Interrogatory in that “[s]et forth ALL FACTS” is overly broad and 

burdensome, oppressive, vague, and ambiguous. USAFB objects to this as an improperly 

compound interrogatory. USAFB objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information in 

USA Flag’s possession, custody, or control. USAFB objects to Interrogatory as a premature 

contention interrogatory. The parties are still early in discovery and have yet to conduct any 

depositions. USAFB further objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that it is duplicative of

FFWCT Request No. 33. 

Subject to and without waiving these objections, USAFB states as follows: USAFB’s 

goodwill in the USA FLAG FOOTBALL mark derives from USAFB’s use of the mark and the 

fact that USAFB is known to be associated with that mark in the marketplace. In addition, FFWCT 

acknowledged in the March 1, 2021 Event Collaboration Agreement that USAFB has goodwill in 

its trademarks. That goodwill has been damaged by FFWCT’s infringement of USAFB’s 

trademarks. 

Interrogatory No. 7: 

As to FFWCT, identify each category of damages YOU are seeking to recover in this case, 

and for each, provide a detailed calculation of YOUR alleged damages. 

RESPONSE: 

USAFB’s General Objections are incorporated by reference as if set fully forth herein. 

USAFB objects to this Interrogatory in that “[a]s to USA Flag” is vague and ambiguous. 

USAFB objects to this Interrogatory as unreasonably duplicative in that it already disclosed the 

Case 4:23-cv-00465-ALM Document 76-3 Filed 06/28/24 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 2881
10 

categories of damages it is seeking to recover on in its Initial Disclosures served on Defendants on 

August 3, 2023. USAFB objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks expert opinion testimony 

or other expert materials inconsistent with the manner and timeline for any such disclosures set by 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s Scheduling Order. USAFB further objects to 

this Interrogatory on the basis that it is duplicative of FFWCT Document Request No. 34. 

Subject to and without waiving these objections, USAFB states as follows: USAFB is 

seeking damages related to damages to its business, goodwill, reputation, and lost profits. USAFB 

is further seeking disgorgement of Defendants’ profits resulting from their infringement and its 

attorneys fees associated with this case. USAFB further states that discovery is ongoing and 

reserves the right to supplement this response. 

Interrogatory No. 8: 

Set forth ALL FACTS SUPPORTING YOUR assertion that YOU possessed common law 

rights in the USA FLAG mark in connection with flag football up to and including February 13, 

2023, as alleged in paragraph 57 of YOUR Complaint. 

RESPONSE: 

USAFB’s General Objections are incorporated by reference as if set fully forth herein. 

USAFB objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected by 

attorney-client privileged, work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege. USAFB 

objects to this Interrogatory in that “[s]et forth ALL FACTS” is overly broad and burdensome, 

oppressive, vague, and ambiguous. USAFB objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it calls for a 

legal conclusion or purports to require USAFB to perform a legal analysis. USAFB further objects 

to this Interrogatory on the basis that it is duplicative of USA Flag Interrogatory No. 8, USA Flag 

Case 4:23-cv-00465-ALM Document 76-3 Filed 06/28/24 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 2882
16 

Interrogatory in that “[s]et forth ALL FACTS SUPPORTING each of the elements required to 

prove your trademark infringement claims” is overly broad and burdensome, oppressive, vague, 

ambiguous, and harassing. USAFB objects to this Interrogatory as improperly calling for a legal 

analysis. USAFB objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information in FFWCT’s 

possession, custody, or control. USAFB objects to Interrogatory as a premature contention 

interrogatory. The parties are still early in discovery and have yet to conduct any depositions. 

USAFB further objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that it is duplicative of FFWCT Document 

Request No. 15. No answer will be provided to this Interrogatory until the parties meet and confer 

to narrow the request. 

 

Case 4:23-cv-00465-ALM Document 76-3 Filed 06/28/24 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 2883
Case 4:23-cv-00465-ALM Document 76-3 Filed 06/28/24 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 2884
18 

Respectfully submitted, 

PEELE LAW GROUP 

Date: October 20, 2023 By: /s/ Anne Ricchiuto 

 

 Amie N. Peele, Esq. 

Anne K. Ricchiuto, Esq. 

PEELE LAW GROUP 

49 Boone Village 

Box 299 

Zionsville, IN 46077 

Tel: 202.964.4500 

Fax: 202.964.4502 

apeele@peelelawgroup.com 

aricchiuto@peelelawgroup.com 

plgfilemanagement@peelelawgroup.com 

Louis T. Perry, Esq. 

FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 

300 N. Meridian Street, Suite 2500 

Indianapolis, Indiana 4620 

Tel: 317.237.1089 

Fax: 317.237.1000 

louis.perry@faegredrinker.com 

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS USA 

FOOTBALL 

Case 4:23-cv-00465-ALM Document 76-3 Filed 06/28/24 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 2885
19 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 The undersigned hereby certifies that on October 20, 2023, a true and accurate copy of the 

foregoing document PLAINTIFF USA FOOTBALL, INC.’S RESPONSES AND 

OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT FFWCT, LLC’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES

was served upon counsel of record for Defendant via electronic mail.

SCHEEF & STONE, L.L.P.

Mark D. Nielsen 

Texas Bar No. 24062361 

Mark.Nielsen@solidcounsel.com 

2600 Network Blvd., Suite 400 

Frisco, Texas 75034 

(214) 472-2100 Telephone 

(214) 472-2150 Fax 

Anna Rebecca Skupin 

Texas Bar No. 24084272 

Becca.Skupin@solidcounsel.com

200 N. Travis Street, Suite 402 

Sherman, Texas 75201 

(430) 262-5660 Telephone 

(430) 262-5661 Fax 

Attorneys For Defendants FFWCT, LLC, 

USA Flag, LLC, and Travis Burnett 

 /s/ Anne Ricchiuto 

Case 4:23-cv-00465-ALM Document 76-3 Filed 06/28/24 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: 2886