DOUGS WORD CLOCK EBAY SOFTWARE
DOUGS WORD CLOCK EBAY SERIES

8(c) - which, as noted above, requested information about clock models sold - by stating: 'See response to Number 7 above.' (Levenson Decl., Ex. For example, Princess International responded to Interrogatory No. Shortly after that request, Defendants Camelot, Hammacher Schlemmer, and Princess International provided additional interrogatory responses, but, once again, Doug's Word's requests were not fully addressed. In response, Doug's Word, once again, requested a conference, this time to discuss the imposition of sanctions.

DOUGS WORD CLOCK EBAY SOFTWARE

The same day, Princess International produced two responsive e-mails (concerning changes made to the clock's software code) that appeared to be incomplete as they contained 'Re:' or 'Fw:' in the subject lines, indicating they were parts of longer chains that were not produced. Instead, Defendants served on Doug's Word (but did not file) a document akin to a summary judgment brief that, for the first time, acknowledged that 'Princess is the exclusive distributor for the Clocks and sells them at Amazon and Wal-Mart.' (Levenson Decl., Exhibit 12 ('Defs.' Mar. Remarkably, Defendants failed to respond to all of Doug's Word's outstanding discovery requests by the March 10th deadline. Shortly after the conference, Doug's Word's counsel e-mailed defense counsel a detailed letter identifying Defendants' outstanding discovery obligations. If you don't produce everything that you need to produce by, there will be trouble to pay, by you, by your clients, by both. Sutton, I hope you hear me loud and clear. The Court nevertheless provided Defendants until March 10, 2017, to provide the missing discovery and warned Defendants that they would face sanctions if they did not comply by that deadline. The Court scheduled a conference for the following day, at which Defendants' counsel assured the Court that ' has all the sales that Princess made to its customers.

Following Defendants' failure to provide that information, not to mention two additional telephone calls and a letter from counsel, Doug's Word filed a second motion to compel on March 1, 2017. The Court scheduled a conference for February 2, 2017, but, on the eve of the conference, the parties entered into a stipulation in which Defendants agreed to provide supplemental interrogatory responses and sales and profits information by February 12, 2017. ¶ 45).Īfter many futile communications - by both letter and telephone - from Doug's Word's counsel detailing the insufficiencies in Defendants' responses, Doug's Word, on January 30, 2017, filed a letter motion to compel Defendants to respond to its discovery requests. On top of that, Princess International's interrogatory responses - indeed, the interrogatory responses of each Defendant in the case - were not properly verified under oath. Princess International's response was merely 'See documents produced,' but it did not actually produce the information or documents requested. 8(c) asked each Defendant for information about the various clock models that it had sold. Most notably, for example, Interrogatory No. Princess International's responses to Doug's Word's interrogatories were similarly incomplete. For example, while Princess International initially stated that a number of documents were 'being produced,' the company did not actually hand over any responsive documents, including sales agreements or invoices. Princess International was the only Defendant to respond, but its responses were far from comprehensive. Additionally, Doug's Word served its first request for production of documents on December 9, 2016, and its first set of interrogatories on December 20, 2016. The Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order in this action, entered on December 8, 2016, provided that Defendants would provide Doug's Word with 'sales and profits' information by January 20, 2017. References to 'Defendants' throughout this Opinion are therefore limited to the four Defendants at issue in the motion. For the reasons set forth below, Doug's Word's motion is GRANTED.ĭoug's Word's motion appears to be limited to Princess International, Friedman, Hammacher Schlemmer, and Camelot, and does not seek relief with respect to the other Defendants.

DOUGS WORD CLOCK EBAY SERIES

Doug's Word now moves, pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for sanctions against those Defendants based on a series of alleged discovery violations.

('Hammacher Schlemmer'), and Camelot Venture Group LLC, ('Camelot'), relating to the manufacture and sale of allegedly infringing clocks. ('Princess International'), Joseph Friedman, Hammacher, Schlemmer & Co., Inc. Plaintiff Doug's Word Clocks.Com ('Doug's Word'), a manufacturer of electronic clocks that display the time in a word format, brings intellectual property claims against various Defendants, including Princess International, Inc. FURMAN, United States District Judge OPINION AND ORDER

Dougs word clock ebay