United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Eastern Division
EAST IOWA PLASTICS, INC. Plaintiff,
PI, INC., Defendant.
RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL
JOHN STUART SCOLES, Magistrate Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on the Motion to Compel (docket number 52) filed by Plaintiff East Iowa Plastics, Inc. ("EIP") on May 2, 2014, and the Resistance (docket number 63) filed by Defendant PI, Inc. ("PI") on May 15. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.c, the motion will be decided without oral argument.
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On December 10, 2012, EIP filed a complaint against PI, asserting PI's unlawful use of EIP's "PAKSTER" trademark. EIP seeks declaratory judgment, a permanent injunction, and monetary damages. PI answered on January 30, 2013, denying the material allegations and asserting that it is EIP who is unlawfully using the PAKSTER mark.
On March 12, 2013, the Court adopted a proposed Scheduling Order and Discovery Plan submitted by the parties. Among other things, the Court established a March 1, 2014 deadline for completion of discovery, with a September 1, 2014 trial ready date. The deadline for completion of discovery was subsequently extended to April 18, 2014.
On February 25, 2014, EIP filed a motion to compel, claiming PI had failed to fully comply with EIP's discovery requests. The motion came on for hearing on March 12. Following the hearing, the parties reached an agreement regarding the requested discovery and EIP subsequently withdrew its motion to compel.
On May 2, 2014, both parties filed motions for summary judgment. Those motions are currently pending before Judge Edward J. McManus. Also on May 2, EIP filed the instant motion to compel.
III. RELEVANT FACTS
On January 29, 2014, EIP served PI with a second set of document production requests. In Request No. 73, EIP asked PI to produce "[a]nnual reports, summary sales reports or other documentation showing the sum total sales of PI, Inc. for 2012 and for 2013, " including sales broken down by PI's eight "divisions or product categories." Request No. 75 asks PI to provide its corporate income tax returns for 2012 and 2013.
On April 4, 2014, PI responded to EIP's second request for production of documents. PI objected to EIP's request for information regarding total sales, stating that the requested reports "are confidential, not relevant to the subject matter of the dispute, and the request is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible information unless and until EIP can demonstrate a prima facie case for exemplary damages." PI also objected to the production of its corporate income tax returns on the same grounds.
In its instant motion to compel, EIP asks the Court to order PI to produce the materials described in Requests Nos. 73 and 75. EIP first argues that because PI failed to timely respond to the document request, PI has waived any objection it may otherwise have. PI denies any waiver, and argues that financial information regarding its products unrelated to the PAKSTER mark is not relevant unless EIP can establish a prima facie case for ...