United States District Court, D. Kansas
ORDER ON MOTION TO COMPEL
KENNETH G. GALE U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. (Doc.
100.) Having reviewed the submissions of the parties,
Plaintiff's motion (Doc. 100) is GRANTED in
a patent infringement case brought pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
§ 271, et seq. The parties are competitors in
the grain storage cover industry. The present motion relates
to Defendant's responses to certain of Plaintiff's
discovery requests. Although the responses were supplemented
subsequent to the filing of the present motion, several
26(b) states that
[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged
matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense
and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the
importance of the issues at state in the action, the amount
in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant
information, the parties' resources, the importance of
the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden
or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely
benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not
be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.
such, the requested information must be nonprivileged,
relevant, and proportional to the needs of the case to be
discoverable. “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)
confers broad discretion on the trial court to decide when a
protective order is appropriate and what degree of protection
is required.” Layne Christensen Co. v. Purolite
Co., 271 F.R.D. 240, 244 (D. Kan. 2010) (quoting
Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 36
Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Doc. 100).
moves the Court for an order compelling Defendant to
“provide full and complete answers and responses”
to several interrogatories. (Doc. 101, at 1.) Plaintiff
contends the discovery requests relate to “the acts of
infringement by [Defendant], [Plaintiff's] entitlement to
pre-patent issuance damages and [Defendant's] assertions
regarding its conduct and defenses.” (Id., at
2.) Plaintiff argues that Defendant's responses are
“deficient.” (Id.) Plaintiff also seeks
his costs, including attorneys' fees relating to the
dispute and motion. The Court will address the
interrogatories in turn.
Interrogatory No. 1.
No. 1 seeks certain information relating to “each and
every time that [Defendant] has Provided an Internal
Strapping System since August 2013 . . . .” (Doc.
101-2, at 2.) At issue are subsections (f)-(i),
f. whether or not Raven provided, whether itself or by
contractors of Raven, installation services for each Event
and the name of the person who ...