United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division
ADVANCED COMFORT TECHNOLOGIES INC., d/b/a INTELLIBED, a Utah corporation, Plaintiff,
LONDON LUXURY, LLC, a New York limited liability company, Defendant.
N. Parrish, District Judge
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
C. Wells, United States Magistrate Judge
before the court is Plaintiff's Motion to
Compel. Plaintiff seeks information regarding
Defendant's gross annual sales, customers and marketing
to Columbia, among other things. Plaintiff also seeks costs
associated with bringing the motion. Pursuant to DUCivR
7-1(f), the court determined oral argument is not necessary.
Having considered the parties' arguments, memoranda and
relevant case law, the court finds the requested information
is not relevant or proportional to the needs of the case.
Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.
action arises from a Non-Circumvention Agreement (Agreement)
between the parties wherein Defendant London Luxury, LLC
(London Luxury) pledged to market a proprietary gel mattress
(Gel Matrix) created by Plaintiff Advanced Comfort
Technologies, Inc., d/b/a/ Intellibed (Intellibed) to
Mattress Firm, Inc., a non-party. Plaintiff alleges London
Luxury made false representations to induce it into executing
the Agreement, and that London Luxury is in breach of the
Agreement. During discovery, Plaintiff Intellibed sought
information regarding London Luxury's: 1) gross annual
sales, 2) annual sales with Mattress Firm, 3) gross sale for
its ten largest customers, 4) relationship with Mattress Firm
employees, 5) its ability to market a Columbia-branded
mattress and 6) discussions with Mattress Firm regarding
Plaintiff's product.London Luxury raised various objections,
including referencing a court order issued by the district
judge a year ago, wherein she concluded there is no authority
to support Plaintiff's position that “a party's
actions prior to contract formation constitute a breach of
contract.” This motion followed.
interrogatories at issue are numbers 1-5, and 9-10, and
document requests 7-10 and 12 (collectively “the
Requests”). Defendant contests the relevance of the
information sought by Plaintiff. In addition, Defendant also
informed the court of certain stipulations it offered to make
during the “meet and confer” which would moot the
need for any financial disclosures. It appears Plaintiff refused
the stipulations and did not disclose them to the court.
Rule 26 sets forth the scope and limits of discovery
available to parties. It provides that parties
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 stake in the action, the amount
in controversy, the resources, the importance of the
discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or
expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely
party must demonstrate that requested discovery is not only
relevant but also proportional to the needs of the case.
relevance is broadly construed at the discovery stage of a
case, but it is not without limits. Here, the relevance of the
discovery requested is questionable given that as the
district judge explained a party's actions prior to
contract formation do not constitute a breach of contract.
Further, in weighing the proportionality requirement, the
court finds the burden of producing the requested proprietary
and confidential information outweighs its benefit. The court
finds it is not proportional to the needs of the case
especially given its questionable relevance and the fact that
London Luxury has offered to supplement its previous
responses. Accordingly, the court DENIES the motion and
orders London Luxury to provide the supplemental responses it
proposed in its opposition brief
reasons set forth above the Court DENIES Plaintiffs'
Motion to Compel. The Court FURTHER ORDERS the production of
the supplementation within ...