ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> Seattle Trademark Lawyer

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Intellectual Property Law

: Seattle Trademark Lawyer

Citing Broad Scope of Discovery, Western District Grants Motion to Compel

By Michael Atkins

ADVERTISEMENTS

Plaintiff Radiator Express Warehouse, Inc., sued defendant Performance Radiator Pacific, LLC, in the Western District for violating the Lanham Act, among other claims.

In discovery, Performance Radiator sought discovery from Radiator Express that supports Radiator Express’ claim that it suffered damages caused by Performance Radiator’s conduct, and documents that support Radiator Express’ allegation that it has been impaired in the management of franchisees and in its financial condition.

Radiator Express apparently objected, saying that its forthcoming expert report would provide the information that Performance Radiator sought.

Radiator Pacific moved to compel.

On July 20, Western District Judge Robart Bryan granted the motion, citing the broad scope of discovery.

“In this case, the information and documents requested by the Defendants appear related to their defense and Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff’s allegations include interference with a business relationship and economic and reputational damages. In order to defend against such allegations, it appears that it is necessary for the Defendants to establish whether there was actual harm done by their actions. Therefore, the information and documents that are requested by Defendants is relevant. Moreover, the discovery provisions are to be applied broadly and liberally so that both parties are on the same footing. Plaintiff’s arguments fail when viewed in this light. Plaintiff has information and knowledge that it seeks to hold until the latest possible time. This is inappropriate under the liberal discovery rules. Plaintiff should produce all information and knowledge so that the Defendants may properly develop a defense, if any.”

The case cite is Radiator Express Warehouse, Inc. v. Performance Radiator Pacific, LLC, 2010 WL 2836735, No. 09-5691 (W.D. Wash. July 20, 2010) (Bryan, J.).

Full post as published by Seattle Trademark Lawyer on August 05, 2010 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0024 secs (from cache 11/03/26 10:00:54)