throbber
Case 1:12-cv-00574-LPS Document 398 Filed 01/26/17 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 13234
`Case 1:12-cv-00574-LPS Document 398 Filed 01/26/17 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 13234
`
`‘
`‘
`ROBERT BOSCH-LLC,
`
`‘IN THEUNITED STATES «DISTRICT COURT 1
`FOR THE DISTRICT ‘OF DELAWARE
`‘
`
`.V..
`
`'
`
`1
`1
`.:
`.ALBEREE PRODUCTS, INC, API KOREACOq ,:
`LTD., SAVER AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS,
`‘
`INC, .and'COSTCO WHOLESALE
`CORPORATION
`'
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`.
`
`Civil Action No .—12.574~LPS
`(CONSOLIDATED)
`'
`FILED UNDER SEAL
`’
`
`Defenéants. I
`
`V
`
`‘ COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION,
`
`.11]..1
`
`‘CofintenPlaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`ROBERT BOSCH LLC and ROBE-RT BOSCH
`
`GMBH,
`
`Counter~Defendants.
`
`:
`
`David E. Moore, Bindu A. Palapura, Stephanie E. O’Byme? POTTER ANDERSON’&
`, CORROON LLP, Wihnington, DE
`
`Mark A. Hannemann, SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP, New York, NY
`
`Rose Cordero Prey,'Ksenia Takhistova, KENYON & KENYON LLP, New York, NY
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`, MaryB Graham, Thomas Curry AnthonyD Raucoi, MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT &
`TUNNELL LLP, Wilmington, DE
`James W Dabney, Diane E Litton, James R. Klaiber, Richard M KOeh1,Stefanie M Lopatkin,
`HUGHES HUBBARD & REED LLP New York, NY
`
`Attomexs for Defendant Costco Wholesale Comoration.
`
`.
`
`'
`
`'
`
`A
`
`
`'MEMORANDUMOPINION ’
`
`, January 24,2017
`Wilmington, Delaware
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00574-LPS Document 398 Filed 01/26/17 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 13235
`Case 1:12-cv-00574-LPS Document 398 Filed 01/26/17 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 13235
`
`ST
`
`V Us.District51%
`
`Q/\’
`
`j
`
`Pending before the Court is Defendant Costco "Wholesaie Corporation’s (“Costco"
`
`Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint Pursuantto Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure .3'7Cb)(2).
`(D1. 372) (“Motion”) For‘the reasons'belOw, the Court will deny costco’s Motion, but Wiil
`' require that Costco 'be reimbursed for its reasonabie'attomey’s fees.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`This is .apatent infringement lawsuit. Robert Bosch GmbI-I (“BGmbI—I”) is the parent of
`PlaintiffRobert Bosch LLC (“BLLC”). (See DLI. 311 114) BLLC sued various defendants inthis
`
`Court, including Costco, for infringement ofpatents coveréng’windshield Wiper technology.
`
`(See
`
`geneirzlly D1. 355 at 1-4 (Memorandum Opinion ofMarch 17, 2016)) BGmbH is the former
`
`owner ofthe patents-in—suit and has a financial interest in the outcome of thelitigation: both a -
`
`directfinancial interest, as it could obtain between _ofany damages the suit generates,~
`
`and indirectly, as BLLC’S corporete parent. (D1. 266 En. 12 at 2~3; Dfl. 392, Transcript (“TL”)
`i at 40)
`
`I
`
`On December 2, 2015, Costco requested a teleconference regarding BLLC’S alleged
`failure to comply with discoyery obligations; specifically, BLLC’S failure to produce BGmbH’s
`“agreements with vehicle manufacturers concerning the supply oforiginal equipment wiper
`systems and production of specifications relating to such systems.” (D1, 262 at 1) Theparties
`
`submitted letter briefs on the discovery dispute and the court heard argument during a
`teleconference on December 17., 2015. At the conclusion ofthe December 17 discovery call, the .
`
`Court found (among other things) that the requested documents fell Within the “broad scope of
`
`relevance which is governing here”) (DJ. 277 at 23) and ordered BLLC to produce the disputed
`
`‘ l
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00574-LPS Document 398 Filed 01/26/17 Page 3 of 14 PageID #: 13236
`Case 1:12-cv-00574-LPS Document 398 Filed 01/26/17 Page 3 of 14 PageID #: 13236
`
`documents, Without regard to whether BLLC or BGmbH controlled the documents.
`
`After providing the parties an opportunity to meet and confer on the details of
`
`implementing the Court’s order, on December 22, 2015 the Court ordered that, “[o]n or before
`January 8, 2016, BLLC shall produce to counsel for Costco all agreements between BGmbH and
`
`‘OEMS [original equipment manufacturerslrelating to wipers or wiper systems, the OEM
`
`specifications for wipers or wiper systems to be supplied, and related development documents,
`. including meeting minutes and correspondence.” (D1. 274 at 2 (“December 22 Order”))
`
`Notably, the form ofthe December 22 Order was prepared by the parties and BLLC did not
`
`objectto its language. (D1. 272)
`
`I
`
`BLLC admits that it did not comply with the December 22 Order and its January 8, 2016
`
`- deadline. (See D1. 381 at 1041) In partiai defense, BLLC explains that it was “negotiating” the
`
`scope of discovery with Costco and the procurement of documents from BGmbH until at least
`
`January 15, 2016. (Id) BLLC did not inform the Court of these negotiations until, on January
`
`15, 2016, BLLC filed a Motion for Relief from the December 22 Order. (D1284) 1n Costco’s
`briefopposing DLLC’S Motion for Relief, Costco cited evidence ofBLLC’S repeated failure to
`
`comply with discovery obligations. (See D1. 315 at 1-8) The Court denied BLLC’S Motion for
`
`i
`Reliefon April E1, 2016. (DI. 368)
`BLLC’s stated reason for not timely producing the documents is that BGmbH', BLLC’S
`
`parent, refused to search for and produce any documents When BLLC requested BGmbH to do
`
`so, even when BLLC’s requests were backed by an order ofthe Court, (See 13.1. 381 at 10) (“The ‘
`sole reason that BLLC had not already produced the documents —— when Costco first asked for
`them, and again .
`.
`. in December when Costco proposed to raise the issue by discovery letter to
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00574-LPS Document 398 Filed 01/26/17 Page 4 of 14 PageID #: 13237
`Case 1:12-cv-00574-LPS Document 398 Filed 01/26/17 Page 4 of 14 PageID #: 13237
`
`the Court ~ was that BLLC did not have either physical or legal access to any of such documents.
`BLLC had asked‘forthem repeatedly, and 386th had repeatedly rejected its requests, even
`when partial summaryjudgment against BLLC had been explicitly threatened as a
`
`d
`
`consequence”)
`
`Also on January 15, 2016, 13(3th consented to this Court’s jurisdiction over it as a partv
`to this case. (See D.l. 283) Previously, on September 30, 2016, Costco had filed an Answer to
`BLLC’S) Second Amended Complaint and asserted a counterclaim against BLLC and BGmbI-I.
`
`(DI. 244) In response, BGth had filed a [notion to dismiss the claims against it. due to lack of
`personal jurisdictiod.
`(13.1. 2.63, 264)
`On January-29, 2016, Costco subniitted a letter requesting dismissal ofBLLCfs complaint
`pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2) due to BLLC’S discovery misconduct. (Dtl. 307 at 1) The Court heard
`argument on Costco’s request during a teleconference‘held on February 4, 2016. (See D.I. 349)
`At thelcvonclusion ofthe teleconference, the Court stated that“Costco is entitled to some relief,
`possibly including dismissal ofthe entire case,” but stated that the parties would be‘permittedto
`be heard more fully before the Court)would make a final decisionregarding dismissal. (Id. at 25)
`On March 14, 2016, Costco subinitted a letter requesting (1) vacatur of“all existing
`unexpired deadlines in the current Scheduling‘Order” and (2) leave to submit fiili briefing in
`
`support of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2).
`
`(131.1. 354) On March 17, 2016, the
`
`Court granted Costco’s requests and (1) stayed this case, vacating deadlines in the governing
`Scheduling Order, and (2) granted leave for Costco to file its MotioIi. (D1. 356 {12; see also D11.
`
`355 at 14—16)
`
`CostCo filed its Motion on April 22, 2016.. (D1. 372) The parties completed briefing on
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00574-LPS Document 398 Filed 01/26/17 Page 5 of 14 PageID #: 13238
`Case 1:12-cv-00574-LPS Document 398 Filed 01/26/17 Page 5 of 14 PageID #: 13238
`
`June 10, 2016. (D1. 373, 381, 383) The Court heard oral argument on November 29, 2016.
`
`(See Tr. at 1) )
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`,' Rule 37(b)(2) states, in pertinent part:
`
`If a party or a party’s officer, director, or managing agent — i
`or a witness designated under Rule 30(b)(6) or 31(a)(4) -— fails to
`obey an order to provide or permit discovery, including an order
`under 'Ruie 26(t), 35; or 37(a), the court where the action is
`pending may issue filrther just orders. They may include the
`following: ... . dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or in
`part .
`. . . Instead of or in addition to the orders above, the court
`must order the disobedient party, the attorney advising that party,
`or both'to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees,
`caused by the failure, unless the faiiure was substantially justified
`or other circumstances make ’an award of expenses unjust.
`
`In Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty C01, 747 F.2d 863, 868 (3d Girl 1984), the Third
`
`Circuit prescribed six factors that “a district court must consider before it dismisses a case”
`
`pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2). Knoll v. C513) afAllentown, 707 F.3d 406,, 409 (3d Cir. 2013). The
`
`factors are:
`
`(1) the extent of the party’s personal responsibility; (2) the
`prejudice to the adversary caused by the failure to meet scheduling —
`orders and reSpond to discovery; (3) a history of dilatoriness;
`(4) Whether the conduct of the'party or the attorney was willfill or
`in bad faith; (5) the effectiveness of sanctions other than dismissal,
`which entails an analysis of alternative sanctions; and (6) the
`meritofiousness of the claim or defense.
`
`Poulz's, 747 F.2d at 868.. “[D]ismissals with prejudice or defaults are drasticsanctions, termed
`
`‘extréme’ by the Supreme Court .
`
`.
`
`. .” Id. at 86768 (quoting Nat’l Hockey League v, Metro.
`
`Hockey Club, Inc, 427 us. 639, 643 (1976)),
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00574-LPS Document 398 Filed 01/26/17 Page 6 of 14 PageID #: 13239
`Case 1:12-cv-00574-LPS Document 398 Filed 01/26/17 Page 6 of 14 PageID #: 13239
`
`III.
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`As the parties focused their briefing on analysis ofthe Poulis factors, the Court will do so
`
`as well.
`
`A;
`
`Poulis Factors
`
`1.
`
`BLLC’s Responsibility
`
`In its discovery letter submitted prior to the Court’s December 17, 2015 discovery
`
`teleconference, Costco argued that BLLC had control over the disputed documents, citing an
`
`Administratiue Law Judge’s (“ALI”) decision in a case before the International Trade
`Conimission in which BLLC had also claimed that it did not have control over documents in the
`
`possession of its parent. (DI. 266 at 2—3) The ALJ’s decision (D1. 266 Ex. 13) analyzed the
`
`issue of control under the “alternate grounds” for establishing control set out in Camden Iron &
`
`Ivfetal, Inc. v. Marubeni America Corp, 138 FRI). 43 8, 441—42 (l3.N.J. 1991). The ALI found
`
`that BLLC had control over disputed documents under three of Camden’s alternate grounds:
`
`(1) “[tlhe relationship is such that the agent—subsidiary can secure documents ofthe
`
`principal-parent to meet its own business needs and documents helpful for use in litigation,”
`
`(2) “[t]here is access to documents when the need arises in the ordinary course of business,” and
`
`(3) the “subsidiaiy was marketer and servicer of parent’s product .
`
`.
`
`. in the United States.” Id.
`
`The issue of BLLC’s control over documents in the possession of its parent was also
`
`litigated in Robert Bosch LLC v. Snap~t2n Inc, 2013 WL 823330 (ED. Mich. Mar. 6, 2013), in
`which the Court ordered BLLC to produce documents Within the posseSSion ofBGmbH. In
`
`Snap-On, the Court found that “[i]t strains credulity that [BLLC] would be unable to obtain from
`
`[BGmbll] documents related to [a,patent~in—suit] that would assist [BLLC] in achieving a
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00574-LPS Document 398 Filed 01/26/17 Page 7 of 14 PageID #: 13240
`Case 1:12-cv-00574-LPS Document 398 Filed 01/26/17 Page 7 of 14 PageID #: 13240
`
`i successful outcome in this litigation.” Id. at *3. Consequently, the Court held that “Defendants
`will not be foreclosed from obtaining [from BLLC] simiiar documents that may aid in their
`
`defense.” Id.
`
`I The Court agrees With the analysis from Snap~0n. Therefore, the Court holds that Cestco
`
`should have been given accessto BGmbH—held documents that Were responsive to Costco’s
`
`requests, regardless ofwhether such documents were supportive ofBLLC’s positions in this
`
`litigation. BLLC had effective control over production of such documents.
`The Court’s finding as to BLLC’s control is based on, among other things: BLLC’S ability
`to seizure from BGmbH documents that BLhC appears to have viewed as helpful to’BLLC’s
`litigationpositionduring this litigation. See GerlingInt7Ins. Co. v. C].R.: 539 F.2d'131, 141
`(Ed Cir. 1988) (“Where the relationship is thus such that the agent-subsidiary can secure
`documents ofthe principal-parent to meet its own business needs and documents (helpful for use
`
`in the litigation, the courts will not permit the agent~subsidiary to deny control for purposes of
`. discovery By an opposing party”); see also Snap—0n, 2013 WL 823330, at‘i‘3 (“Providing highly?
`, relevant documents in litigation constitutes a business need .
`.
`. 3’) (internal bracketsand
`‘
`
`quotation marks omitted). BGmbH has selectively provided to BLLC certain documents at
`various points in this litigation, vvhich BLLC has produced to Costco. (See 381 at 2, 5; 383 at 6—
`
`7)
`
`Further, BLLC and BGmbH are parties to a joint venture agreement. (See 111. 266 Ex.
`
`12) Pursuant to this agreement, the patents~in~suit were property contributed«by BGmbH, in
`support ofits jointefforts with BLLC to enforce patent rights and obtainrevenue. (See id. at 26)
`It is undisputed that BGmbH will benefit financially from any revenue generated by BLLC’s
`
`, 6
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00574-LPS Document 398 Filed 01/26/17 Page 8 of 14 PageID #: 13241
`Case 1:12-cv-00574-LPS Document 398 Filed 01/26/17 Page 8 of 14 PageID #: 13241
`
`litigation ofthe asserted patents. (See id; see generally D1. 267; T1: pat410) In fact, BGmbH
`
`stands to women—ofany‘damages awarded as a result ofthis lawsuit (See Del. .266 Ex.
`12 at 2—3)
`V
`The ciose interactions between B'LLC and BGmbH with respect to wiper blade products
`i provide additional support for the Court’s finding of control, as BLLC is able to obtain ~
`.. documents it needs in the ordinary course ofbusiness in orderto carry out BGian’s Operations
`’ in the United States. (See D1. 266 Ex. 13 at 546) Hence, the record as a whole supports a ’
`finding that BLLC and BGmbH are acting in Concert in connection with the patents-in—suit and in
`connection with this litigation.
`V
`In counten’ng the argument that it had control over the pertinent documents, BLLC’s ‘
`
`I
`
`strongest point is that it proved unable to obtain requested documents at an earlier point in this
`
`I litigation, even after the Court indicated that it would like}? grant partial summatyjudgment to
`
`Costco should BLLC fail to produce those documents. (See‘Dl. 381 at 1; see also Transcript of
`hearing heldJune 8,2015: DE. 204 at 46—41 (“ms another alternative to somehow make clear to
`
`the plaintiffthat iftheir parent doesn’t come in and provide discovery within a very reasonable
`amount oftime, that they willbe deemed to have not met their burden andsumniaryjudgment
`would be forthcoming or is itjust too late'l”); In at 28430)‘ The record supports ELL-C’s
`characterization ofWhat occurred. Nonetheless, the Court does not find from these facts that
`BLLC never (including after entry ofthe December 22 Order) had control over any portion ofthe
`
`documents it was ordered to produce. Instead, it suggests only that BGmbH was recalcitrant in
`
`meeting its obligations to BLLC and was willing to refuse to meet those obligations even at. the ‘-
`
`cost of losing a portion of BLLC’S case. That recalcitrance ended when, but only when, it
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00574-LPS Document 398 Filed 01/26/17 Page 9 of 14 PageID #: 13242
`Case 1:12-cv-00574-LPS Document 398 Filed 01/26/17 Page 9 of 14 PageID #: 13242
`\
`
`became clear.that the entirety ofthe case might be dismissedas a sanction for failing to provide
`to BLLC documents to which BLLC was entitled to get from BGmbI-l.
`
`Because BLLC had control over the disputed documents, BLLC is largely’respcnsihle for
`its failure to produce the required documents and the failure to comply with the Court’s
`
`December 22 Order. Therefore, this first Poulis factor weighs in favor of dismissal.
`
`,
`
`2.
`Prejudice to Costco
`During the February 4, 2016 teleconference regarding BhLC’s discovery misconduct, the ‘
`
`Court stated that “the circumstances as they have evolved are highly prejudicial to Costco,
`
`particularly given where we are in the schedule: ‘.
`
`.
`
`. close to the end offact discovery, which had
`
`been extended previously?” (D1- 349 at 26) (internal grammar added) The Court continues to
`
`' hold this View, as Costco Was deprived of the opportunity to developits defenses during fact
`
`discovery within the necessary context of full production of responsive documents. (See, e.g.,
`
`D1. 373 at. 91 1) (discussing impact of late production of doeuments on development of Costco’s
`* invalidity defenses)
`’
`
`At least some of the documents that have been belatedly produced are relevant to
`
`Costco’s obviousness defense. (See, e.g., D1. 373 at 941) (“By failing to produce
`
`BGMBHOOl4875 until March 8, 2016, BLLC denied Costco any meaningful opportunity to
`develop what its contents showed about the skill level in the art ofthe ’926 Patent at relevant
`times '.
`.
`. 3’) Moreover, the Court shares some ofCostco’s concerns that‘BLLC’S produCtion still
`may not be complete. (Sec 9.1. 373 at 5—8) (citing, for example, evidence ofBLLCi’s lack of
`
`institutional knowledgeahout whether, when, orhow any document searches were performed on
`
`certain requested topics) Costco is entitled to a full and fair production of all non~privileged,
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00574-LPS Document 398 Filed 01/26/17 Page 10 of 14 PageID #: 13243
`Case 1:12—cv-00574-LPS Document 398 Filed 01/26/17 Page 10 of 14 PageID #: 13243
`
`responsive documents as well as a full and fair opportunity to develop its defenses with an
`
`understanding ofthe full scope of these materials. Costco’s loss of this opportunity (to this
`
`point) has been prejndieialto it.
`i Thus, this factor weighs in favor of dismissal.
`
`3.
`
`' BLLC’s History of Dilatoriness
`
`As discussed above and in Cosmo’s brief opposing BLLC’s Motion for Relief from the
`
`Court’s December 22 Order, BLLC repeatedly failed to comply with the Court’s orders and to
`live uh to its discovery obligations. (See D1; 315 at 1-8) The Bosch parties have also engaged in
`
`* similar behavior’in cases before other tribunals. (See DJ. 266 Ex. 13; Snap—On, 2013 WL at
`823330. This factor 1tveighs in favor ofdismissed.
`i
`
`'
`
`Willfulnessnor Bad Faith
`I 4.
`BLLC willfully disobeyed this court’s December 23 Order by failing to proditce the
`documents ordered to beproduced byJanuary 8, 2016, and by failing even to notifythe Court of
`why such production had not occurred until Jannary 15, 2016! While BLLC’s position regarding ‘
`
`its lack ofphysical control over documents held by BGmbH could have been asserted in good
`faith, this factor‘sfipports disrnissalbeceuse BLLC Willfullyfailed to exercise the control it had
`over the responsive documents held st BGmbH and, therefore, willfullyviolated the December
`> 22 order.
`‘
`BLLC represents that BGmbl-I failed to provide certain doauments to BLLC for reasons
`
`including concerns abdut European privacy laivs.
`
`(See, eg, Tr. at.28«29; seealso genera”): id.
`
`at 5465 (BLLC counsel: “I apologize again for everything that has come out ofthat decision by
`
`- the German company not to‘providc them [i.e., discovery] voluntarily. Whatever‘the reasons
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00574-LPS Document 398 Filed 01/26/17 Page 11 of 14 PageID #: 13244
`Case 1:12—cv-00574-LPS Document 398 Filed 01/26/17 Page 11 of 14 PageID #: 13244
`
`were, and I’m sure they were good reasons-I regret that, but to blame the US. operating
`
`company and suggest that they Were contumaciously; or Whatever the vyord was, not respecting
`the etithority ofthis Court, that is not whathappened?» Even accepting BLLC’S statements as
`true, they donot excuse BLLC’s obligations - as a party that initiated litigation in this Court, in
`this country, well knowing the discovery obligationsthat would result, due to therFederat Rules;
`
`of Civil Procedure, governing case. law, and the fact that BLLC had already been found by other
`US. judicial bodies to have “control” otter documents in the physicai possession ofBGian “to
`prodiice reSponsive documents in this action. Confidentiality concerns can be handled in the
`course ofthislitigation through the Protective Order the Court has entered (see D1. 65), Which
`
`a
`
`the Court could amend if necessary.
`
`5.
`
`Alternative Sanctions
`
`BLLC quotes Poulis as cautionjng that “[d]ismissal inust be a sanction oflast, not first,
`- resorti?’ Poulz's, 747 F.2d at 869. The Court agrees with 13th that dismissal is not the most
`
`'
`
`appropriate sanction.
`
`The Bosch parties have represented that they hate now produced “all ofthe required
`documents”~ and, thus, have remedied any problems which may have arisen earlier in the case.
`' See Bull v. UnitedParcel Sam, Inc, 665 F.3d 68, 80 (3d Cir. 2012) (stating that, generally;
`“dismissal with prejudice is only appropriate in limited circutnstances and doubts Should be
`resolved infavor ofreaching a decisionon the merits”) (internal quotation merits omitted)
`
`(emphasis added). Aithough the Court has some doubts about the completeness ofBLLC’S'
`
`productiona as discussed above, the Court finds that this factor still weighs against dismissal.
`
`Lesser, alternative sanctions are appropriate and will adequately ameliorate the prejudice '
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00574-LPS Document 398 Filed 01/26/17 Page 12 of 14 PageID #: 13245
`Case 1:12—cv-00574-LPS Document 398 Filed 01/26/17 Page 12 of 14 PageID #: 13245
`
`Costco has suffered. They begin Withrequiring BLLC to pay Cosmo’s reasonable attorney’s fees
`that were caused by BLLC’s discovery misconduct. See Fed. R. CivrProc. .37(b)(2). BLLC’s
`
`discovery misconduct was not substantially justified and an award of fees would not be unjust.
`Theparties will be directed to submit a briefing schedule to provide the Court with their detailed
`positions on how the Court should determine the appropriate amount of attorney’s fees that will
`be paid.
`’
`I
`Additionally; Costco will be permitted the Copportimity to seek further discovery, should it
`believe any is necessary, in order to ensure that Costco will have received in production all
`materials and other discovery which it would have obtained had BLLC lived upto its discovery
`obligations throughout this case. BLLC does not oppose suchadditional discovery.
`(See~Tr. at
`
`\
`
`'
`
`4748)
`
`Finally, in connection with submission ofthe proposed final pretrial order and the final
`
`pretrial conference, the Court will consider, ifrequested by Costco, granting relief in liinine to
`exclude particular late~produced evidence, should Costco be able to persuade the Court that, in
`light ofthe totality of applicable considerations, such evidence should be excluded.
`The Courthas considered still other alternative‘sanctions, including requiring BLLC to
`
`pay all of Costco’s reasonable attorney’s fees since the inception of this case, granting partial
`
`summaryjudgment, and/or directing thejury to draw an adverse inference against BLLC on one
`
`or more issues relating to topics on which BLLC’S discovery has been deficient. The availability
`
`of each. of these sanctions, fiarther confirms that dismissal is not warranted. However, the Court
`
`has also concluded that, on balance, none of these particular alternatives are the most appropriate
`
`sanction(s) under the totality of circumstances.
`
`ll
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00574-LPS Document 398 Filed 01/26/17 Page 13 of 14 PageID #: 13246
`Case 1:12—cv-00574-LPS Document 398 Filed 01/26/17 Page 13 of 14 PageID #: 13246
`
`6,
`
`Meritoriousness of BLLC’S Clainis
`
`Costco argues that “BLLC’s and BGmbH’s discovery failures have resulted in a record
`that prevents complete assessment orthe merits oftlieir asserted claims.” (D1. 373- at l5) Ifthe
`Bosch parties have truly produced all documents responsive to Costco’s discovery requests, as
`they saythey have, Costco now has the record that itIsh‘ould have had during fact discovery, and
`can now fully develop its defenses in the proper, full contest ofall appropriate discovery If
`BLLC has not yet done so, it Will be required to do so aspart ofany additional discovery Costco
`may seek. Either way, the Court concludes that this tactor‘is neutral with respect to whether
`dismissal is warranted.
`.
`
`Weighing the Factors
`7.
`An analysis tinder the Poulis factors must conclude with a weighing of the factors. See In
`
`re Asbestos Prod. Liabt Litig. (N0. VI), 713 F.3d 236, 248 (3d Cir. 2013). The current record
`, does not support dismissal ofthe complaint, because alternative sanctions ofattorney’s fees and
`additional discovery, (as Well as the possibility of evidentiary sanctions, are moreappropriate and
`
`i will adequately ameliorate the prejudice Costco has suffered. Costco contends that “dismissal is
`
`warranted. and appropriate to deter BLLC and others from repeating the type ofdiSCOVery
`
`misconduct that was committed in this case.” (D1. 373 at 1; see also Tr. at 20512) ‘St'et public
`
`policy favors resolution ofcases on the merits, see Hrz'tz v, Woma Corp, 732 F.2d 1178, llSl
`
`(3d Cir. 1984) (“Wile have repeatedly stated our preference that cases be disposed of on the
`
`merits whenever practicable”), and the availability of alternative yet adequate sanctions here
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00574-LPS Document 398 Filed 01/26/17 Page 14 of 14 PageID #: 13247
`Case 1:12—cv-00574-LPS Document 398 Filed 01/26/17 Page 14 of 14 PageID #: 13247
`
`require that the Court deny Cosmo’s request for dismissal.I
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`An. Order, consistent with the reasons given above, will be entered.
`
`‘At the hearing on Cosmo’s Motion, BLLC cited Drone Technologies, Inc. v. Parrot S.A.,
`838 F.3d 1283, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2016), in support of its position. The Drone case is
`distinguishable because the District Court had granted a default sanction and “did not seriously
`consider alternative sanctions.” Id. at 1304. Here the Court wi11 deny Costco’s request for
`dismissal and will grant alternative sanctions.
`
`13
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket