`EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DESIGN BASICS, LLC,,
`
` Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant,
`
`v. Case No. 13-C-0560
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CAMPBELLSPORT BUILDING SUPPLY INC.,
`BERLIN BUILDING SUPPLY INC.,
`KIEL BUILDING SUPPLY INC.,
`DREXEL INC.,
`DREXEL BUILDING SUPPLY INC.
`JOEL M. FLEISCHMAN
`also known as JOEL C. FLEISCHMAN,
`and ALBERT J. FLEISCHMAN,
`
` Defendants,
`
`
`
`and
`
`WILSON MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
`
`
`
`
`
` Intervenor Defendant/Counterclaimant.
`
`DECISION AND ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`This action alleging that the Defendants committed copyright violations of
`
`Plaintiff Design Basics, LLC (―Design Basics‖) copyrighted architectural works is
`
`before the Court on the motion of Design Basics to strike the Defendants’ objections to
`
`discovery and to compel discovery. (ECF No. 27.) The motion, filed as a single
`
`document with the supporting brief, does not cite any federal rule of civil procedure
`
`relative to the relief that is sought, which is contrary to Civil Local Rule 7(a) (E.D.
`
`Wis.).
`
`Case 2:13-cv-00560-RTR Filed 02/20/14 Page 1 of 7 Document 36
`
`
`
`Regardless of the omission, at a minimum, the motion invokes Federal Rule of
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) and Civ. L.R. 37. Both rules require any motion be
`
`accompanied by a statement certifying that Design Basics met and conferred with the
`
`Defendants in a ―good faith‖ effort to resolve the discovery dispute. The meet and
`
`confer requirements were piloted in local rules (see Rule 37, Advisory Comm. Note
`
`1993 Amend.), and were added to Rule 37(a) because they were successful. Although
`
`not explicitly stated by the Advisory Committee Note, inferentially the success is the
`
`informal resolution of discovery disputes and a reduction of the filing of unnecessary
`
`discovery motions.
`
`Not all pre-filing meet and confer statements are sufficient. In considering
`
`whether pre-filing ―meet and confer‖ requirements have been satisfied, courts in this
`
`district have considered the tone and content of communications. See Carlson v. City
`
`of Delafield, No. 08-C-751, 2010 WL 1641915, at *2 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 21, 2010).
`
`The motion contains the following certification:
`
`that on
`Plaintiffs’ Counsel, Dana LeJune, certifies
`December 9, 2013, he sent a letter to defense counsel
`detailing why Defendants’ responses to discovery and
`disclosures were deficient (Exhibit 1). Thereinafter on
`December 11, 2013, Attorney Michael Hopkins had a
`telephone conference with Attorney Buttchen to discuss
`Mr. LeJune’s letter and Defendants’ discovery responses.
`Mr. Hopkins confirmed the substance of this discussion
`with Attorney Buttchen via an email, which was
`responded to, in part, by Attorney Buttchen (See email
`string, Exhibit 2).
`In
`this email correspondence
`Defendants agreed to produce all available emails (in
`native format) and allow mirroring of the hard drives of
`
`- 2 -
`
`Case 2:13-cv-00560-RTR Filed 02/20/14 Page 2 of 7 Document 36
`
`
`
`computers used by defendants’ in-house draftsmen. A
`dispute exists as to whether Defendants have agreed to
`produce digital copies of the house plans located in
`Defendants’ cloud storage service.
`
`Soon after Defendants were told that this motion was
`being drafted, on December 13, 2013, they supplemented
`their initial discovery responses. In summary, although
`some additional materials have been provided, Defendants
`still have not answered all the interrogatories, and still
`have not produced any emails (archived or otherwise), and
`still resist production of their collection of house plans
`numbering in the thousands. Additionally, they continue
`to resist the mirroring of the hard drives on their
`computers, servers and storage devices.
`
`* * * *
`
`CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
`
`I hereby certify that on December 13, 2013 at 4:22 pm,
`counsel for Plaintiff conferred with opposing counsel on
`this matter, and that multiple email and telephone
`communications have been engaged in this endeavor.
`
`s/Dana A. LeJune
`Dana A. LeJune
`
`
`
`
`
`(Pl.’s Mot. & Br. Strike & Compel, 1-2, 17.)
`
`
`Neither the tone nor the content of the foregoing statement and/or the
`
`supporting exhibits disclose that Design Basics met and conferred with the
`
`Defendants in a ―good faith‖ effort to resolve the discovery dispute. Design Basics’
`
`statement discloses that, despite the Defendants’ responsiveness, Design Basics was
`
`didactic and unwilling to work with them to resolve the discovery disputes, instead
`
`filing its motion to compel all outstanding answers and/or materials requested by its
`
`interrogatories and requests for production. Design Basics’ contact with the
`
`- 3 -
`
`Case 2:13-cv-00560-RTR Filed 02/20/14 Page 3 of 7 Document 36
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Defendants does not reflect good faith on its part. The Court would have a sound
`
`basis to deny the motion outright.
`
`The filings before the Court establish that the Defendants’ responses were not
`
`complete as of December 9, 2013. However, they began to supplement their
`
`responses. The Defendants provided Design Basics with their first supplemental
`
`response on December 13, 2013.
`
`Instead of engaging in good faith negotiations to obtain the additional
`
`outstanding materials from the Defendants, Design Basics filed its motion to strike
`
`and compel on December 17, 2013. The Defendants subsequently provided Design
`
`Basics with additional supplemental responses dated December 19, 2013. (Pl’s
`
`Reply, Ex. E), January 7, 2014 (Id., Exs. F & G), January 17, 2014, (Id. Ex. H). (ECF
`
`Nos. 29-5, 30, 30-1, 30-2.) Additional information is also included in letter dated
`
`January 31, 2014, from the Defendants to Design Basics. (ECF Nos. 31, 31-1.)
`
`The parties’ filings have consumed about a ream of paper – 500 sheets.
`
`Having combed through the parties’ filings, there is a clear dispute regarding the
`
`scope of the plans to be disclosed by the Defendants. That request is contained in
`
`Request No. 1 of the Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents which
`
`reads as follows:
`
`REQUEST 1. Your house plan ―inventory‖ including but
`not limited to all genesis and template documents, in
`native format (such as CAD files, including but not
`limited to *.dwg, *.spd, *.dxf, *.cdc, *.plt, *.dgn, and/or
`*.dwf."). This request includes all house plans (and all
`
`- 4 -
`
`Case 2:13-cv-00560-RTR Filed 02/20/14 Page 4 of 7 Document 36
`
`
`
`drafts, sketches, mockups, genesis and other precursor
`documents, including everything shown to each and every
`person who did plan modification and/or drafting for you
`and/ or any other Defendant) you have drawn or have had
`drawn, including those you and/or any other defendant
`helped to draw.
`
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. F.) (ECF No. 30.)
`
`
`
`The Defendants’ second supplemental response is as follows:
`
`RESPONSE N0.1: Objection. This document request is
`overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information
`that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
`admissible evidence. Subject to such objection, and
`without waiving the same, see Exhibit A, which has
`already been provided, and Exhibit I. All plans relevant to
`this suit have been provided to Plaintiff.
`
`(Id.)
`
`
`
`According to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
`
`[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any
`nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim
`or defense—including the existence, description, nature,
`custody, condition, and location of any documents or
`other tangible things and the identity and location of
`persons who know of any discoverable matter. For good
`cause, the court may order discovery of any matter
`relevant to the subject matter involved in the action.
`Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if
`the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the
`discovery of admissible evidence.
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
`
`
`
`
`Design Basics’ Complaint alleges
`
`that
`
`the Defendants, singularly or
`
`collectively, have
`
`infringed
`
`its copyright-protected plans entitled ―Morgan,‖
`
`―Ambrose,‖ and/or ―Manning‖ on one or more occasions by, inter alia, creating one or
`
`- 5 -
`
`Case 2:13-cv-00560-RTR Filed 02/20/14 Page 5 of 7 Document 36
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` more derivative works from said plans for one or more of their customers. (Compl. ¶
`
`16.) It further alleges that the Defendants ―have regularly and systematically infringed
`
`[Design Basics’] copyrights and those of other designers and architects in original
`
`architectural works, and have induced others, including individual homeowners,
`
`contractors and other entities and individuals engaged in the business of home building
`
`to infringe [Design Basics’] copyrights in its original architectural works, to the profit
`
`of said Defendants, contractors and other home builders, and to [Design Basics’]
`
`detriment,‖ and ―[u]pon information and belief, the Defendants have infringed the
`
`copyrights in other original architectural works of [Design Basics], the scope and
`
`breadth of which infringing activities will be ascertained during the course of
`
`discovery.‖ (Id. at ¶¶ 18, 20.)
`
`
`
`In their opposing brief, the Defendants cite DellaCasa, LLC v. John Moriarty
`
`& Associates of Florida, Inc., No. 07-21659-CIV, 2007 WL 4117261, at *2 (S.D. Fla.
`
`Nov. 16, 2007), a decision in an architectural copyright infringement action denying
`
`the plaintiff’s motion to compel the defendant to produce all drawings and designs in
`
`its possession including those for Harbour House and Carillon projects. In denying the
`
`motion, the court relied on the fact that the plaintiff’s causes of action involved three
`
`Trump Tower projects and did not relate to either the Harbour House or Carillon
`
`projects. Id. Furthermore, the court determined that the plaintiff had not established
`
`good cause to allow discovery under the broader subject matter standard. Id.
`
`
`
`DellaCasa is distinguishable because the copyright infringement allegations of
`
`- 6 -
`
`Case 2:13-cv-00560-RTR Filed 02/20/14 Page 6 of 7 Document 36
`
`
`
`
`
`the Complaint in this action are not limited to a specific plan or plans. Design Basics
`
`alleges that the Defendants have regularly and systemically infringed on its
`
`copyrighted plans and those of others. Given the breadth of the allegations in this
`
`action, the Defendants’ contention that the request is not likely to lead to the discovery
`
`of admissible evidence lacks merit. Furthermore, the Defendants’ conclusory and
`
`unsubstantiated claims that the request is overly broad and burdensome are insufficient
`
`to provide a basis for denying the request for relevant materials.
`
`
`
`Therefore, request number one of Design Basics’ request for production of
`
`documents is granted. In all other respects, the motion to compel is denied.
`
`Additionally, at this juncture, the Defendants’ request for fees and costs is denied. See
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(C).
`
`
`
`NOW, THEREFORE, BASED ON THE FOREGOING, IT IS HEREBY
`
`ORDERED THAT:
`
`
`
`Design Basics’ motion to strike the Defendants’ objections to discovery and to
`
`compel discovery (ECF No. 27) is GRANTED as to Request No. 1 of its first request
`
`for production of documents and DENIED in all other respects.
`
`Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 19th day of February, 2014.
`
`BY THE COURT:
`
`__________________________
`HON. RUDOLPH T. RANDA
`U.S. District Judge
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:13-cv-00560-RTR Filed 02/20/14 Page 7 of 7 Document 36