All-Tag Corporation v. Checkpoint Systems, Incorporated, No. 9:2017cv81261 - Document 263 (S.D. Fla. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER denying 203 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and granting in part and denying in part [205-1/223] Defendant's Motion to Strike. Signed by Magistrate Judge William Matthewman on 10/7/2019. See attached document for full details. (kza)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
All-Tag Corporation v. Checkpoint Systems, Incorporated Doc. 263 UNITED STATESDISTRICY COURT SOU TH ERN DISTRICT OF FLORID A CaseNo.9:17-cv-8lz6l-Dim itrouleas/M atthewman A ll-Tag Cop ., FILED BY D C. . Plaintiff, V S. 02T 2 2219 ANGELA E.NOBLE CLERK O S DISX CI CheckpointSystem s,Inc., s.D.oF/u:.-w.p.a. Defendant. / ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S M OTION TO COM PEL fDE 2031 AN D GRANTING IN PART AND DENW NG IN PART DEFENDANT'S M OTION TO STRIKE IDE 205-1/2231 TH IS CA U SE is before the Courtupon PlaintiffA ll-Tag Corp.'s M otion to Com pelM ore Com plete A nsw ers to 1ts Third Set of Interrogatories and D ocum ents R esponsive to Its Third RequestforProductionofDocuments(DE 203)(tçM otiontoCompel'')andDefendantCheckpoint System s,lnc.'s M otion to Strike All-Tag's New Affirmative Opinion lmproperly and Untimely OfferedintheRebuttalReportofGraemeHunter,Ph.D gDE205-1/223j(EsM otiontoStrike').These m atterswerereferred to theundersigned by Urlited StatesDistrictJudgeW illinm P.Dim itrouleas. (DE 511.Bothmotionsarefullybriefed,andtheCourtheldahearingonbothmotionsonSeptem 'ber 23,2019.(DE 2321.Themotionsareripeforreview.Forthereasonssetforth below,theCourt DENIESPlaintiffAll-Tag'sM otiontoCompel(DE 203)andGRANTSIN PART andDENIESIN PART DefendantCheckpoint'sM otiontoStrike(DE 205-1/2232. 1.Background The history and current procedural posture of this case is im portant to the Court's determ ination ofthe two pending m otions.Thiscase wasfiled on N ovem ber 17,2017,alm osttwo yearsago.(DE 1q.OnM ay4,2018,theCourtenteredaschedulingordersettingthetrialperiodin Dockets.Justia.com thiscaseforJanuary6,2020,withadiscoverycutoffdateofSeptember6,2019.(DE 431.OnApril 4,2019,theCourtenteredan order(DE 104)settingthefollowingexpertdisclosuredeadlines: Plaintiff'sExpertReportand Disclosm es Jtme 21,2019 D efendant's ExpertReportand D isclostlres R ebuttalExpertReports ExpertD iscovery Cutoff June 22,2019 August5,2019 Septem ber 11,2019 On M ay 18,2018,the Courtam ended itspriotscheduling order,keeping the sam e trialdate andpre-trialschedule,butincludinganotation to reflectthecorrectpairedmagistratejudge.(DE 51).On June 5,2019,the Courtextended the discovery cut-offfzom September 11,2019,to September18,2019.(DE 164J.Thereafter,thepartiesagreedto,andtheCourtadoptedandordered gDE 167),thefollowingamendedexpertdisclosuredeadlines: AffnnativeExpertReports Com pletion ofD epositions ofA 11Experts RebuttalExpel'tReports Com pletion ofD epositions ofR ebuttalExperts Factand ExpertD iscovery Cutoff July 17,2019 A ugust9,2019 August23,2019 Septem ber 18,2019 Septem ber 18,2019 Thus,itis importantto the Court's determination of the parties' two pending m otions addressed in this Order that the expertdiscovery deadlines have passed,discovery is closed, C substantive pre-trialm otions are due October11,2019,Daubertm otions are due 60 daysbefore thestartofthetrial'stwo-weekperiod,andthetrialperiodbeginsJanuary6,2020.(DE 511. Further,thiscasehasbeen extrem ely and unnecessarily litigious,especially in the discovery phase.Theparties(and certainnon-partiesfrom whom discoverywassought)havefiledcotmtless discovery m otions,responses,and replies,m any underseal.The Court,in an effol'tto getthepm ies to cooperate,has required the partiesto file numerousjointnotices regarding the nllnherous discoverydisputes.Tokeep thiscaseontrack,thetmdersigned hasheldlengthydiscovery hearings onNovember30,2018gDE 73),M ay6,2019gDE 131q,M ay 15,2019(DE 1442,June6,2019(DE 1651,August23,2019(DE 200j,andSeptember23,2019(DE 2321. Notcounting thisOrder,the Courthashad to enterno lessthan 11 substantive discovery orders (DES 75,104,122,132,134,143,147,164,166,167,and 168j,and no lessthan 29 proceduraldiscoveryorders(DES65,68,99,100,107,109,111,115,119,129,137,138,148,155, 156,160,190,192,194,198,204,210,219,221,225,226,238,248,and249j.Furthertheparties have filed yet m ore discovery-related m otions- after the discovery cutoff date- that rem ain pending.(DES236/239and237/2402. W ith thisbackground in m ind,the Courtnow turnsto the parties'tw o pending m otionsthatare thesubjectofthisOrder. ll.A nalysis a.PlaintiffAll-rraz'sM otion toCom pelfDE 2031 ' Plaintiff A ll-Tag's Third Request for Production seeks docum ents and correspondence (ibetween Sensonuaticand Checkpointrelatingtothejudgment''in agarnishmentaction brought by DefendantCheckpointagainstPlaintiff.Sensorm aticisone ofDefendant's othercompetitors. In 2001, Defendant filed a patent infringem ent suit against Plaintiff, Sensormatic,and other com petitors.See CheckpointS.yw. ,Inc.v.All-ln agSecurityu%A.,eta1.,315F.supp.zd660(E.D.Pa. 2004).Afteratrial,ajuryretumedavezdictforthedefendantsand,in2009,Defendantwasordered topay attorneys'feestothedefendants.SeeCheckpointSys.,Inc.v.All-Tag Security S.A.,No.01- CV-2223,2011 W L 5237573 (E.D.Pa.Nov.2,2011).But Defendant appealed thatruling, evenm ally avoiding the fees assessm ent.Ful-ther,D efendantwasentitled to reim bursem entforthe costof a bond itposted to pursue appeals ofthe attonzeys'fees assessm ent.See CheckpointSys., Inc.v.All-TagSecurityu%A.,etal.,858F.3d 1371(Fed.Cir.2017). DefendantCheckpointthen initiated agarnishmentaction in thisDistrictforthecostofthe bond againstPlaintiffA1l-Tag,butnotSensorm atic,Plaintiff'sco-defendantin thepatentlitigation, w hich puzportedly had already tendered halfthe costofthe bond.See CheckpointSys.,Inc.v.A11- TagSecurityS.A.,etal.,No.9:19-mc-80714(S.D.Fla.).SensormaticandDefendanteachpursued separaterecoveriesagainstPlaintiff,w ith D efendantpursuingthe f'ullcostofthebond from Plaintiff individually. Plaintiff alleges D efendant and Sensorm atic collaborated in pursuing Plaintiff separately as partof D efendant Checkpoint's E'latestanti-com petitive tactic''intended to Gûfreeze All-Tag'sassets.''gDE 203,p.1).ThisgamishmentactionisthefocusofPlaintiff'smotionandthe disputed discovery requests. Defendantobjectsto Plaintiffsrequestsforproduction related to thepriorgarnishment action as irrelevant. ln D efendant's view , the garnishm ent action is unrelated to any of the allegations in Plaintiff's Second Am ended Complaint.Thisisbecause,PlaintiffCtwould neverbe ableto arguethatacollectionproceedinginitiatedtoenforcealawfullyenteredjudgmentcouldbe a means of anticompetitive conduct.''(DE 208,p.1j.To Defendant,Plaintiffs request for production am ountsto Cçan attem ptto harass Checkpointaboutirrelevantcollateralissuesthatare nowhere alleged in A ll-Tag'spleadings.''1d. A ltem atively,D efendantcontendsthat,even ifthe garnishm entaction isrelevanthere and Plaintiffraised the issue in its pleadings,it is Gtim m tm ized''from any potential antitrust liability resulting from the garnishm entaction because oftheN oerr-pennington doctrine,which Gsshields a defendantfrom antitnzstliability forresorting to litigation to obtain from a courtan anticom petitive outcome.''AndrxPharms.,lnc.v.Elan Corp.,PLC,421F.3d 1227,1233 (11thCir.2005).Thus, E'thediscoveryAll-Tag seeksispointlessand hasno valueto tlziscase''asStcheckpointcannotbe subject to potential antitrust liability for simply exercising its lawful right to pursue''the garnishmentaction againstPlaintiff gDE 208,p.3). PlaintiffAll--fagarguesinreplythat(1)coordination between DefendantCheckpointand Sensonuatic in the previous garnishm entaction is relevantCcas itreveals Checkpoint's years-long campaignofanti-competitiveconductagainstitscompetitors''and (2)Defendantisnotentitledto im m unity regarding the prioraction underN oerr-pennington because D efendantm isrepresented to the Courtin the garnishm entaction thatPlaintiff ow ed itthe entire cost ofthe bond,even though Sensorm atic pup ortedly had already tendered half of it.See Cal.M otor Transp.Co.v. Trucking Unlimited,404U.S.508,513(1972);&.Joseph' sHosp.,Inc.v.Hosp.Corp.ofAm.,795F.2d948, 955(11thCir.1986).PlaintiffallegesDefendantdidnotdiscloseSensormatic'stendertotheCotut nor did it disclose its collaboration with Sensormatic.Thus,Plaintiff argues Defendant is not im m une to antitnzstliability resulting from the garnishm entaction,and so therequested production isrelevantand should be produced. The Coul'tfindsthattheNoerr-pennington doctrine applies.InPennington,381U .S.at513, theU nited StatesCourtofA ppealsfortheEleventh Circuitsum m arized thetypes ofcasesin which cotu'ts should exempt antitrust defendants from liability for obtaining from a coul' t an anticom petitive outcom e' . Opponents before agencies orcourts often think poorly of the other's tactics, m otions,ordefenses and m ay readily callthem baseless.One claim,which a courtoragency may think baseless,may go unnoticed;butapattern ofbaseless, repetitive claim s m ay em erge which leads the factfinder to conclude thatthe administrativeandjudicialprocesseshavebeen abused.Thatmaybeadifficult line to discern and draw.Butonceitisdrawn,thecase isestablished thatabuse of those processes produced an illegal result, effectively barring respondents from accesstotheagenciesand courts.Insofarastheadministrativeorjudicial processesareinvolved,actionsofthatkind calm otacquireimm tmityby seeking refuge tm derthe um brella ofCtpoliticalexpression.'' Pennington,381U.S.at513, .see,e.g.,St.Joseph'jHosp.,Inc.,795 F.2d at955.Here,the Court tindsthatDefendantCheckpoint'sconductin thegarnishmentlitigation betw een itand All-Tag to be far from G(a pattern ofbaseless,repetitive claim s ...which leadsthe factfinderto conclude that theadministrativeandjudicialprocesseshavebeenabused.''Pennl. ngton,381U.S.at513.Indeed, as D efendant argues,if Plaintiff A ll-Tag wished to challenge the garnisbm entaction,the proper tim e and placeto do so wasin thataction,nothere.lnstead,notonly did Plaintiffnotchallenge the garnishmentaction asamisrepresentation,itagreed to afinaljudgmentofgalmislamentagainst itselfforthefullam ountowedto Defendant.See CheckpointSys.,lnc.v.All-Tag Security S.A.,et al.,No.9:19-mc-80714 (S.D.F1a.)atLDE 271. Plaintiff cannotnow accuse D efendantof engaging in fraud in the garnishm entaction and seektoattackthatjudgmentinthisactionafteritagreedtothatjudgmentandfailedtochallengeit asfraudulent.AlthoughPlaintiffmaydçthinkpoorly''ofDefendant'stacticsandevenGtthink gthem) baseless,''ithasfailed to establishthatDefendant'sactionsEteffectively (ban-edj(Plaintifflfrom accesstothe agenciesand courts''orthatthegarnishmentaction Gtproduced an illegalresultl.l'' Pennington,381U .S.at513.Thus,D efendantisim m unized from antitnzstliability forresorting to litigationtocollectonitsjudgmentagainstPlaintiffandPlaintiff'srequesteddiscoveryisirrelevant to this antitrustaction. The Courtalso finds thatthe discovery PlaintiffAll-Tag seeks by way ofits m otion is irrelevantanddisproportionateunderFed.R.Civ.P.26(b)(1),seeHankinson v.R.TG.Furniture Corp.,No.15-cv-81139,2016W L 1182768,at*1(S.D.Fla.M ar.28,2016)(discussingrelevance); Tigerv.DynamicSportsNutrition,. LLC,No.15-cv-1701,2016W L 1408098,at*2(M .D.Fla.Apr. 11,2016)(discussing proportionality),and ttwould causethepartiesto run down a rabbithole chasing irrelevant inform ation on collateral m atters, resulting in the needless and w astef'ul expenditureoftim eandmoney bytheparties.''O ' Boylev.Sweetapple,No.14-cv-81250,2016 W L 492655,at*5(S.D.Fla.Feb.8,2016).Further,requiringDefendanttoproducethediscoverysought w ould be tm duly burdensom e,expensive,and likely cause a delay in this case. F0r a1lthe above reasons,PlaintiffAll-Tag's motion to compeldiscovery rDE 2031is D EN IED . b.DefendantCheckpoint'sM otion to Strike (DE 205-1/2231 Tunzing to DefendantCheckpoint'sM otion to Strike PlaintiY sNew Affirm ative Opinion ImproperlyandUntimelyOfferedintheRebuttalReportofGraemeHunter,Ph.D rDE 205-1/223J, Defendantarguesthe Courtshould strike Section IV oftherebuttalreportofPlaintiffAll-Tag's expertw itness,D r.G raem e H unter,ashis reportisuntim ely and raises an entirely new theory of dam ages.Plaintiffcontendsitsreportw astim ely and thatits Second A m ended Com plaintproperly pled alternative theories ofdam ages. The Court finds that D r.H unter's rebuttal expertreportis untim ely.A lthough Plaintiff arguesDr.Hunter'sreportisproperlyconsideredaStrebuttal''report,Dr.Hunterhimselfm adeclear that Sections1,II,and II1ofhisopinion are intended to rebutthe reportofone ofDefendant's experts,M s.llwin,whileSection IV ofhisreportisCsanaffirmativereport()basedonM s.Irwin's approach.''(DE 205-3,p.%.Thus,Section IV ofDr.Hunter'sreportisclearlyanew affirmative opinion. A prior Courtorderrequired the partiesto serve each otherwith their affirm ative expert reportsby July 17,2019,andtheirrebuttalexpertreportsby August23,2019.gDE 1672.On July 17,2019,Plaintiffserved Defendantwith Dr.Hunter'saffirmative expertreport.Then,on August 23,2019,Plaintiff served D efendant w ith D r.H unter's purported rebuttal repol't.A s discussed above,Section IV ofDr.Hunter'sreportisproperly considered a new affirm ative expertopinion, ratherthan a rebuttalreport.Thus,Plaintiffwas required to serve Defendantwith itby July 17, 2019,the affirm ative expertreportdeadline,notA ugust23,2019,the rebuttalrepol' tdeadline.l Having decided Plaintiff's expel'treportwas untimely, the Court must consider what remedy to impose.Ecl3ecausetheexpertwitnessdiscoveryrulesare designed to allow both sidesin a case to prepare their cases adequately and to prevent surprise . . . com pliance with the requirementsofRule 26 isnotm erely aspirational.''Cooperv,Southern Co.,390 F.3d 695,728 (11th Cir.2004)(internalcitationsomitted).Fed.R.Civ.P.37(c)(1)instnzctsthatwhere:$aparty lIfPlaintiffneededanextensionoftimetocomplyfullywiththeJuly17,2019,amrmativeexpertrepol'tdisclosure deadline,itshould have m oved forsuch an extension prlorto the July 17,2019,deadline,ratherthan attem ptto slip anaffirm ativeexpertopinionintoarebuttplreportonAugust23,2019. 7 failstoprovideinfonuation...asrequiredbyRule26(a)or(e),thepartyisnoiallowedtousethat infonuation orwitness ...ulllessthe failure wassubstantiallyjustified orharmless.''See,e.g., Potish v.R.J ReynoldsTobacco Co.,9:15-cv-81171,2017W L 5952892,at*2-4 (S.D.Fla.Nov. 30,2017);Managed CareSols.,Inc.v.EssentHealthcare,Inc.,09-cv-60351,2010W L 1837724, at*3 (S.D.Fla.M ay 3,2010).Theburden ofshowing thatafailuzeto disclose orcomply was substantiallyjustifedorharmlessisonthenon-disclosingparty.M itchellv.FordMotorCo.,318 Fed.Appx.821,824 (11thCir.2009).Exclusion isalsoanappropriateremedyunderFed.R.Civ. P.16(b),whichauthorizesthecourttocontrolandexpeditepretrialdiscoverythroughascheduling order and gives the courtbroad discretion to preselve the integrity and purpose ofa pretrialorder, includingtheexclusion ofevidence.Companhia EnergeticPotiguarv.Caterpillarlnc.,N o.14-cv- 24277,2016W L 3102225,at*5(S.D.Fla.Jtme2,2016). PlaintiffAll--f'ag argues its failure to timely disclose Section IV ofDr.Hunter'szepoz'tis harmlessasditherewasnothinginDr.Hunter'srebuttalreportthatcausesanyprejudiceorharm to Checkpoint'spreparation fortheremedy phaseofthiscase.''(DE 214,p.4j.Butthisisclearly wrong.A s discussed above,Section IV ofD r.H unter'sreportis a new affirm ative expertopinion thatPlaintiffw asrequired to serve'on D efendantbeforethe July 17,2019,affinuativeexpertrepol't deadline.Instead,itselwedhisreportonemonth lateron August23,2019.Pertheparties'joint agreementandtheCourt'spriorOrdergDE 167j,thereport(oratleastSection IV ofthereport) wasdueJuly 17,2019,anddiscoveryinthiscaseclosedonSeptember18,2019.(DE 167J.Thus, D efendantCheckpointno longerhasany tim eleftto rebutD r.Hunter's afzm ative opinion. A llow ing Plaintiff to now use Section IV of D r.H unter's repol't w ould be harm ftzl and severelyprejudicialtoDefendant.PertheafûdavitofKristenSofia,Defendant'sUSController,if D efendantis required to respond to Section IV ofD r.H tmter's report,itw ould take its stafftllree m onthsto gatherthenecessary dataand require itto employ two full-tim e staffaccountantsto do 8 so.(DE 223-3,p.3).lftheCourtweretoinsteadgiveDefendantafairopportunitytorebutSection IV of D r.H unter'sreport,itwould significantly delay this case,require a m odification of certain pre-trialdeadlines and,m ostim portantly,the trialdate,and unfairly absolve Plaintiff of violating theCourt'sJtme7,2019OrdergDE 1671.Thiscasehasbeenpendingforalmosttwoyears.Plaintiff All-Tag has had plenty of tim e to gather experts and provide their zeports in a tim ely m anner. Plaintiff'sdelay in complyingwith itsexpertdisclosureobligationswillnotbeperm itled.ltistim e for the discovery and expertdisclosure stage ofthis case to be closed so the Courtcan focus on substantive m otions and trial. 111.C onclusion Basedon theforegoing,itishereby ORDERED that: Plaintiff A ll-Tag's M otion to Com pel M ore Com plete Answ ers to 1ts Third Set of lnterrogatories and D ocum ents R esponsive to lts Third R equest for Production of Docllments(DE 203)isDENIED. Defendant Checkpoint's M otion to Strike All-Tag's New Affirm ative Opinion ImproperlyandUntimelyöfferedintheRebuttalReportofGraemeHunter,PIA.D.(DE 205-1/223)isGRANTED IN PART andDENIED IN PART,asfollows: t Section IV of the R ebuttal Report of G raem e Htm ter, Ph.D is stricken. Plaintiffmay notrely upon orotherwise use,either directly or indirectly, Section IV ofthe RebuttalRepol'tof Graem e H unter,Ph.D ,atany pointin this case,including in dispositive m otions,responses,orattrial. D NE and O RD ERED in cham bers atW estPalm Beach,Palm Beach County,Florida, this 1RdayofOctober,2019. W ILLIAM M ATTHE N United StatesM agistrat Judge 9
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
