Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

All-Tag Corp. v. Checkpoint Systems, Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. Florida

October 7, 2019

All-Tag Corp., Plaintiff,
v.
Checkpoint Systems, Inc., Defendant.

          ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF&#3');">39;S MOTION TO COMPEL FDE 203');">31 AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT&#3');">39;S MOTION TO STRIKE [DE 205-1/223');">3]

          WILLIAM MATTHEWMAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff All-Tag Corp.&#3');">39;s Motion to Compel More Complete Answers to Its Third Set of Interrogatories and Documents Responsive to Its Third Request for Production of Documents [DE 203');">3] ("Motion to Compel") and Defendant Checkpoint Systems, Inc.&#3');">39;s Motion to Strike All-Tag&#3');">39;s New Affirmative Opinion Improperly and Untimely Offered in the Rebuttal Report of Graeme Hunter, Ph.D [DE 205-1/223');">3] ("Motion to Strike"). These matters were referred to the undersigned by United States District Judge William P. Dimitrouleas. [DE 51 ]. Both motions are fully briefed, and the Court held a hearing on both motions on September 23');">3, 2019. [DE 23');">32]. The motions are ripe for review. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff All-Tag&#3');">39;s Motion to Compel [DE 203');">3] and GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendant Checkpoint&#3');">39;s Motion to Strike [DE 205-1/223');">3].

         I. Background

         The history and current procedural posture of this case is important to the Court&#3');">39;s determination of the two pending motions. This case was filed on November 17, 2017, almost two years ago. [DE 1]. On May 4, 2018, the Court entered a scheduling order setting the trial period in this case for January 6, 2020, with a discovery cutoff date of September 6, 2019. [DE 43');">3]. On April 4, 2019, the Court entered an order [DE 104] setting the following expert disclosure deadlines:

Plaintiff s Expert Report and Disclosures

June 21, 2019

Defendant&#3');">39;s Expert Report and Disclosures

June 22, 2019

Rebuttal Expert Reports

August 5, 2019

Expert Discovery Cutoff

September 11, 2019

         On May 18, 2018, the Court amended its prior scheduling order, keeping the same trial date and pre-trial schedule, but including a notation to reflect the correct paired magistrate judge. [DE 51]. On June 5, 2019, the Court extended the discovery cut-off from September 11, 2019, to September 18, 2019. [DE 164]. Thereafter, the parties agreed to, and the Court adopted and ordered [DE 167], the following amended expert disclosure deadlines:

3');">3">

Affirmative Expert Reports

3');">38">

July 17, 2019

3');">3">

Completion of Depositions of All Experts

3');">38">

August 9, 2019

3');">3">

Rebuttal Expert Reports

3');">38">

August 23');">3, 2019

3');">3">

Completion of Depositions of Rebuttal Experts

3');">38">

September 18, 2019

3');">3">

Fact and Expert Discovery Cutoff

3');">38">

September 18, 2019

         Thus, it is important to the Court&#3');">39;s determination of the parties&#3');">39; two pending motions addressed in this Order that the expert discovery deadlines have passed, discovery is closed, substantive pre-trial motions are due October 11, 2019, Daubert motions are due 60 days before the start of the trial&#3');">39;s two-week period, and the trial period begins January 6, 2020. [DE 51].

         Further, this case has been extremely and unnecessarily litigious, especially in the discovery phase. The parties (and certain non-parties from whom discovery was sought) have filed countless discovery motions, responses, and replies, many under seal. The Court, in an effort to get the parties to cooperate, has required the parties to file numerous joint notices regarding the numerous discovery disputes. To keep this case on track, the undersigned has held lengthy discovery hearings on November 3');">30, 2018 [DE 73');">3], May 6, 2019 [DE 13');">31], May 15, 2019 [DE 144], June 6, 2019 [DE 165], August 23');">3, 2019 [DE 200], and September 23');">3, 2019 [DE 23');">32].

         Not counting this Order, the Court has had to enter no less than 11 substantive discovery orders [DEs 75, 104, 122, 13');">32, 13');">34, 143');">3, 147, 164, 166, 167, and 168], and no less than 29 procedural discovery orders [DEs 65, 68, 99, 100, 107, 109, 111, 115, 119, 129, 13');">37, 13');">38, 148, 155, 156, 160, 190, 192, 194, 198, 204, 210, 219, 221, 225, 226, 23');">38, 248, and 249]. Further the parties have filed yet more discovery-related motions-after the discovery cutoff date-that remain pending. [DEs 23');">36/23');">39 and 23');">37/240].

         With this background in mind, the Court now turns to the parties&#3');">39; two pending motions that are the subject of this Order.

         II. Analysis

         a. Plaintiff All-Tag&#3');">39;s Motion to Compel [DE 203');">3]

         Plaintiff All-Tag&#3');">39;s Third Request for Production seeks documents and correspondence "between Sensormatic and Checkpoint relating to the judgment" in a garnishment action brought by Defendant Checkpoint against Plaintiff. Sensormatic is one of Defendant&#3');">39;s other competitors. In 2001, Defendant filed a patent infringement suit against Plaintiff, Sensormatic, and other competitors. See Checkpoint Sys., Inc. v. All-Tag Security S.A., et al,3');">315 F.Supp.2d 660');">3');">315 F.Supp.2d 660 (E.D. Pa. 2004). After a trial, a jury returned a verdict for the defendants and, in 2009, Defendant was ordered to pay attorneys&#3');">39; fees to the defendants. See Checkpoint Sys., Inc. v. All-Tag Security S.A., No. 01-CV-2223');">3, 2011 WL 523');">37573');">3 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 2, 2011). But Defendant appealed that ruling, eventually avoiding the fees assessment. Further, Defendant was entitled to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.