As STL previously reported, the plaintiff in Jonathan Neil & Associates, Inc. v. JNA Seattle, Inc., alleges the defendants infringe its trade name and tradedmark in connection with defendants’ competing collection agency. Here, plaintiff served discovery requests on defendants. Defendants refused to answer one interrogatory and one request for production unless a “suitable protective order” was entered. Plaintiff brought a motion to compel, which defendants did not oppose.
On May 14, Western District Judge James Robart granted the motion. He wrote:
“The court agrees that the discovery requests at issue, which relate to Defendants’ income, are directly relevant to Plaintiff’s claim for damages. The court hereby ORDERS Defendants to provide complete responses to Interrogatory No. 6.8 and Request for Production No. 4, by May 21, 2007. While Defendants may move for a protective order, the court cautions Defendants that should they fail to promptly produce the requested information, the court may impose sanctions.”
If defendants really wanted a protective order, it’s not clear why they did not immediately seek one, or at least do so in response to plaintiff’s motion to compel. Simply not wanting to produce requested discovery is not a basis for withholding discoverable information.