Seattle Trademark Lawyer

Plaintiff Radiator Express Warehouse, Inc., sued defendant Performance Radiator Pacific, LLC, in the Western District for violating the Lanham Act, among other claims.

In discovery, Performance Radiator sought discovery from Radiator Express that supports Radiator Express’ claim that it suffered damages caused by Performance Radiator’s conduct, and documents that support Radiator Express’ allegation that it has been impaired in the management of franchisees and in its financial condition.

Radiator Express apparently objected, saying that its forthcoming expert report would provide the information that Performance Radiator sought.

Radiator Pacific moved to compel.

On July 20, Western District Judge Robart Bryan granted the motion, citing the broad scope of discovery.

“In this case, the information and documents requested by the Defendants appear related to their defense and Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff’s allegations include interference with a business relationship and economic and reputational damages. In order to defend against such allegations, it appears that it is necessary for the Defendants to establish whether there was actual harm done by their actions. Therefore, the information and documents that are requested by Defendants is relevant. Moreover, the discovery provisions are to be applied broadly and liberally so that both parties are on the same footing. Plaintiff’s arguments fail when viewed in this light. Plaintiff has information and knowledge that it seeks to hold until the latest possible time. This is inappropriate under the liberal discovery rules. Plaintiff should produce all information and knowledge so that the Defendants may properly develop a defense, if any.”

The case cite is Radiator Express Warehouse, Inc. v. Performance Radiator Pacific, LLC, 2010 WL 2836735, No. 09-5691 (W.D. Wash. July 20, 2010) (Bryan, J.).