Case 2:14-cv-00111-AJS Document 164 Filed 02/02/15 Page 1 of 2
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
`
`
`DRONE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`PARROT S.A. and
`PARROT, INC.
`
`Defendants.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-00111
`
`Judge Arthur J. Schwab
`
`ELECTRONICALLY FILED
`
`ORDER OF COURT RE: PLAINTIFF’S THIRD MOTION TO COMPEL
`DAMAGES DISCOVERY (DOC. NO. 158)
`
`
`
`Presently before this Court is Plaintiff’s Third Motion to Compel Damages Discovery.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Doc. No. 158. The matter has been fully briefed and is ripe for disposition. After consideration
`
`of the Court’s prior relevant Orders, Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. No. 158), and Defendants’
`
`Opposition (Doc. No. 161), the following Order is entered:
`
`
`
`AND NOW, this 2nd day of February, 2015, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
`
`1. Plaintiff’s Third Motion to Compel Damages Discovery (Doc. No. 158) is GRANTED
`IN PART;
`
`2. Defendants shall produce all Return Merchandise Authorization (“RMA”) forms on or
`before February 4, 2015;
`
`3. Defendants shall produce James Foley for deposition, at the office of counsel for
`Plaintiff, in Pittsburgh, on or before February 6, 2015, at 9:00AM, unless another
`date/time is agreed to by the Parties;
`
`4. Defendants and their expert(s) are precluded from using information to support
`Defendants’ damages analysis, or to use information to contest Plaintiff’s damages
`analysis, to the extent that said evidence was (i) sought by Plaintiff, through either written
`discovery or deposition; and (ii) not produced by Defendants on or before February 4,
`2015, at NOON;
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00111-AJS Document 164 Filed 02/02/15 Page 2 of 2
`
`5. Defendants are precluded from using any document of Defendants, during the damages
`trial, that has not been produced to Plaintiff on or before February 4, 2015, at NOON;
`
`6. Defendants may not object to Plaintiff’s expert report(s) or testimony by Plaintiff’s
`expert(s) on damages based upon any alleged deficiency, which resulted from the
`Defendants’ failure to comply with the Court’s Orders on discovery of January 15, 2015;
`
`7. The Court is presently unable to determine whether Defendants have waived attorney-
`client privilege and/or whether Defendants have properly asserted attorney-client
`privilege on the logs attached to their Response to Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. No. 161,
`Attachments 2, 3, 4, and 5) without reviewing the actual documents. Therefore, Counsel
`for Defendants shall hand-deliver the documents referenced in said attachments to the
`Court, in manageable binders, on or before 3:30PM on February 3, 2015. The claimed
`privileged matters in each document shall be highlighted; and
`
`8. Defendants’ request for a hearing “so that it may present additional evidence to this Court
`to demonstrate both Parrot’s compliance and good-faith efforts to comply with the
`Court’s Orders” (Doc. No. 161, 1) is DENIED. The Parties’ written submissions
`adequately allowed for each Party to set forth their position, without the need for a
`hearing. The Court is confident that all relevant facts are set forth in the Party’s filings
`and a hearing would unnecessarily expend the resources of the Court and the Parties.
`Defendants’ request to extend the remaining dates in the Case Management Order (Doc.
`No. 126) and, by implication, the Pretrial Order Re: Damages (Doc. No. 127), is
`DENIED. To grant the same would delay proceedings and would reward Defendants for
`their failure to comply with this Court’s Orders.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/ Arthur J. Schwab
`Arthur J. Schwab
`United States District Judge
`
`
`
`
`
`cc:
`
`All Registered ECF Counsel and Parties
`
`2