Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA367325
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`09/08/2010
`
`Filing date:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`91174988
`Plaintiff
`The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America
`VIRGINIA R. RICHARDd
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`200 PARK AVENUE
`NEW YORK, NY 10166
`UNITED STATES
`trademarkny@winston.com
`Opposition/Response to Motion
`Virginia R. Richard
`trademarkny@winston.com
`/W&S/
`09/08/2010
`Opposers oppostion to Applicants Motion to Approve Limited Discovery .pdf ( 15
`pages )(714895 bytes )
`
`Proceeding
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`Filer's Name
`Filer's e-mail
`Signature
`Date
`Attachments
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`________________________________________________________X
`
`THE GUARDIAN LIFE INSURANCE
`
`COMPANY OF AMERICA,
`
`Opposer/Petitioner,
`
`:
`
`V.
`
`Opposition No. 91/174,988 (parent)
`Cancellation No. 92/052,534
`
`AMERITOX, LTD.,
`
`Applicant/Registrant. :
`________________________________________________________X
`
`OPPOSER/PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO APPLICANT/REGISTRANT’S
`
`MOTION TO APPROVE LIMITED DISCOVERY
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Opposer/Petitioner, The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America (“Guardian”)
`
`respectfully submits this brief in opposition to the Motion to Approve Limited Discovery filed by
`
`Applicant/Registrant, Ameritox, Ltd. (“Arneritox”). Ameritox’s proposed discovery is overly broad,
`
`burdensome, harassing and in violation of the Board’s Order dated July 28, 2010 (“Order”).
`
`Ameritox’s written discovery requests are grossly overbroad and unduly burdensome. For
`
`example, Ameritox seeks the identification of all doctor’s offices, registered nurses and medical
`
`laboratories with which Guardian personnel have had contact over the past two years, together with a
`
`description of each such contact. (Ameritox’s Supplemental Interrogatory Nos. 13-1 5).1 Ameritox’s
`
`interrogatories would require Guardian to embark on the grossly expressive and irrelevant exercise of
`
`listing hundreds of thousands of healthcare providers and to disclose the substance of millions of
`
`I This demand is made notwithstanding the fact that Reg. No. 3,75 8,797 for RX GUARDIAN AUTOREMINDER was
`filed on an intent to use basis and no actualuse of the mark was made until November 25, 2009.
`
`

`
`doctor/patient communications, an obvious invasion of Guardian’s policyholders’ privacy.
`
`Ameritox’ s improper written discovery requests, however, are not its most egregious violation ofthe
`
`Order.
`
`Ameritox is once again demanding to take the deposition of Guardian’s former Vice
`
`President and General Counsel, John Peluso, who retired in December 2009. Ameritox freely admits
`
`that its renewed request to depose Mr. Peluso “is not limited solely to the Cancellation .
`
`.
`
`. “, i. e. , that
`
`Ameritox intends to reopen discovery in the opposition proceeding. (Stein Decl., 1] 8).
`
`As the sole basis for its demand, Ameritox claims that Mr. Peluso’s accurate representation in
`
`his declaration in support of Guardian’s motion for summary judgment that he has personal
`
`knowledge of Guardian’s “scope of operations and lines of business” is inconsistent with his
`
`previous equally accurate representation that he does not have personal knowledge ofthe day-to-day
`
`operations of Guardian’s health insurance division.
`
`(Peluso 7/14/10 Decl., 1l 4). There is a
`
`distinction between Mr. Peluso’s high-level knowledge of Guardian’ s scope of operations and lines
`
`of businesses, gained from decades of experience in Guardian’s marketing and legal departments,
`
`and the knowledge of Tim Bireley, the senior officer responsible for the day-to-day operations of
`
`Guardian’s health insurance division. Ameritox fully deposed Mr. Bireley in the opposition
`
`proceeding and obtained all the deposition testimony it required.
`
`In its motion, Ameritox did not identify any topics which it purportedly needs to cover with
`
`Mr. Peluso, or argue that Mr. Bireley was unable to provide testimony as to facts that are exclusively
`
`within the possession of Mr. Peluso. Ameritox simply wants a third bite of the apple.
`
`

`
`Guardian requests that Ameritox’ s Motion for Limited Discovery be denied, that the narrow
`
`window for discovery in the cancellation proceeding be closed and that Ameritox’ s time to respond
`
`to Guardian’s motion for summary judgment be reset.
`
`II.
`
`PROCEDURAL HISTORY
`
`The procedural posture of this case is fully set forth in the Order. By that Order, the Board
`
`consolidated Opp. No. 91/174,988, Guardian’ s opposition against Ameritox’ s Application Serial No.
`
`78/630,256 for RX GUARDIAN (RX disclaimed) for “medical laboratory services, namely,
`
`conducting and monitoring lab tests for the effectiveness of pain medications,” with Canc. No.
`
`92/052,534, in which Guardian seeks cancellation of Ameritox’s Registration No. 3,758,797 for RX
`
`GUARDIAN AUTOREMINDER (RX disclaimed) for “health care services, namely, providing a
`
`database in the field of patient medication compliance information and featuring inputting and
`
`collection of data and information all for treatment and diagnostic purposes.”
`
`As the Board noted in the Order, Ameritox confirmed during the July 27, 2010 telephonic
`
`hearing before the Board that it did not supplement its discovery in the opposition proceeding to
`
`disclose the existence of its application for RX GUARDIAN AUTOREMINDER. (Order, at 3). As
`
`a sanction for Ameritox’ s discovery abuses, the Board restricted AmeritoX’s ability to take discovery
`
`in the consolidated proceeding to “only a very small amount of discovery,” directing Ameritox “to
`
`serve discovery limited to the mark and services listed in the registration, and the Board will ensure
`
`that applicant’s discovery does not exceed the scope of this order.” (Id, at 6).
`
`In the Order, the Board stated that, “If the Board finds the requests exceed the scope of this
`
`order, the opportunity for any discovery in the cancellation may end, so that the Board merely resets
`
`3
`
`

`
`applicant’s time to respond to the motion for summary judgment.” (Id. , at 7). As discussed below,
`
`Ameritox’s current discovery requests are either duplicative of its earlier discovery, far exceed the
`
`limited scope of discovery permitted by the Board or violate the Federal Rules of'Civil Procedure.
`
`Accordingly, Guardian requests that the Board deny AmeritoX’s motion, bar further discovery and
`
`reset Ameritox’s time for responding to Guardian’s motion for summary judgment.
`
`III.
`
`AMERITOX’S NEW DISCOVERY REQUESTS
`
`A.
`
`AMERITOX’S RENEWED EFFORTS TO DEPOSE GUARDIAN’S
`
`RETIRED VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL
`
`By its motion, Ameritox has renewed its demand to take the deposition of Guardian’s now-
`
`retired former Vice President and General Counsel, John Peluso. AmeritoX’s renewed request to
`
`depose Guardian’s former General Counsel is an admitted attempt to reopen discovery in the
`
`opposition proceeding. (Stein Decl.,
`
`8).
`
`Ameritox’s renewed request to take the deposition of Mr. Peluso, without articulating any
`
`grounds whatsoever to do so, is a thinly-veiled request for a continuance pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`56(t), as Mr. Peluso is one of Guardian’s declarants on its motion for summaryjudgment. The Board
`
`specifically warned Arneritox that it would not entertain a Rule 56(f) motion. (Order, at 8, n.6).
`
`Undaunted, Ameritox claims that it should be allowed to take Mr. Peluso’s deposition
`
`because he stated in his declaration in support of Guardian’s motion for summary judgment that he
`
`has “firsthand knowledge of Guardian’s corporate history and structure, scope of operations and lines
`
`of business.” (Peluso 7/14/10 Decl., ll 4). Ameritox inexplicably claims that the foregoing statement
`
`is inconsistent with Mr. Peluso’s previous representation that he does not have personal knowledge
`
`

`
`of the day-to-day operations of Guardian’ s health insurance division and, therefore, Mr. Peluso is fair
`
`game for deposition. (Peluso 8/4/O8 Decl., 11 6; Motion, at 6).
`
`Mr. Peluso’s statements to the Board are entirely consistent and belie Ameritox’s feeble
`
`argument. As Guardian’s recently retired General Counsel, Mr. Peluso is obviously familiar with its
`
`“corporate history and structure, scope of operations and lines ofbusinesses.” (Peluso 7/14/10 Decl.,
`
`1] 4). Mr. Peluso’s high-level perspective of Guardian’s “scope of operations and lines ofbusinesses”
`
`is entirely consistent with his previous testimony that he had no responsibilities for or specific
`
`knowledge of the day-to-day operations of Guardian’s health insurance division.
`
`(Peluso 8/4/08
`
`Decl.,1l1l 4, 6).
`
`Ameritox makes no claim that it actually needs to take the deposition of Mr. Peluso, or that
`
`he is in sole possession of facts critical to its defense ofthe cancellation proceeding. Ameritox could
`
`make no such claims, as it has already received extensive deposition testimony from Tim Bireley, the
`
`Guardian officer with firsthand knowledge of the day-to-day operations of Guardian’s health
`
`insurance operations and Guardian’s highest level officer with knowledge of the topics listed in the
`
`Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice that Ameritox served in the opposition proceeding.
`
`(TTABVUE
`
`Docket No. 22; Todd Decl. 1] 15).
`
`B.
`
`AMERITOX’S RES QUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
`
`Set forth below are Ameritox’ s new requests for production, broken down by those requests
`
`that seek production of documents solely in the possession of Ameritox, those requests that are
`
`duplicative of previous discovery and those requests in response to which no documents exist.
`
`Reguest N0. 1: Documents that Refer or relate to the Registrant’s Mark.
`
`5
`
`

`
`Reguest No. 2: Documents that Refer or relate to goods or services offered by Registrant
`that bear Registrant’s Mark.
`
`Reguest No. 9: Documents that Refer or relate to any actual problems or complaints as
`referred to in paragraph 37 of the Petition for Cancellation referenced above.
`
`Ameritox’s Request Nos. 1, 2 and 9 seek the production of documents solely in the
`
`possession of Ameritox. Ameritox deliberately failed to disclose to Guardian in the opposition
`
`proceeding that it had commenced use of the mark RX GUARDIAN AUTOREMINDER and
`
`deliberately failed to produce any documents reflecting such use. Accordingly, Guardian has no
`
`documents responsive to these requests.
`
`Reguest N0. 3: Documents that Refer or relate to communications by Petitioner with
`employees, agents or third parties that Refer or relate to the Registrant’s Mark.
`
`To the extent that Request No. 3 seeks the production of communications between Guardian
`
`and its employees or agents,
`
`i. e.,
`
`its attorneys,
`
`relating to the mark RX GUARDIAN
`
`AUTOREMINDER, this request seeks the production of documents protected by the attorney—client
`
`privilege and/or work product doctrine. Guardian has had no communications with third parties
`
`relating to the mark RX GUARDIAN AUTOREMINDER.
`
`Reg uest No. 4: Documents that Refer or relate to Petitioner’s answers to the Registrant’s
`Supplemental Interrogatories — Second Set (served contemporaneously herewith).
`
`Once again, Request No. 4 appears to seek the production of documents protected by the
`
`attorney—client privilege and/or work product doctrine.
`
`Reguest No. 5: Documents that Refer or relate to any Request contained in Registrant’s
`Supplemental Requests for Admission (served contemporaneously herewith) to which
`Petitioner responds with anything other than an unqualified admission.
`
`

`
`Most of Ameritox’s Supplemental Requests for Admission are objectionable, as discussed
`
`infra. To the extent that any request for admission is not objectionable, responsive documents have
`
`been produced.
`
`Reguest N0. 6: Documents that are the current “extensive medical provider directory”
`referred to in paragraph 17 of the Petition for Cancellation referenced above.
`
`All documents responsive to Request No. 6 are publicly available on Guardian’s website at
`
`http://www.glic.com. A copy of Guardian’s website as it existed in 2007 was produced in the
`
`Opposition (see GUARDIANOOOOZ1-GUARDIANOO0406) and contained information regarding
`
`doctors/dentists and facilities (see GUARDIANOOOO36) and Guardian’s witness Mr. Bireley was
`
`deposed regarding Guardian’s provider network (Bireley Tr. 58-61, 85, 90-91, 99-100).
`
`Reg uest No. 7: Documents that Refer or relate to actual incidents of confusion as alleged in
`paragraph 35 of the Petition for Cancellation referenced above.
`
`Reguest N0. 8: Documents that Refer or relate to likelihood of confusion, mistake or
`deception as alleged in paragraph 36 of the Petition for Cancellation referenced above.
`
`All documents responsive to Request Nos. 7 and 8 were previously produced in the
`
`opposition proceeding.
`
`Reguest No. 10: Documents that Refer or relate to any analysis, study or survey,
`investigation, focus group, legal opinion, evaluation, trademark or other search conducted,
`undertaken or commissioned by or for Petitioner with respect to the Registrant’s Mark
`
`No documents exist in response to Request No. 10.
`
`C.
`
`AMERITOX’S NEW INTERROGATORIES
`
`Set forth below are Ameritox’s new interrogatories, broken down by those interrogatories
`
`that are duplicative of Ameritox’s previously served discovery,
`
`those that seek information
`
`

`
`exclusively in the possession, custody and control of Ameritox and those that seek information
`
`protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine.
`
`Interrogatogy No. 1: Identify all Persons who were consulted or had more than a clerical
`role in the preparation of or in obtaining information in connection with the responses to the
`Interrogatories
`and Request
`for Production of Documents
`and Things
`served
`contemporaneously herewith; and state the nature and extent of participation of each such
`Person.
`
`Interrogato1_'y N0. 2: Describe in detail the channels of trade which You allege to be
`common to both goods or services bearing any of Petitioner’s Marks and goods and services
`bearing Registrant’ s Mark, including without limitation the distribution channels, customers
`or potential customers or any other Persons that make decisions to buy such goods or
`services.
`
`Ameritox previously served virtually the identical interrogatories, in response to which
`
`Guardian produced responsive documents and Mr. Bireley provided responsive deposition testimony.
`
`Interrogatogy No. 3: Describe the facts and circumstances under which Petitioner first
`became aware of Registrant’ s Mark, including without limitation the individuals that are or
`were so made aware, the date of such awareness and the circumstances by which they
`became so aware; and Identify all Documents relating to Petitioner’s awareness of
`Registrant’ s Mark.
`
`Interrogatogy N0. 4: Describe the facts and circumstances under which Petitioner first
`became aware of any of Registrant’s Services that are sold or offered for sale in connection
`
`with Registrant’ s Mark, including without limitation the individuals that are or were so made
`aware, the date of such awareness and the circumstances by which they became so aware.
`
`The circumstances relating to the manner in which Guardian became aware of AmeritoX’s
`
`adoption of and new application for RX GUARDIAN AUTOREMINDER are of the record in this
`
`proceeding. The Board expressly noted in its Order that Ameritox was required to disclose its new
`
`mark and application to Guardian during discovery in the opposition proceeding and failed to do so.
`
`To the extent that Ameritox seeks additional information, it is seeking information protected by the
`
`attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine.
`
`

`
`Interrogatogy N0. 5: State whether Petitioner is aware of any instance of actual confusion
`between goods or services bearing Registrant’s Mark and goods or services bearing any of
`Petitioner’ s Marks and, if answered in the affirmative, Describe the facts and circumstances
`
`of each such instances, including without limitation the time, place and circumstance of each
`such instance and the individuals with knowledge of each such instance.
`
`Interrogatogy No. 6: State whether Petitioner is aware of any instance of actual confusion
`between Registrant’s Mark and any of Petitioner’s Marks; and,
`if answered in the
`affirmative, Describe the facts and circumstances of each such instances, including without
`limitation the time, place and circumstance of each such instance and the individuals with
`knowledge of each such instance.
`All information responsive to Interrogatory Nos. 5 and 6 has been produced.
`
`Interrogatogy No. 7: State the principal or material facts that support the allegation that
`Registrant’s use and registration of the mark RX GUARDIAN AUTOREMINDER in
`connection with health care services identified in U.S. Registration 3,758,797 is likely to
`cause confusion with Petitioner’s Marks as alleged in paragraph 31 of the Petition for
`Cancellation.
`
`Interrogatog N0. 8: State the principal or material facts that support the allegation that the
`Registrant’s Mark, when applied to the services covered by U.S. Registration 3,758,797, is
`likely to cause confusion or mistake, or will deceive and mislead the trade and purchasing
`public as alleged in paragraph 32 of the Petition for Cancellation.
`
`Interrogatory No. 16: State the principal or material facts that support the allegations
`contained in the paragraph l6 of the Petition for Cancellation and Describe Documents
`Related to Your answer.
`
`The facts responsive to lnterrogatory Nos. 7, 8 and 16 are fully set forth in Guardian’s motion
`
`for summary judgment and supporting documents were filed in connection therewith.
`
`Identify any surveys or market research studies (including focus
`Interrogatogy No. 9:
`groups) in the U.S. undertaken by or on behalf of Petitioner related to Registrant’s Mark.
`
`Identify any surveys or market research studies (including focus
`Interrogatogy No. 10:
`groups) in the U. S. undertaken by or on behalf of Petitioner to ascertain any actual confusion
`or likelihood of confusion between any of Petitioner’s Marks and Registrant’s Mark.
`
`No information responsive to Interrogatory Nos. 9 and 10 exists.
`
`Interrogatoyy No. 11: Describe any services bearing the Registrant’s Mark that were
`purchased by Petitioner during the past two (2) years.
`
`9
`
`

`
`Interrogatogy N0. 12: Describe any services bearing the Registrant’s Mark for which the
`Petitioner paid during the past two (2) years.
`
`Interrogatogy N0. 17: State the principal or material facts that support the allegation that
`RX GUARDIAN AUTOREMINDER services are marketed to Persons who are not
`
`physicians as alleged in paragraph 30 of the Petition for Cancellation and Describe
`Documents Related to Your answer.
`
`The facts responsive to lnterrogatory Nos. 11, 12 and 17 are within the possession, custody
`
`and/or control of Ameritox. Moreover, lnterrogatory Nos. 11 and 12 have no basis in fact, as
`
`Ameritox’s claimed date of first use of the mark RX GUARDIAN AUTOREMINDER is less than
`
`one year ago, while these interrogatories falsely imply that the mark has been in use for two years.
`
`Identify those doctors’ offices with whom the Petitioner has
`Interrogatogy N0. 13:
`interacted during the last two (2) years as alleged in paragraph 14 of the Petition for
`Cancellation and interaction that occurred. Describe any Documents Related thereto.
`
`Identify those registered nurses with whom the Petition has
`lnterrogatory No. 14:
`interacted during the last two (2) years as alleged in paragraph 14 of the Petition for
`Cancellation and the interaction that occurred. Describe any Documents Related thereto.
`
`Identify those medical laboratories with whom the Petitioner has
`Interrogatogy N0. 15:
`interacted during the last two (2) years as alleged in paragraph 14 of the Petition for
`Cancellation and the interaction that occurred. Describe any Documents Related thereto.
`
`On their face, lnterrogatory Nos. 13, 14 and 15 are overbroad, burdensome and harassing.
`
`Ameritox’ s interrogatories demand that Guardian identify all ofthe healthcare personnel with whom
`
`its personnel have had contact over the past two years in connection with its health, dental, disability,
`
`vision and long term care insurance services, describe the substance of hundreds of thousands of
`
`communications and describe all documents relating to such communications.
`
`Interrogatog N0. 18: If the Petitioner intends to use the testimony of any expert related to
`its Petition for Cancellation, State: (i) the name, address, and qualifications of the Person
`who is such expert; (iii) (sic) all Documents and information provided to or used by such
`
`10
`
`

`
`Person; and (iv) whether any written or oral report of findings were made or recorded and, if
`so, Identify such written report or finding or Describe the oral report or finding.
`
`Guardian does not intend to call an expert witness to testify at trial.
`
`D.
`
`AMERITOX’S NEW RE§ QUESTS FOR ADMISSION
`
`Set forth below are AmeritoX’s new requests for admission, which are objectionable on
`
`multiple grounds. Arneritox’s requests for admission either purport to seek “admissions” as to facts
`
`within the possession, custody or control of Ameritox or are comprised of multiple parts in violation
`
`of Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(2).
`
`1.
`
`REQUESTS REGARDING “FACTS” IN THE POSSESSION OF AMERITOX
`
`Reg uest for Admission No. 1: The services sold by Registrant under the Registrant’s Mark
`may only be purchased by a physician or a licensed medical professional.
`
`Reguest for Admission No. 2: The decision to purchase the services sold by Registrant
`under the Registrant’s Mark is always made by a physician or a licensed medical
`
`professional.
`
`Reguest for Admission No. 3: The decision to purchase the services sold by Registrant
`under the Registrant’s Mark is not made by consumers.
`
`Reguest for Admission No. 4: The decision to purchase the services sold by Registrant
`under the Registrant’s Mark is not made by employers.
`
`Reguest for Admission No. 5: The decision to purchase the services sold by Registrant
`under the Registrant’s Mark is never made by third party payers or insurance companies.
`
`Reguest for Admission N0. 6: Those who purchase the services sold by Registrant under
`the Registrant’s Mark are sophisticated buyers.
`
`Reg uest for Admission No. 7: Any claim forms submitted by Registrant to Petitioner for
`payment for services sold by Registrant under the Registrant’s Mark have not contained
`Registrant’s Mark.
`
`ll
`
`

`
`Reg uest for Admission No. 15: Registrant displays Registrant’s Mark in close proximity to
`its trade name or other trademarks or service marks of Registrant.
`
`2.
`
`REQ QUESTS IN MULTIPLE SUBPARTS IN VIOLATION OF RULE 361211121
`
`Reguest for Admission No. 8: Neither the Petitioner, nor any licensee of Petitioner, offers
`or sells services similar to the services sold by Registrant under the Registrant’s Mark.
`Reg uest for Admission No. 9: Neither the Petitioner, nor any licensee of Petitioner, has any
`plans to use the Registrants’ (sic) Marks (sic) to offer, sell (sic) services similar to those sold
`by Registrant under the Registrant’s Mark.
`
`Reguest for Admission No. 11: Petitioner has no knowledge of any (oral or written)
`complaint or report by any person concerning the services offered by Registrant bearing the
`Registrant’s Mark.
`
`Reguest for Admission No. 12: Petitioner has no knowledge of any (oral or written)
`communication asking whether or suggesting that a Person was confused by Registrant’ s use
`of the Registrant’s Mark.
`
`Reguest for Admission No. 13: Petitioner has no knowledge of any (oral or written)
`communication asking whether or suggesting that a Person was deceived by Registrant’s use
`of the Registrant’s Mark.
`
`Reguest for Admission No. 14: Petitioner has no knowledge of any (oral or written)
`
`communication asking whether or suggesting that Registrant’s goods or services bearing the
`Registrant’s Mark were sponsored by Petitioner, licensed by Petitioner to Registrant or that
`Registrant is a division or subsidiary of Petitioner or controlled by Petitioner.
`
`As to Request for Admission No. 10 (“ Petitioner knows of no occurrence of actual confusion
`
`between the Registrant’s Mark and any of the Petitioner’s Marks”), Guardian denies the request.
`
`IV.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`AMERITOX HAS ESTABLISHED A PATTERN OF DISCOVERY ABUSE
`
`The Board has discretion to manage the discovery process in order to balance the requesting
`
`party’s need for information against any injury that may result from discovery abuse. T.B.M.P. §
`
`12
`
`

`
`402.02. Ameritox has already engaged in discovery abuse by deliberately failing to disclose the
`
`existence of its application for the mark RX GUARDIAN AUTOREMINDER. Ameritox’s demand
`
`that Guardian produce for deposition its retired General Counsel based on an alleged discrepancy
`
`between the description ofthe scope of his responsibilities in two declarations is a specious argument
`
`that compounds its discovery abuses. As demonstrated above, Ameritox’s requests for production of
`
`documents, interrogatories and requests for admissions are either duplicative of earlier requests
`
`which have been fully answered or were propounded solely for harassment purposes and are not
`
`likely to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence.
`
`B.
`
`AMERITOX’S RENEWED DEMAND TO DEPOSE
`
`GUARDIAN’S RETIRED GENERAL COUNSEL WAS
`
`INTERPOSED SOLELY FOR HARASSMENT PURPOSES
`
`Ameritox’s renewed demand to depose Mr. Peluso is nothing more than a harassing tactic
`
`intended to put additional pressure on Guardian to settle. FMR Corp. v. Allicmt Partners, 51
`
`U.S.P.Q.2d 1759, 1762 (T.T.A.B. July 15, 1999) (granting motion for protective order prohibiting
`
`the discovery deposition of high-level executives with no unique or superior knowledge of the
`
`relevant facts at issue; the Board observed that, “[T]he deposition of an official at the highest level or
`
`‘apex’ of corporate management creates a tremendous potential for abuse and harassment”).
`
`Ameritox has already received deposition testimony on all the topics in which it was
`
`interested and it failed to articulate any basis whatsoever for deposing Guardian’s now-retired
`
`General Counsel. Pioneer Kabushiki Kaisha DBA Pioneer Corp. v. Hitachi High Techs. Am., Inc.,
`
`74 U.S.P.Q.2d 1672, 1674 (T.T.A.B. May 2, 2005) (granting motion for protective order to preclude
`
`13
`
`

`
`discovery deposition of high-level executives who did not have unique or superior knowledge of
`
`controversy).
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons set forth above, Ameritox’s motion for allegedly limited discovery should be
`
`denied in its entirety.
`
`Dated: September 8, 2010
`
`By:
`
`
`
`ima R. Richard, Esq.
`C. Marina, Esq.
`Sa ana Chopra, Esq.
`W1 STON & STRAWN LLP
`
`200 Park Avenue
`
`New York, New York 10166
`
`(212) 294-6700
`
`Attorneys for Opposer/Petitioner
`THE GUARDIAN LIFE INSURANCE
`
`COMPANY OF AMERICA
`
`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on September 8, 2010, a true and correct copy of the foregoing
`Opposition to Applicant/Registrant’s Motion for Limited Discovery was duly served on counsel of
`record for Applicant/Registrant by first—class mail in an envelope addressed as follows:
`
`Elliott J. Stein, Esq.
`STEVENS & LEE P.C.
`
`Princeton Pike Corporate Center
`l00 Lenox Drive, Suite 200
`
`Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
`
`QM fipfiémw
`
`Denise Bolden
`
`l5