United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Richard Caputo United States District Judge
before the Court is a Motion filed by Arlington Industries,
Inc. ("Arlington") seeking partial reconsideration
of the Court's Memorandum and Order granting in part and
denying in part Arlington's Motion for an Order to Show
Cause. (Doc. 389.) Arlington asks the Court to modify its
Order (Doc. 388) to permit Arlington to engage in limited
discovery of the online marketing materials concerning the
enjoined connectors at issue. Additionally, Arlington asks
the Court to clarify its Order as to whether Arlington may
take discovery of Bridgeport Fittings, Inc.
("Bridgeport") itself. For the reasons that follow,
Arlington's Motion will be granted in part and denied in
part. The Court will permit Arlington to engage in limited
discovery on its claim regarding the online marketing
materials. The Court will grant in part and deny in part
Arlington's discovery requests, as specified in the
the factual and procedural history are both well known to the
parties and stated in the Court's prior Memorandum (Doc.
387), they need not be repeated here other than to note the
March 19, 2013, this Court held Bridgeport in contempt of
court for violating the Confession of Judgment and Injunction
(Doc. 47) signed by Bridgeport and Arlington as part of a
2004 settlement agreement. Specifically, the Court found that
Bridgeport's line of connectors known as the
"Whipper-Snap" 380SP and 38ASP violated the 2004
injunction, and entered a new permanent injunction (the
[Bridgeport], its officers, agents, attorneys, servants,
employees, successors, assigns, and all those in active
concert or participation with them... from directly or
indirectly making, using, selling, offering for sale or
import or causing or inducing others to make, use, sell,
offer to sell, or import the Whipper-Snap 380SP and 38ASP
model connectors during the remaining term of U.S. Patent No.
6, 335, 488.
10, 2016, Arlington filed a Motion for an Order to Show Cause
why Bridgeport should not be held in contempt of Court. (Doc.
334.) Along with its Reply Brief filed on July 5, 2016 (Doc.
361), Arlington submitted a Second Declaration of Thomas
Gretz, Arlington's Vice President ("Second Gretz
Declaration") (Doc. 360), and a Declaration of Donald
Amrbose, Arlington's National Sales Manager
("Ambrose Declaration") (Doc. 359). On July 19,
2016, Bridgeport filed a Motion for Leave to file a Sur-Reply
Brief (Doc. 365) accompanied by a proposed Sur-Reply Brief
(Doc. 365-1) and a Third Declaration of Paul Suzio,
Bridgeport's President and Chief Operating Officer
("Third Suzio Declaration") (Doc. 365-2). The Court
denied Bridgeport's Motion for Leave on July 21, 2016.
(Doc. 367.) A preliminary hearing was scheduled for November
17, 2016. Prior to the hearing, counsel for Arlington noticed
that only the first and last page of the Second Gretz
Declaration had been filed. In order to correct this error,
Arlington submitted a replacement Second Gretz Declaration on
November 15, 2016 ("Replacement Second Gretz
Declaration"). (See Doc. 390-2.)
preliminary hearing, the Court granted Bridgeport permission
to respond to the Replacement Second Gretz Declaration. (T.R.
8:8-14, Doc. 385.) On December 1, 2016, Bridgeport filed a
Fourth Declaration of Paul Suzio as its response
("Fourth Suzio Declaration"). (Doc. 386.) The
Fourth Suzio Declaration states in relevant part:
14. After the injunction issued, Bridgeport removed all
marketing materials for, and images of, the enjoined
connectors from its marketing materials and prevented them
from being uploaded by a distributor. Distributors, however,
could have uploaded an image onto their website prior to the
injunction. Bridgeport has no way of knowing if this occurred
and has no control over the actions of any distributor.
15. After the injunction issued, Bridgeport sent a notice to
its sales representatives asking them to return all of their
samples and inventories of various marketing materials to
Mansir Printing. A true and correct copy of this email dated
March 21, 2013, is attached as Exhibit B. Mansir Printing
prints most of our collateral advertising materials and we
commonly have obsolete materials sent to them for recycling
16. Promptly after issuance of the injunction, and at least
by March 20, 2013, Bridgeport also electronically notified
both Trade Service and IDW that the Enjoined Products were
now obsolete and so images and materials relating to the
Enjoined Products were no longer available from those sources
December7, 2016, the Court granted in part and denied in part
Arlington's Motion for an Order to Show Cause. (Doc.
388.) The Court found that Arlington was permitted to pursue
its allegations of contempt against Bridgeport only with
respect to the "Demo Kits" containing an enjoined
connector and the online marketing materials. The Court
further held that Arlington was entitled to discovery on the
Demo Kits allegations only.
December 21, 2016, Arlington filed the instant Motion for
Partial Reconsideration. (Doc. 389.) Bridgeport filed its
Brief in Opposition on January 9, 2017 (Doc. 393), and
Arlington submitted its Reply Brief on January 23, 2017 (Doc.
398). The matter is now ripe for disposition.