Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Orthofix Inc. v. Lemanski

United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division

March 31, 2015

ORTHOFIX INC., Plaintiff,
v.
ROBERT LEMANSKI, Defendant.

Stephen J. Murphy, III, District Judge

ORDER

R. STEVEN WHALEN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the Court is Defendant Robert Lemanski’s Motion to Compel Production of Damages Documents [Doc. #32], filed publically, and the same motion filed under seal [Doc. #34]. For the reasons and under the terms discussed below, the motions are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

I. BACKGROUND

This is a wrongful competition case. Plaintiff Orthofix, Inc. (“Orthofix”) produces and markets bone-growth stimulators. Defendant Robert Lemanski (“Lemanski”) and Eric Hunter (“Hunter”) were employed by Orthofix. Lemanski sold bone-growth stimulators to spinal surgeons in the Detroit area, and Hunter sold in the Toledo, Ohio area. Orthofix alleges that both Lemanski and Hunter resigned in November of 2012, to join a competitor, DJO Global LLC, and that they misappropriated and took customer account identities, sales histories, product preferences, and other trade secrets. In its amended complaint [Doc. #9], Orthofix alleged five claims: (1) breach of a contractual non-solicitation provision (Count I); (2) breach of a contractual unfair competition provision (Count II); (3) breach of contractual promise not to disclose confidential information (Count III); (4) trade secret misappropriation (Count IV); and (5) tortious interference with business relations (Count V). On March 25, 2015, the Court dismissed Counts III, IV, and V [Doc. #87]. Orthofix seeks monetary damages on the remaining Counts I and II.

In this motion, Lemanski seeks discovery regarding Orthofix’s claim for damages. At the Court’s direction, the parties filed a Joint List of Unresolved Issues [Doc.#45] that sets forth the following contested matters relating to Lemanski’s discovery requests:

(1) Unit-by-unit detail of Orthofix’s sales by customer;
(2) Sales outside Lemanski’s former territory;
(3) Profit and loss information;
(4) Orthofix’s total production capacity, on a monthly basis, to produce and sell bone-growth stimulators;
(5) Orthofix’s sales data from 2007 to 2012.

II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES RE: DISCOVERY

It is well established that “the scope of discovery is within the sound discretion of the trial court.” Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1993); Chrysler Corp. v. Fedders Corp., 643 F.2d 1229, 1240 (6th Cir. 1981). In exercising its discretion, the court should first consider Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1), which states, in pertinent part:

“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party...For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action...All discovery is subject to the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.