Kische USA LLC v. Simsek
2:16-cv-00168
W.D. Wash.Nov 2, 2017Background
- Kische USA sued former employees Ali Simsek and Diane Walker and their company JD Stellar alleging trademark infringement, unfair competition, tortious interference, conversion, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty arising from alleged misappropriation and formation of JD Stellar as a competing business.
- The court previously granted summary judgment for Kische on the duty and breach elements of the breach of contract and fiduciary duty claims against Simsek; other claims remain pending.
- The parties presented three discovery disputes: (1) scope of Kische’s broad Request for Production No. 1 seeking documents (EDI, QuickBooks, passwords, sales data); (2) Defendants’ claim they inadvertently produced JD Stellar business records among Kische boxes; and (3) Kische’s request for appointment of a special master.
- The court limited RFP No. 1 to EDI records, QuickBooks files, passwords for those files, and JD Stellar sales data insofar as relevant to remaining claims and proportional to the needs of the case; it ordered return of any materials that belong to Kische.
- The court found the disclosure of JD Stellar originals was not inadvertent, ordered Kische to copy the records and return the originals to JD Stellar by the discovery cutoff (with Defendants bearing copying/return cost), and denied Kische’s special-master request as unnecessary.
- The court granted leave to file discovery/spoliation motions by a set deadline (Nov. 11, 2017) but cautioned parties to resolve disputes without court intervention.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of RFP No.1 (EDI, QuickBooks, passwords, sales data) | These categories are necessary to prove damages and other elements (sales, revenue, profits) | Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, not proportional | Limited production: produce those categories only if relevant to remaining claims; return any Kische property regardless of cost |
| Alleged missing/deleted files & computers | Forensic evidence shows missing files; defendants should produce or it indicates spoliation | Defendants say they do not possess missing files/passwords and produced all Kische computers in their possession | Court cannot order production of non-existent materials; parties may file spoliation/discovery motions by deadline |
| Alleged inadvertent disclosure of JD Stellar business records | Kische filed records from boxes provided and used them in motions | Defendants claim originals of JD Stellar were inadvertently provided and seek return | Court found disclosure not inadvertent; ordered Kische to copy records and return originals to JD Stellar; defendants pay copying/return costs |
| Special master appointment | Kische seeks a special master due to discovery difficulties, complexity, and deadline pressure | Defendants note substantial production already and oppose added expense | Denied: matters not sufficiently complex; discovery already substantial; special masters reserved for rare cases |
Key Cases Cited
- Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elec. Co., Ltd., 888 F. Supp. 2d 976 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (discussing spoliation and duty to preserve evidence)
- Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp., 464 F.3d 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (sources of authority for sanctions for destruction of evidence)
- Nat’l Ass’n of Radiation Survivors v. Turnage, 115 F.R.D. 543 (N.D. Cal. 1987) (special masters should be used sparingly)