Memphis Dental Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Base Plate Wax Direct, Inc.
2:22-cv-02790
W.D. Tenn.Nov 27, 2024Background
- The case involves a business dispute between Memphis Dental Manufacturing Co., Inc. (Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant) and Base Plate Wax Direct, Inc., Terrance Marmino, and Frank Bowman (Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs) over the formulation, production, and related business operations around dental wax products.
- Memphis Dental sought to amend its expert disclosures, replacing its initial experts after the deadline had passed, and also filed a motion to strike certain defense filings.
- Base Plate moved for sanctions and contempt against Memphis Dental, arguing insufficient and delayed discovery responses.
- The court held a motions hearing and reviewed the parties’ attempts to settle and comply with discovery orders; both sides alleged the other failed to follow rules and orders related to disclosure and deposition.
- The court ultimately needed to weigh competing claims of diligence and prejudice, as well as remaining discovery and deposition requests, including a non-party subpoena for Bowers Road Investments, LLC.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amending Expert Disclosures Post-Deadline | Needed new experts for central issues; due diligence exercised | Plaintiff had ample time and changing experts would prejudice | Denied; no good cause, lack of diligence |
| Motion for Contempt & Sanctions | Produced substantial discovery; actively remedying deficiencies | Production was incomplete/late; sanctions or contempt proper | Denied; supplemental production occurred |
| Motion to Quash Non-Party Subpoena | Subpoena is relevant and not precluded by prior orders | Subpoena unduly burdensome; discovery deadline has passed | Denied; subpoena not overly burdensome |
| Motion to Block/Strike Depositions | Timely served deposition notices; seeking relevant testimony | No efforts to depose before deadline; unfair advantage sought | Denied; notices were timely served |
Key Cases Cited
- Ross v. Am. Red Cross, [citation="567 F. App'x 296"] (6th Cir. 2014) (diligence and lack of prejudice required for modification of scheduling orders)
- Brown v. City of Upper Arlington, 637 F.3d 668 (6th Cir. 2011) (federal courts' broad contempt power)
- Williamson v. Recovery Ltd. P’ship, 467 F. App’x 382 (6th Cir. 2012) (court's discretion in remedies for contempt)