Polidi v. Matal, 709 F. App'x 1016

Richard Polidi surrendered his North Carolina law license in July 2014 and was subsequently disbarred by consent after conceding he could not defend himself in a pending misconduct investigation.
The PTO’s Office of Enrollment and Discipline (OED) initiated reciprocal disciplinary proceedings under 37 C.F.R. § 11.24 and served a Notice and Order giving Polidi 40 days to show a genuine issue of material fact on specified Selling v. Radford factors to avoid identical discipline.
Polidi obtained three extensions but never filed the required substantive response by the final extended deadline; before that deadline he made two generalized discovery requests seeking OED materials but gave no factual basis for why exculpatory evidence existed.
The PTO denied discovery on the ground discovery is available only in contested matters (and Polidi had not yet contested), and, after Polidi failed to respond, imposed reciprocal discipline excluding him from practice before the PTO.
Polidi petitioned the district court for review arguing the PTO erred in denying discovery; the district court affirmed under the Administrative Procedure Act standard, concluding the PTO’s action was not arbitrary or capricious.
The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding Polidi failed to clearly and convincingly demonstrate a genuine issue under the Radford factors and that the denial of discovery and imposition of reciprocal discipline were not arbitrary or capricious.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether PTO erred by denying discovery before Polidi filed a response	Polidi argued PTO wrongly denied discovery needed to prepare a defense	PTO argued discovery is available only in contested cases and Polidi had not contested	Denial was not arbitrary; Polidi gave no reasonable basis for discovery so PTO’s denial upheld
Whether PTO improperly imposed reciprocal discipline without demonstrating Radford factors	Polidi contended he was entitled to challenge imposition and present facts showing Radford exceptions	PTO argued identical reciprocal discipline follows unless practitioner clearly and convincingly shows a genuine issue on Radford factors and Polidi failed to do so	PTO properly imposed identical reciprocal discipline; Polidi failed to show a genuine issue of material fact on any Radford factor

Selling v. Radford, 243 U.S. 46 (1917) (framework for reciprocal discipline exceptions)
Bender v. Dudas, 490 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (APA governs review of PTO disciplinary actions)
Sheinbein v. Dudas, 465 F.3d 493 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (standard of review for district court decisions under 35 U.S.C. § 32)