Rates Technology, Inc. v. Mediatrix Telecom, Inc., 688 F.3d 742

RTI sued Mediatrix for patent infringement over VoIP-related systems; two patents at issue concern reducing long-distance call costs.
Mediatrix sought early limited discovery, including three contention interrogatories about RTI’s infringement theory, with RTI ordered to respond by December 19, 2005.
RTI repeatedly failed to provide meaningful responses to Interrogatory No. 3, despite multiple court orders requiring responses.
Mediatrix produced thousands of pages of technical documents (April 17, 2006); RTI did not object within the 10-day window, yet still did not adequately respond to the interrogatories.
RTI sought to serve additional interrogatories (Nos. 26-30); the magistrate denied leave to serve them, citing Rule 33 limits and pending dismissal, while RTI’s response to Interrogatory No. 3 remained inadequate.
By September 27, 2007 RTI had provided another inadequate supplement; sanctions were recommended, including dismissal and attorney’s fees to be split between RTI and Hicks; the district court adopted these recommendations in 2010.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hicks may be personally sanctioned for discovery violations.	Hicks should be sanctioned because he advised the party and failed to comply.	Sanctions should rest only on the disobedient party, not counsel, absent direct culpability.	Sanctions proper against Hicks; attorney can be subject to Rule 37(b) sanctions.
Whether the sanctions were warranted given RTI possessed information to respond.	RTI and Hicks had sufficient information to respond; noncompliance was willful.	The information was not sufficiently in Hicks’s possession to justify personal sanctions.	Sanctions upheld; willful failure to respond despite information.
Whether Hicks had adequate notice and opportunity to be heard on sanctions.	Not objecting earlier deprived Hicks of notice.	Notice and opportunity were adequate; prior warnings and hearings occurred.	Adequate notice and opportunity; no due process violation.
Whether the magistrate correctly denied leave to serve Interrogatories Nos. 26-30.	RTI needed additional interrogatories to develop its infringement theory.	Rules limited to 25 interrogatories; RTI should have answered current issues first; denial proper.	Denial of leave affirmed; RTI could respond to pending contention interrogatories without additional discovery.

Daval Steel Prods. v. M/V Fakredine, 951 F.2d 1357 (2d Cir. 1991) (discovery sanctions for obstructing disclosure of merits evidence)
In re 60 East 80th Street Equities, Inc., 218 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 2000) (due process and notice in sanctions; oral hearing not always required)
Dotson v. Griesa, 398 F.3d 156 (2d Cir. 2005) (no general right to oral presentation in civil matters; due process may be satisfied by briefs)
AD/SAT v. Associated Press, 181 F.3d 216 (2d Cir. 1999) (due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard)
Schlaifer Nance & Co. v. Estate of Warhol, 194 F.3d 323 (2d Cir. 1999) (written submissions may suffice for opportunity to be heard)
Rates Technology Inc. v. Tele-Flex Systems, 251 F.3d 170 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (pre-filing investigation context; nonprecedential disposition discussed by court)
U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (rule 36 judgment; lack of precedential value)
Rates Technology Inc. v. Tele-Flex Systems, Inc., 251 F.3d 170 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (fully adequate pre-litigation investigation not established by facts here)
Satcorp Int’l Grp. v. China Nat’l Silk Imp. & Exp. Corp., 101 F.3d 3 (2d Cir. 1996) (briefs and written materials may suffice for argument)