ANA Inc

General

Total Cases1

Active Cases--

Patents1

CourtsN.D. Texas

TypeOperating Company

Elite Ratings

--

Ratings

Experience

Grade

Trend

DCT

--

--

--

PTAB

--

--

--

CAFC

--

--

--

Analytics

Cases

Litigated Patents

Ratings Trends

Recent Dockets

Entered	Case	Description
03/06/24	Multiquip Inc v. Ana Inc 3:22-CV-02599 ( N.D. TX )	Report to Patent/Trademark Office of Final Order. Form AO 120 e-mailed to notice_of_suit@uspto.gov. (ndt) (Entered: 03/06/2024)
03/06/24	Multiquip Inc v. Ana Inc 3:22-CV-02599 ( N.D. TX )	Civil Case Terminated per 63 Agreed Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice. The clerk will prepare the final Report to the Patent/Trademark or Copyright Office. (ndt) (Entered: 03/06/2024)
03/05/24	Multiquip Inc v. Ana Inc 3:22-CV-02599 ( N.D. TX )	Joint STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL by Multiquip Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Final Judgment) (Etheridge, James) (Entered: 03/05/2024)
03/05/24	Multiquip Inc v. Ana Inc 3:22-CV-02599 ( N.D. TX )	Joint STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL by Multiquip Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Final Judgment) (Etheridge, James) (Entered: 03/05/2024)
03/04/24	Multiquip Inc v. Ana Inc 3:22-CV-02599 ( N.D. TX )	ELECTRONIC ORDER:Plaintiff Multiquip Inc. has filed a Motion to Compel Defendant Alliance North America dba ANA to Produce Sales Data for ANA Generators Sold with SmartLoad and Without SmartLoad. See Dkt. No. 49. ANA has responded, see Dkt. No. 53, and Multiquip has filed a reply, see Dkt. No. 58. The Court has laid out the standards that govern a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a) motion to compel as to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 requests for production, and the Court incorporates and will apply -- but will not repeat -- those standards here. See Lopez v. Don Herring Ltd., 327 F.R.D. 567, 573-86 (N.D. Tex. 2018).Multiquip "requests an order compelling ANA to produce invoice-level sales data, on a monthly basis from January 1, 2019 to the present, showing the following information for generators sold with SmartLoad and generators sold without SmartLoad: 1. the number of units sold broken down by model and month, or at least by quarter; 2. the total revenue received from these sales; 3. the total profits earned from these sales; and 4. the total costs incurred in relation these sales." Dkt. No. 49 at 8; Dkt. No. 58 at 2.As Multiquip notes, in ANA's response [Dkt. No. 53], "ANA offers no response to the substance of Multiquip's motion"; "does not dispute that the sales data requested by Multiquip is relevant, discoverable, and easy to produce"; and "has provided no basis for withholding the sales data requested by Multiquip." Dkt. No. 58 at 1."Instead, ANA alleges that Multiquip's own discovery responses and production are deficient, and says it is willing to produce sales and revenue data for its generators only if Multiquip produces the same data." Id. As ANA explains in its response, it "does not oppose production of financial information in the same categories and levels of breakdown of the information as Multiquip also produces, but objects to unilateral production by ANA as to the information provided or the manner in which it is provided." Dkt. No. 53 at 1. And ANA asserts that, "[i]f ANA is to be obligated to produce financial information, it is appropriate that the same categories of information be produced with the same level of breakdown of the information as Multiquip produces its counterpart information" and that "[i]t would be inappropriate to unduly burden one party in its production of financial information, while the other party is not subject to a similar burden of production of information." Dkt. No. 53 at 5-6.A "party who has objected to a discovery request then must, in response to a Rule 37(a) motion to compel or in support of its own Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) motion for a protective order, urge and argue in support of its objection to an interrogatory or request, and, if it does not, it waives the objection." Lopez, 327 F.R.D. at 583. And "[a] party resisting discovery must show how the requested discovery is overly broad, unduly burdensome, or oppressive by submitting affidavits or offering evidence revealing the nature of the burden." Id. at 580.But, in ANA's response to Multiquip's motion to compel, the statements quoted above are ANA's only mention of burden, undue or otherwise. ANA provides no basis to sustain any undue burden objection. See Dkt. Nos. 53 & 53-8. And, as Multiquip observes in it reply, ANA may not "refuse to comply with [Multiquip's] discovery requests simply because [ANA] believes that [Multiquip] ha[s] not fully complied with [ANA's] discovery requests to" Multiquip. Lopez, 327 F.R.D. at 581 (cleaned up). "The Court does not look favorably upon a 'tit-for-tat' approach to discovery. A party may not withhold relevant discovery simply on the basis that the other side has not been forthcoming with discovery. A party may not excuse its failure to comply with discovery obligations by claiming that its opposing party is similarly delinquent. Nor may a party condition its compliance with its discovery obligations on receiving discovery from its opponent." Id. (cleaned up).The Court agrees with Multiquip's assessment that "[w]hether Multiquip's own production of sales data is sufficient is a separate issue," Dkt. No. 58 at 2, which the Court will address when ANA's Motion Under Rule 37 to Compel Responses to Discovery [Dkt. No. 55] is ripe. But the Court may compel ANA to "produce sales and revenue data for its generators without regard to the sufficiency of Multiquip's production." Dkt. No. 58 at 2.And the Court finds that Multiquip has shown that, without proper objections pressed in response to the motion to compel, ANA is withholding responsive information that is relevant to the claims or defenses in the case and proportional to the needs of the case.The Court grants Multiquip's Motion to Compel Defendant Alliance North America dba ANA to Produce Sales Data for ANA Generators Sold with SmartLoad and Without SmartLoad [Dkt. No. 49] and orders ANA to, by Tuesday, March 19, 2024, produce to Multiquip's counsel invoice-level sales data, on a monthly basis from January 1, 2019 to the present, showing the following information for generators sold with SmartLoad and generators sold without SmartLoad: (1) the number of units sold broken down by model and month, or at least by quarter; (2) the total revenue received from these sales; (3) the total profits earned from these sales; and (4) the total costs incurred in relation these sales.And Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A) requires the Court to order payment of the movant's reasonable expenses in making a motion to compel, including payment of attorneys' fees, when a motion to compel is granted. But Rule 37(a)(5)(A) also requires the Court to give ANA an opportunity to be heard as to an award of fees and expenses and provides three exceptions under which the Court must not order payment of the movant's fees and expenses. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A)(i)-(iii). The Court will give ANA an opportunity to, by Tuesday, April 2, 2024, file a response explaining why the Court should not, under Rule 37(a)(5)(A), require ANA to pay Multiquip's reasonable expenses and attorneys' fees incurred in having its counsel prepare and file its Motion to Compel Defendant Alliance North America dba ANA to Produce Sales Data for ANA Generators Sold with SmartLoad and Without SmartLoad [Dkt. No. 49] and the appendix and reply [Dkt. No. 58] in support and to fully explain whether any of the exceptions under Rule 37(a)(5)(A)(i)-(iii) applies. If ANA files this response, Multiquip may, by Tuesday, April 23, 2024, file a reply in support of an award under Rule 37(a)(5)(A), which reply must be limited to addressing whether any exception under 37(a)(5)(A)(i)-(iii) should preclude an award of expenses. The reply need not and should not include any affidavits or declarations supporting a lodestar determination for a fee award. If, based on this response and reply, the Court determines to award expenses, the Court will issue a separate order directing the filing of materials to determine the amount of any award.(Ordered by Magistrate Judge David L. Horan on 3/4/2024.) (Entered: 03/04/2024) ELECTRONIC ORDER:Plaintiff Multiquip Inc. has filed a Motion to Compel Defendant Alliance North America dba ANA to Produce Sales Data for ANA Generators Sold with SmartLoad and Without SmartLoad. See Dkt. No. 49. ANA has responded, see Dkt. No. 53, and Multiquip has filed a reply, see Dkt. No. 58. The Court has laid out the standards that govern a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a) motion to compel as to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 requests for production, and the Court incorporates and will apply -- but will not repeat -- those standards here. See Lopez v. Don Herring Ltd., 327 F.R.D. 567, 573-86 (N.D. Tex. 2018).Multiquip "requests an order compelling ANA to produce invoice-level sales data, on a monthly basis from January 1, 2019 to the present, showing the following information for generators sold with SmartLoad and generators sold without SmartLoad: 1. the number of units sold broken down by model and month, or at least by quarter; 2. the total revenue received from these sales; 3. the total profits earned from these sales; and 4. the total costs incurred in relation these sales." Dkt. No. 49 at 8; Dkt. No. 58 at 2.As Multiquip notes, in ANA's response [Dkt. No. 53], "ANA offers no response to the substance of Multiquip's motion"; "does not dispute that the sales data requested by Multiquip is relevant, discoverable, and easy to produce"; and "has provided no basis for withholding the sales data requested by Multiquip." Dkt. No. 58 at 1."Instead, ANA alleges that Multiquip's own discovery responses and production are deficient, and says it is willing to produce sales and revenue data for its generators only if Multiquip produces the same data." Id. As ANA explains in its response, it "does not oppose production of financial information in the same categories and levels of breakdown of the information as Multiquip also produces, but objects to unilateral production by ANA as to the information provided or the manner in which it is provided." Dkt. No. 53 at 1. And ANA asserts that, "[i]f ANA is to be obligated to produce financial information, it is appropriate that the same categories of information be produced with the same level of breakdown of the information as Multiquip produces its counterpart information" and that "[i]t would be inappropriate to unduly burden one party in its production of financial information, while the other party is not subject to a similar burden of production of information." Dkt. No. 53 at 5-6.A "party who has objected to a discovery request then must, in response to a Rule 37(a) motion to compel or in support of its own Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) motion for a protective order, urge and argue in support of its objection to an interrogatory or request, and, if it does not, it waives the objection." Lopez, 327 F.R.D. at 583. And "[a] party resisting discovery must show how the requested discovery is overly broad, unduly burdensome, or oppressive by submitting affidavits or offering evidence revealing the nature of the burden." Id. at 580.But, in ANA's response to Multiquip's motion to compel, the statements quoted above are ANA's only mention of burden, undue or otherwise. ANA provides no basis to sustain any undue burden objection. See Dkt. Nos. 53 & 53-8. And, as Multiquip observes in it reply, ANA may not "refuse to comply with [Multiquip's] discovery requests simply because [ANA] believes that [Multiquip] ha[s] not fully complied with [ANA's] discovery requests to" Multiquip. Lopez, 327 F.R.D. at 581 (cleaned up). "The Court does not look favorably upon a 'tit-for-tat' approach to discovery. A party may not withhold relevant discovery simply on the basis that the other side has not been forthcoming with discovery. A party may not excuse its failure to comply with discovery obligations by claiming that its opposing party is similarly delinquent. Nor may a party condition its compliance with its discovery obligations on receiving discovery from its opponent." Id. (cleaned up).The Court agrees with Multiquip's assessment that "[w]hether Multiquip's own production of sales data is sufficient is a separate issue," Dkt. No. 58 at 2, which the Court will address when ANA's Motion Under Rule 37 to Compel Responses to Discovery [Dkt. No. 55] is ripe. But the Court may compel ANA to "produce sales and revenue data for its generators without regard to the sufficiency of Multiquip's production." Dkt. No. 58 at 2.And the Court finds that Multiquip has shown that, without proper objections pressed in response to the motion to compel, ANA is withholding responsive information that is relevant to the claims or defenses in the case and proportional to the needs of the case.The Court grants Multiquip's Motion to Compel Defendant Alliance North America dba ANA to Produce Sales Data for ANA Generators Sold with SmartLoad and Without SmartLoad [Dkt. No. 49] and orders ANA to, by Tuesday, March 19, 2024, produce to Multiquip's counsel invoice-level sales data, on a monthly basis from January 1, 2019 to the present, showing the following information for generators sold with SmartLoad and generators sold without SmartLoad: (1) the number of units sold broken down by model and month, or at least by quarter; (2) the total revenue received from these sales; (3) the total profits earned from these sales; and (4) the total costs incurred in relation these sales.And Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A) requires the Court to order payment of the movant's reasonable expenses in making a motion to compel, including payment of attorneys' fees, when a motion to compel is granted. But Rule 37(a)(5)(A) also requires the Court to give ANA an opportunity to be heard as to an award of fees and expenses and provides three exceptions under which the Court must not order payment of the movant's fees and expenses. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A)(i)-(iii). The Court will give ANA an opportunity to, by Tuesday, April 2, 2024, file a response explaining why the Court should not, under Rule 37(a)(5)(A), require ANA to pay Multiquip's reasonable expenses and attorneys' fees incurred in having its counsel prepare and file its Motion to Compel Defendant Alliance North America dba ANA to Produce Sales Data for ANA Generators Sold with SmartLoad and Without SmartLoad [Dkt. No. 49] and the appendix and reply [Dkt. No. 58] in support and to fully explain whether any of the exceptions under Rule 37(a)(5)(A)(i)-(iii) applies. If ANA files this response, Multiquip may, by Tuesday, April 23, 2024, file a reply in support of an award under Rule 37(a)(5)(A), which reply must be limited to addressing whether any exception under 37(a)(5)(A)(i)-(iii) should preclude an award of expenses. The reply need not and should not include any affidavits or declarations supporting a lodestar determination for a fee award. If, based on this response and reply, the Court determines to award expenses, the Court will issue a separate order directing the filing of materials to determine the amount of any award.(Ordered by Magistrate Judge David L. Horan on 3/4/2024.) (Entered: 03/04/2024)
02/29/24	Multiquip Inc v. Ana Inc 3:22-CV-02599 ( N.D. TX )	RESPONSE filed by Multiquip Inc re: 55 MOTION to Compel Responses to Discovery (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit(s) Etheridge Declaration) (Etheridge, James) (Entered: 02/29/2024)
02/28/24	Multiquip Inc v. Ana Inc 3:22-CV-02599 ( N.D. TX )	ORDER denying 59 Motion to Stay Pending IPR Institution Decision. (Ordered by Senior Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn on 2/28/2024) (ndt) (Entered: 02/28/2024)
02/27/24	Multiquip Inc v. Ana Inc 3:22-CV-02599 ( N.D. TX )	Joint MOTION to Stay Pending IPR Institution Decision filed by Multiquip Inc with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Etheridge, James) (Entered: 02/27/2024)
02/26/24	Multiquip Inc v. Ana Inc 3:22-CV-02599 ( N.D. TX )	REPLY filed by Multiquip Inc re: 49 MOTION to Compel Production of Sales Data (Etheridge, James) (Entered: 02/26/2024)
02/23/24	Multiquip Inc v. Ana Inc 3:22-CV-02599 ( N.D. TX )	Order Referring re: 55 Motion to Compel to Magistrate Judge David L. Horan. (Ordered by Senior Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn on 2/23/2024) (axm) (Entered: 02/23/2024)