Free Affidavit - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv—00222-JBA Document 65 Filed 03/24/2004 Page 1 of 4 ,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONI‘·IECTICUT j
VICT OR G. REILDIG ASSOCLATES and
DESIGN INNO"v*'AIION, INC., g
Index No-: 3 Plaintitfs,
— against —
I’1SIIER—PRICE, H~lC.., Mamh 24} gm}4
Defendant.
DECLARATION OF RUSSELL D.. DIZE IN OPPOSITION TO
DEF'EI'~I`]]·ANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
I, RUSSELL D. DIZE, pursuant to the requirements of 28 U S..C.. §I'I"46, declare that the
following is true a.nd correct: E
I I an1 an attorney associated with Grimes 32: lfiattershy, LLP iu Norwalk,
Connecticut, counsel to Plaintiffs, Victor G. Reiling Associates (“Reiling") and Design
Innovation, Inc.. {"DI") (collectively, “PIaintif‘Es").. I assisted PIaintiE`s with the preparation of
responses and objections to discovery requests in this matter, and therefore, I am
fully fsnztiliar with the facts set forth herein. I submit this dcclmation in opposition to
Defendanfs Motion to Compel Discovery.
2. Defendant served a Second Request for Production of Doeumettts to PIaint:i& on
Ianuairy 5, 2I}{l4.. A true and correct copy of Defcudanfs Second Request for Production of
Documents is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

Case 3:03-cv—00222-JBA Document 65 Filed 03/24/2004 Page 2 of 4 ,
3. its part of its Second Request for Production of Documents, Defendant requested
that Plaintitfs produce certain documents related to work performed by Plaintiffs on the Rescue
I-Ieroes line of toys. Specifically, Defendant made the following request:
nmaeg ns. 2
Any docurnenm that reflect, refer, orrelme to any work done by plaintiffs relating
to Rescue Heroes Iigures, animals, accessories, vehicles, or play sets from n
January 1997* through the present, including, without limitation, project books, r
purchase orders, invoices, time sheets, billing records, calendar entries, sketches,
photogaphs, notes and memoranda.
{See Defendanfs Second Request for Production of Documents, attached hereto as Exhibit A}.
4. Dn February 4, 2lll}4, Plaintiff DI served an objection to this request.
Specifically, DI made the following obj eetion: n
Res nse to R uest No. 2
Plaintiff DI objects to this request on the grounds that it is unduly burdensome,
unreasorrable, oppressive, overly broad, and seek information that is neither ?
relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence
A true and correct copy of Plaintiff DI’s Responses and Objections to Defendanfs Second -
Request for Production of Documents is attached hereto as lhrhibit B. E
5. Du February Et}, 2·t}D4, I received a letter from counsel for the Defendant
demanding production of the requested documents. A true and correct copy of Defenda.nt’s
February Et}, EDLI4 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit C-
6.. Un February 26, 2[H}4, I wrote to counsel for the Defendant in an attempt to
resolve the discovery dispute. In an effort to resolve the dispute, Plaintiff DI agreed to produce j
responsive documents. Specihcally, DI responded as follows: n
N ding the mregoing objection, in a good faith effort to avoid a motion
to compel, Design Innovation will agree to produce documents related to the work {

Case 3:03-cv—00222-JBA Document 65 Filed 03/24/2004 Page 3 of 4 i
it has done on the Voiee I'ech Video Mission Rescue Heroes hnm .Ianuary 199T
through the pcremt, to the extent tht any such documents exist, provided that, in
order to facilitate this exchange of informadon, Fisher—Price provides copies of all
purchase orders and work orders pertaining to Design innovation for the relevant
time period. This is necessary because Design innovation often worlm on
components of products and does not know thc exact product or line of products
on which the component will ultimately be incorporated.
A true and correct copy of my February 26, EDD4 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit D..
T. Although Plaintiff DI agreed to pmdnce responsive documents with respect to
Voice Tech Video Mission Rescue Heroes, which are the only products currently at issue in this
action, it its objection to providing infomation relative to other action figtu·es and
accessories which have not yet been added to the Complaint. Plaintiffs have Eled a Motion for
Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint, which seeks to add additional products to the
Complaint, but that motion has not been decided as of this date. Should Plainrlfllf Motion to n
rtrnend be granted, DI will produce responsive documents relative to the products that are added _
to the Complaint. I
3. Defendant has objected to PIaintif`f`s’ request for sales Egnrcs for the additional
products on grounds that they are irrelevant, presumably because they have not yet been added to
the Complaint. At true and correct copy of Dcfendanfs Responses and Dbjections to Plainti&`
Second Requests for Production of Documents is attached hereto as Exhibit E- [See Responses 2
and 4 through I5).
9.. Plaintiff' DI offered to produce responsive documents prior to the fling of this
motion by Defendant. DI simply requested infonnation from Defendant that would make the
exchange of information more complete, aecurate, efficient and less burdensome. Despite the E

Case 3:03-cv-00222-JBA Document 65 Filed 03/24/2004 Page 4 of 4 E

reasonable compromise proposed by Flaintitfs, Defendant did not oontact PlaintiEFs’ counsel e
second time to zrttempt to work out a resolution. Instead, Defendant tiled this Motion to Compel. i
I hereby declare that the foregoing is true and eomeet under penalty ofperjuryr ‘
Dstedt lvlarelr 24, 2[l·|I}·¢l»
Russell D. Dire