Free Affidavit - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv—00222-JBA Document 64 Filed 03/24/2004 Page 1 of 4 E
!
I.1l‘~TITED STATES DIS IRICT COURT
DISTRICT OT CONNECTICUT
VICTOR G. RE·LILll¤IG ASSOCIATES md
DESIGN ll~1l*·J OVATION, INC .,
Index No ..1 3113 CV 222 {IBA} {
Plainti;Et`s,
— against ·
FISHER-PRICE, INC., tntnnen 24, anna
Defendant. Q
DECLARATION OF BRUCE P. POPEK IN OPPOSITION TO
DEFEl'TDANT’S IPIOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
I, BRUCE P. POPEK, pursuant to the requirenrents of 28 I.T..S.C §lT"=l·6, declare that the E
following is true and corroctt
1 I am a principal of Design hmovation, Inc.., a plaintiff` in the above-eaptjrmed
action I have knowledge of all facts stated herein. I subniit this declaration in
appention to Det`endant’s Motion to Conspel Disoovry,
2. I am aware that FisherePrice has made the follonwg decunient request in this
action: -:
Any docunients thm retlect, refer, or relate to any work done hy plainti;EFs relating =
to Rescue I-Ieres Iigures, asnirnals, aceesseries, vehicles, or play sets from L
Ianuary IQEVI" through the present, includirtg, without Iin1ita.tion,_project books, `
purchase orders, invoices, time sheets, billing records, calendar entries, sketches, ·
photographs, notes and rnernorartda. "

Case 3:03-cv—00222-JBA Document 64 Filed 03/24/2004 Page 2 of 4
i
3. Dmign Innovation has worked on a number of projects for Fisher-Price since
January 1999.. However, Design Innovation often works on one or more components or pieces
of a larger product, and often do.es not know the identity of the ultimate product on which the
components or pieces will he used. This is with respect to work Design Innovation has
perforrned for IiisherJI’rice since Ianuary 1999.
4. For example, Design Innovation is often hired hy Fisher-Price to perfonn
sculpting of individual components of larger products. However, Fisher—Price frequently does
not disclose to Design Innovation whelher it is working on a “Rescue I-lerocs"’ project or some
other project. Most ouen, the assignments have only working namm. Moreover, the ultiniate
product on which the individual component will he used is often not readily apparent from if
looking at the component itself.
5.. While Design Innovation most likely did perform work for Fisher·Price with
respect to Rescue I-Icroes dining the relevant time period, it will he nearly impossible for Design
Innovation to ensure that it produces all responsive doctnnents without input from Fisher-Price,
hccause in many instances, only Fisher-Price will know if the commissioned hy Fisher- n
Price from Dcsig Innovation was intimately for Rescue Heroes action ligures or related
products.
6.. Likewise, Design Innovation does not maintain records would allow for the
eflicierrt of documents related to work performed for FisheraP1ice. In order to obtain j
the requested documents, Design Innovation would lirst have to search all of its project tiles
since January 199T lapprofrimately 3,495 projects) to identify projects that it worked on for
Fisher—Price.. Design Innovation would then have to review each die to make a determination as

Case 3:03-cv—00222-JBA Document 64 Filed 03/24/2004 Page 3 of 4 t
to whether the component was ultimately used or intended by Fisher-Price for use on Rescue
Heroes action figures or related products Witliout input from Fisher-Price, it will he di;Et`ieult for
Design Innovation to accurately make this determination i.u many Eances.
T. Purchase orders and work orders to work commissioned by Fisher-Price
nom Design Innovation, which Fisher-Price almost certainly has in its possession, would help us
locate responsive documents because these documents would contain a description ofthe work
commissioned by Fisher—P1ice and the approximate date on which the work was performed by
Design Innovation. Since Fisher—Price hows exactly which projects were related to Rescue
lleroes action figures and other products, this information would enable Design Innovation to
respond fully and accurately. .
3.. Design Innovation is a small company with limited resources and it certainly
pales in comparison to Fisher-Price, a subsidiary of the world’s largest toy company.
Conducting a random search of all project files without the requested information, which Fisher-
Price could easily provide, would be unduly burdensome on Design lnnovation due to the
resources would he expended in doing so.. The purchase orders and work orders requested
would enable Design innovation to conduct the search ofits tiles aectuately and expeditiously
9. Before Fisher—l’rice"s Motion to Comp-cl was tiled, Design Innovation, through
counsel, hiformed Fisher-Price that it would produce documents responsive to Fisher—Price’s
request if lii.sher—Price could provide the purchase orders and work orders that would enable _
Design Innovation to respond accurately and completely.

Case 3:03-cv-00222-JBA Document 64 Filed 03/24/2004 Page 4 of 4 t
I hereby declare that the furegeing is true md eurrect uudaz penalty uf pE1j'IJ1]F..
Datecilt March.24, 2004 ·
' _-*¢;Z'. __.-·‘L-_ , `
‘ Bruce P. Pepe};