Chrome Hearts LLC v. Controse Inc.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:21-cv-06858
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Chrome Hearts v. Controse, Judge Figueredo ordered responsive financial documents for Request 28 while finding defendants’ late objections were not waived.
Chrome Hearts LLC, Controse Inc., and Bob Kung; the order requires production of documents responsive to Request 28 and finds no responsive documents were available for Request 29.
What happened
Chrome Hearts LLC asked the court to compel Controse Inc. and Bob Kung to respond to document Requests 28 and 29, which sought financial information in the trademark-infringement case.
The defendants’ responses and objections were 27 days late, but the court found that the objections were not waived because the delay was relatively short and the defendants provided an explanation. The court also found that Request 29 had no responsive documents because the defendants said they did not keep annual or quarterly financial reports.
Judge Valerie Figueredo ruled that profit-and-loss statements could be relevant to calculating statutory damages and directed the defendants to provide documents responsive to Request 28. The court directed the Clerk to terminate the listed motions.
The detailed version
- Chrome Hearts LLC v. Controse Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-06858
- Lewis Liman
- Sept. 14, 2022
Background
Chrome Hearts LLC moved to compel defendants Controse Inc. and Bob Kung to respond to document Requests 28 and 29. The requests concerned the defendants’ financial information. The court held a conference about the motion on July 15, 2022.
Waiver of objections
Chrome Hearts argued that the defendants had waived their objections because they served their responses and objections 27 days after they were due. The court declined to find waiver. It stated that courts in the Southern District of New York are reluctant to treat objections as waived when they are less than one month late, particularly when the responding party provides an explanation for the delay. The court therefore held that the defendants had not waived their objections to Requests 28 and 29.
Request 29
Request 29 sought all annual or quarterly financial reports filed by the defendants during the preceding five years. The defendants represented that they did not keep quarterly or annual financial reports. The court therefore concluded that the defendants had no documents in their possession responsive to that request.
Request 28 and the ruling
Request 28 sought the defendants’ profit-and-loss statements for the preceding five years. The defendants argued that the request was overbroad and irrelevant. The court disagreed, explaining that Chrome Hearts sought statutory damages for the alleged trademark infringement and that 15 U.S.C. § 1117 permits consideration of the expenses saved and profits gained by an infringing defendant. The court concluded that this information could be obtained from profit-and-loss statements.
Judge Valerie Figueredo directed the defendants to provide documents responsive to Request 28. The court also directed the Clerk to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 32, 37, and 61. The opinion does not state that Request 29 required production of documents.
Effect
The order affects Chrome Hearts’ discovery of information potentially relevant to statutory damages and limits the defendants’ production obligation, as stated in the order, to documents responsive to Request 28.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.