Wenger S.A. v. OLIVET INTERNATIONAL INC.

Background

The dispute arose from an earlier discovery order. Wenger had asked for several forms of relief after seeking sanctions related to defendants’ expert reports. The court denied the request to exclude portions of the reports and instead ordered additional discovery. In the earlier order, the court granted in part Wenger’s second request by requiring Olivet to make an accounting-department witness available for a deposition. The order stated that Olivet did not have to provide a witness from its affiliate or parent company.

The Parties’ Positions

Wenger later sought sanctions, arguing that Olivet had violated the discovery order by failing to produce additional documents. The documents sought included information about transfer pricing, sales, costs, and related requests made after a prior deposition. Olivet argued that Wenger’s second request sought a deposition witness, not document production, and that the order did not require the additional documents. Olivet also filed a cross-motion seeking sanctions against Wenger’s counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, arguing that the sanctions motion was meritless and brought for an improper purpose.

Ruling

Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied Wenger’s motion for sanctions. The court stated that the second request did not include relief in the form of additional document discovery. Nevertheless, the court directed Olivet to produce the documents requested in Wenger’s filing at Dkt. No. 188. The court also denied Olivet’s cross-motion for sanctions and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion at Dkt. No. 188.

Classification

This is a procedural order concerning discovery and sanctions. It did not decide the underlying claims between the parties.