Sterilumen, Inc v. Aeroclean Technologies, LLC

Background

The parties jointly sought a pre-motion conference under the court’s local practice rules concerning Sterilumen’s anticipated motion for a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1). A protective order can limit or prevent discovery. Sterilumen sought to bar Aeroclean from taking further discovery or, alternatively, to limit its scope.

Sterilumen described the underlying case as a trademark-infringement action involving Sterilumen’s claimed rights in a family of AIRO marks, including AIROCLEAN®, and Aeroclean’s use of the AEROCLEAN mark. Sterilumen also said Aeroclean had announced a merger with Molekule, Inc. and a planned name change. Sterilumen argued that the name change would provide most of the relief it requested and that its anticipated motion to dismiss could either end the case or change the proper scope of discovery.

Sterilumen further argued that Aeroclean’s discovery was excessive, pointing to 15 interrogatories, 172 requests for production, and 28 requests for admission. Aeroclean disputed Sterilumen’s position, argued that the proposed motion to dismiss was baseless, and asked that discovery proceed. Aeroclean also challenged Sterilumen’s use of general and specific objections and asserted that Sterilumen had not produced responsive documents or answered interrogatories.

Court’s Action

The court granted the application for a pre-motion conference. The conference was set for February 28, 2023, at 9:30 a.m., in Courtroom 520 of the White Plains courthouse, at the same date and time as the previously scheduled pre-motion conference concerning Sterilumen’s anticipated motion to dismiss.

The order did not grant or deny the proposed protective order, compel discovery, resolve the parties’ objections, or decide the anticipated motion to dismiss. It therefore resolved only the scheduling request presented in this order.