Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

14-206 - Toyo Tire & Rubber Co., Ltd. et al v. Atturo Tire Corporation et al.


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
14-206 - Toyo Tire & Rubber Co., Ltd. et al v. Atturo Tire Corporation et al.
February 24, 2015
PDF | More
ORDER: Atturo Tire Corporation and Toyo Tire & Rubber Corporation have confirmed that they will certify their document production is complete on or before February 27, 2015. Svizz-One Corporation confirms that it will certify that all documents have been produced to Toyo on or before March 6, 2015. The Court reiterates its previous ruling that Masaaki Ohara's deposition is to take place in Chicago at a mutually agreed time and place. Regarding Messrs. Dayton and Puente, plaintiff is to either produce these witnesses in California or file a motion on or before February 27, 2015 stating the factual basis for its assertion that these individuals are not managing agents, as outlined in the attached Order. Plaintiff is also ordered to properly respond to Atturo's interrogatories and produce existing English versions or translations of the foreign documents already produced on or before March 5, 2015. Status hearing set for 2/25/2015 at 9:30 a.m. is hereby stricken. [For further details see order.] - Signed by the Honorable Susan E. Cox on 2/24/2015. Mailed notice (np, )
September 22, 2015
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order: This matter comes before the Court on Defendant's motion to compel additional discovery on Toyo's Multiple OPMT Patterns 191. For the reasons stated in the order, we grant defendant's motion. [For further details see order] - Signed by the Honorable Susan E. Cox on 9/22/2015. Mailed notice (np, )
November 20, 2015
PDF | More
ORDER: Atturo's motion to preclude Toyo from present advertising evidence 194 is denied. [For further details see order] - Signed by the Honorable Susan E. Cox on 11/20/2015. Mailed notice (np, )
February 1, 2016
PDF | More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: This matter comes before the Court for report and recommendation on defendant Atturo's petition for reasonable attorney's fees 232 following the Courts September 22, 2015 order 228 granting its motion to compel further discovery on its multiple OPMT patterns 191. Plaintiff has objected to Atturos petition for fees in the amount of $25,690.00 for the costs of the original motion, the presentment of that motion in Court and Atturos reply to its brief. We recommend a sanction of $12,350 to the district judge.Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A), the Court has the discretion to order the party pay the movants reasonable expenses incurred in making a motion to compel. In its objection to the Courts September 22, 2015 order to the district judge, plaintiff argued that Atturo did not confer in good faith about the discovery dispute prior to filing the motion, which would prevent the Court from awarding fees under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 37(a)(5)(i). Giving plaintiff every benefit of the doubt on this point, and because we believe that the amount ($25,690,00) claimed by Atturo for a relatively simple discovery motion is excessive in any case, we award only the cost and fees associated with the reply brief, $12,350.00. We do so because the Court made it clear to plaintiff at the presentment hearing for the motion that the dispute was one which could and should be resolved by the parties. In the Courts view, as we already have expressed, plaintiffs objection to further discovery on the tire tread patterns was wholly without merit given its own witnesses testimony. To persist in that objection, especially after the motion was presented, forced Atturo to file a reply brief which plaintiff could have avoided had it been negotiating in good faith. Accordingly, these fees are completely justified under Rule 37(a)(5)(A). Specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation may be served and filed within 14 days from the date that this order is served with the Honorable John Z. Lee. See 28 U.S.C. ยง636(b)(1). Failure to file objections with the District Court within the specified time will result in a waiver of the right to appeal all findings, factual and legal, made by this Court in the Report and Recommendation. Lorentzen v. Anderson Pest Control, 64 F.3d 327, 330 (7th Cir.1995). - Signed by the Honorable Susan E. Cox on 2/1/2016. Mailed notice (np, )
May 3, 2016
PDF | More
ORDER: After granting Atturo's motion to compel, Magistrate Judge Cox issued a Report and Recommendation 273 proposing sanction against Toyo Tire. For the reasons stated below, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation and overrules Toyo Tires' objections. Signed by the Honorable John Z. Lee on 5/3/16. [For further details see order.]Mailed notice(ca, )
June 3, 2016
PDF | More
ORDER: The Court denies the Motion to Compel Production of Documents Concerning Non-Privileged Settlement Discussions 303 filed by Defendant Atturo Tire Corporation ("Atturo"). The Court denies the motion with prejudice to the extent it seeks the production of the documents listed in Exhibit A to Atturo's motion. The Court denies the motion without prejudice to the extent it seeks Atturo's attorneys' fees and costs. [For more details see order] - Signed by the Honorable Susan E. Cox on 6/3/2016. Mailed notice (np, )
March 30, 2017
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable John Z. Lee on 3/30/17.Mailed notice(ca, )