Motion to Compel Denied

Mohawk Industries, Inc. & Shaw Industries, Inc. v. Interface, Inc., Case No. 4:07-cv-0212 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 6, 2008) (Murphy, J.)*

Plaintiffs Mohawk and Shaw claim that Defendant Interface falsely marked certain of its carpet tile products as being covered by Defendant’s patent. Defendant asserts that its marking of non-covered products was the result of mistake. In a previous Order (discussed here), Judge Murphy concluded that Defendant had waived the attorney-client privilege as to certain communications between Defendant’s employee, Jones, and its in-house counsel that may have led to Jones’ understanding as to which products were covered by the patent and needed to be marked. As a result, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery on this topic.

After the Court’s Order, Plaintiffs redeposed several of Defendant’s witnesses. During these depositions, Defendant’s counsel objected to a number of questions as exceeding the scope of the Court’s Order. Plaintiffs, believing that such questions were within the scope of the Court’s Order, filed this Motion seeking an order compelling the witnesses to answer.

The Court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion, finding that because (1) Plaintiffs had had several opportunities to question the witnesses, (2) the witnesses had testified that they could not recall key facts about the communications at issue, and (3) the parties’ history of discovery disputes indicated that further depositions would likely only result in more motions to compel, an order compelling additional discovery was not warranted.

*Disclosure: My firm, Alston & Bird, represents Plaintiff Mohawk in this case.