United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lafayette Division
TOTAL REBUILD, INC.
PHC FLUID POWER, L.L.C.
B. WHITEHURST, MAG. JUDGE
A. DOUGHTY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
a patent infringement case in which Plaintiff Total Rebuild
(âPlaintiffâ) contends systems and/or methods utilized by or
through Defendant PHC (âDefendantâ) infringe claims of United
States Patent No. 8, 146, 428 (âthe '428 Patentâ). The
'428 Patent is directed to systems and methods for safely
testing devices and components under high-pressure.
before the Court is Defendant's “Motion in
Limine to Preclude and Exclude any Testimony or Evidence
Related to Total Rebuild's Profits and Expenses”
[Doc. No. 295]. Plaintiff responded to the motion. [Doc. No.
following reasons, the motion is DENIED.
PERTINENT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
August 5, 2016, Defendant served Plaintiff with its First
Interrogatories and Requests for the Production of Documents
and Things (“First Set of Interrogatories”).
Interrogatory 15 requested that “[f]or any products
identified in response to Interrogatory No. 11,
provide the revenues and profits generated from the sale of
such products and all expenses used in the calculation of
such profits.” [Doc. No. 295-2 at 12]. On September 2,
2016, Plaintiff served its Answers to Defendant's First
Interrogatories and Responses to First Requests for the
Production of Documents and Things (“Plaintiff's
Answers”). Id. at 12-13. Defendant filed a
motion to compel on May 12, 2017. [Doc. No. 115]. In that
motion, Defendant argued that “Total has provided
information related to only revenues, not profits or
expenses” and requested “Total be ordered to
supplement its response to Interrogatory No. 15 to provide
the expenses and profits generated from the sale of all
systems that Total alleges embody, practice, or use asserted
claims of the '428 Patent.” [Doc. No. 115-1]. On
May 23, 2017, Plaintiff supplemented its answers to
Interrogatory 15. [Doc. No. 295-3 at 5-6].
Court denied Defendant's motion to compel on July 11,
2017, and ordered Plaintiff to supplement its responses once
information becomes available. [Doc. No. 136 at 2]. On July
12, 2017, Defendant deposed Mr. Terry Lavergne,
Plaintiff's owner. During the deposition, Mr. Lavergne
testified to the following:
(1) There are “no billing materials”;
(2) There are “no design docs”;
(3) Plaintiff did have receipts;
(4) He could look at expenses;
(5) The general manager would “probably not” know