Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Total Rebuild, Inc. v. PHC Fluid Power, L.L.C.

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lafayette Division

September 6, 2019

TOTAL REBUILD, INC.
v.
PHC FLUID POWER, L.L.C.

          CAROL B. WHITEHURST, MAG. JUDGE

          RULING

          TERRY A. DOUGHTY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This is a patent infringement case in which Plaintiff Total Rebuild (“Plaintiff”) contends systems and/or methods utilized by or through Defendant PHC (“Defendant”) infringe claims of United States Patent No. 8, 146, 428 (“the '428 Patent”). The '428 Patent is directed to systems and methods for safely testing devices and components under high-pressure.

         Pending 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. 322].

         For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED.

         I. PERTINENT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         On 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, [1] 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].[2] 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].

         The 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 expenses ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.