Mike Boyle, doing business as Surface Dynamix, has asked the U.S. District Court of Oregon, Eugene division, to issue an order “compelling the plaintiffs to allow the defendants the ability to inspect the alleged infringing products that are in the possession of the plaintiffs.” On the other side of the court, GlasWeld has asked for a default judgment against Mike Boyle and Christopher Boyle, his son, “because of their complete, consistent and unapologetic disregard of this court’s clear orders compelling them to comply with their discovery obligations.”
“The plaintiff in this action alleges patent infringement by the defendant through the production and sale of products by Surface Dynamix. The plaintiff has procured samples of these products through their own sham sales as well as samples provided by the defendant Mike Boyle,” Mike Boyle writes in court documents. “The plaintiff has since gone on to dismantle these products in a way which has rendered them inoperable. Then these inoperable products have been used as test pieces for the alleged infringement. Attempts to arrange inspection by defendant Mike Boyle have been met with a wide array of dodging techniques.”
“[T]he inspection only seeks to verify the legitimacy of the plaintiffs statements about the sample products and does not place any burden upon the plaintiff,” he writes. “Defendant Mike Boyle is amenable to inspection at the office of the plaintiffs’ attorney.”
Meanwhile, GlasWeld’s attorney alleges the Boyles have not fully participated in discovery despite court orders.
“GlasWeld asks that the court impose sanctions under Rule 37(b)(2) and grant GlasWeld a default judgment against the Boyles for the Boyles’ collective refusal to comply with the court’s June 2, 2014 order compelling discovery responses, the court’s September 6, 2013 order also compelling discovery responses, and their other discovery violations. … Nearly all of the deficiencies set forth in GlasWeld’s original Motion to Compel, which was filed a year ago, remain unaddressed by Michael Boyle despite two orders from this Court compelling full and complete responses. Additionally, deficiencies raised with
Michael Boyle’s attorney more than seven months ago also remain unaddressed, as do deficiencies and outright discovery violations raised with Christopher Boyle more than four months ago.
“[S]imilarly, although Christopher Boyle served an incomplete, partial response to Interrogatory No. 7, he did not provide any documentation, revise his bad faith responses to GlasWeld’s requests for admission, or otherwise cure any of the numerous discovery deficiencies and violations previously brought to his attention,” GlasWeld’s attorneys claim.
The court has not issued any new decision at press time.
To read a copy of Mike Boyle’s motion to compel, click here.
To read a copy of GlasWeld’s motion for default judgment, click here.