United States District Court, D. New Jersey
S. STONE BRADFORD W. MULLER STONE & MAGNANINI LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff Telebrands Corp.
PAUL BAKOS NOAM JOSEPH KRITZER BAKOS & KRITZER J. STEVEN
BRAUGHMAN (PRO HAC VICE) PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
GARRISON, LLP Attorneys for Defendant Tristar Products, Inc.
OPINION FILED UNDER SEAL
L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
before the Court is Defendant Tristar Product Inc.'s
(“Tristar”) Motion to Quash the Subpoena of
Tristar CEO Keith Mirchandani (“Motion to
Quash”), Plaintiff Telebrands Corp.'s
(“Telebrands”) Motion for Targeted Supplemental
Discovery to Defendant Tristar Products, Inc.
(“Supplemental Discovery Motion”), and Plaintiff
Telebrands' August 31, 2018 Motion to Seal. For the
reasons stated herein, this Court will deny Defendant
Tristar's Motion to Quash, grant Plaintiff
Telebrands' Supplemental Discovery Motion, and grant
Plaintiff Telebrands' Motion to Seal.
case has a lengthy and complicated factual and procedural
history. In lieu of recounting those details, which have been
penned by this Court numerous times over the years of this
litigation, this Court will focus on only the details
relevant to the consideration of the motions disposed of in
September 5-7, 2018, this Court commenced a hearing on
correction of inventorship (“Inventorship
Hearing”). At the Inventorship Hearing, testimony from
three Telebrands employees (Ajit Khubani, Chief Executive
Officer, Bala Iyer, Chief Operating Officer, and Manish
Israni, Vice President of New Product Acquisition and
Research) was elicited by Tristar. Generally, the testimony
concerned whether Telebrands received a prototype or
propriety information from Ragner Technology Corp.
(“Ragner Tech.”) and whether, if received, the
prototype or proprietary information led to the development
of the Pocket Hose.
the hearing, counsel for Telebrands, disclosed his intent to
call the Chief Executive Officer of Tristar, Keith
Mirchandani, and served a subpoena upon counsel for Tristar
(which was accepted). It was later disclosed (in more
detail), through the instant briefing, that Telebrands
proposed that Mirchandani would testify to the development of
the Flex-Able Hose and whether that involved the use of any
Ragner Tech. prototypes or proprietary information. The Court
indicated, but did not finally decide, that it would permit
about a month had passed since the Inventorship Hearing was
adjourned (to resume at the end of January 2019), Telebrands
filed the Supplemental Discovery Motion. The Supplemental
Discovery Motion requested Tristar to respond to a limited
set of interrogatories and document requests to allow
Telebrands to prepare for Mirchandani's planned
Inventorship Hearing testimony. Tristar opposed discovery,
asserting in its opposition papers that it did not believe
Mirchandani's testimony was relevant to the issues
pending at the Inventorship Hearing and that the discovery
request was untimely.
a month later, in mid-December, Tristar filed the Motion to
Quash, now explicitly arguing Mirchandani's proposed
testimony was irrelevant and should not be
required.Telebrands opposed the Motion to Quash,
maintaining Mirchandani's proposed testimony was
relevant. Telebrands a motion to seal on August 31,
2018. As all the motions discussed have been
fully briefed, they are ripe for adjudication.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1338 (a).
Motion to ...