Judge O’Toole entered separate orders against a defendant in a counterfeit goods case. In the first order Judge O’Toole dismisses three counterclaims. The first counterclaim, for tortious interference based on improper filing of the lawsuit, was dismissed because the defendant admits in the answer facts sufficient to support the initial claim. The second counterclaim, for conversion, was dismissed because of insufficient pleading and because plaintiff did not take any action to possess the goods in question, save for seeking an impoundment order from the court, which was granted. The third counterclaim, for unfair competition under M.G.L. ch. 93A for improper filing of the suit, was dismissed on the same grounds as the tortious interfence claim.
The court declined to enter Rule 11 sanctions for filing of the counterclaims. But in the second order the court entered Rule 37 sanctions against the defendant for failure to comply with discovery (following at least four motions to compel) including failure to answer interrogatories, failure to attend a noticed deposition (in Tijuana), and other failures. The sanctions included an order to produce documents and responses to interrogatories within 14 days, an order that the deposition be held in Boston, and an award of fees and costs of just under $15,000, and a stay of all defendant’s discovery requests until the sanctions were met.
Bose BV v. Zavala, 09-11360-GAO (D. Mass. July 8, 2010)
Comments