ORLANDO — U.S. Magistrate Judge L. Patrick Hull ordered Dr. Phillips, Inc. to respond to discovery requests from defendant Rita Hinson, rejecting the company’s argument that the inquiries were irrelevant and designed solely to embarrass it.
Hinson, the widow of former CEO Jim Hinson, is the defendant in a trademark infringement and cybersquatting suit brought by Dr. Phillips, Inc. The company alleges Hinson’s use of domain names and a YouTube username infringes on its trademarks. Hinson has filed a counterclaim seeking the return of a domain name transferred to the company by an arbitrator, asserting she registered the domains in good faith to honor her late husband.
Hinson filed a motion to compel Dr. Phillips to respond to her first set of discovery requests, which sought information about the Jim Hinson Leadership Award, the company’s use of her husband’s name, actions by current CEO Kenneth Robinson, and the company’s grant awards.
Dr. Phillips opposed the motion, arguing the requests were irrelevant because intent is not an element of its trademark infringement claims and that the requests were designed solely to embarrass the company. The company also pointed to a pending motion to dismiss Hinson’s counterclaim, arguing that the allegations in the counterclaim did not make the discovery relevant.
Judge Hull rejected those arguments, noting that bad faith intent is a key element of cybersquatting claims under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act and that the discovery could lead to evidence relevant to consumer confusion.
“Discovery should ordinarily be allowed under the concept of relevancy unless it is clear that the information sought has no possible bearing on the subject matter of the action,” Hull wrote, citing precedent.
Hull also noted that Dr. Phillips had issued its own discovery requests to Hinson seeking information about Kenneth Robinson and the Jim Hinson Leadership Award, undermining the company’s claim that the topics were irrelevant.
“Despite the Court’s denial of Defendants’ motion to stay discovery, Defendants continue to assert objections to the document requests and interrogatories based on their pending motion to dismiss. These objections are without merit,” Hull wrote, quoting a prior case.
The magistrate judge overruled Dr. Phillips’ relevancy objections to Interrogatory 9, Requests for Production 1–17, 21, and 22, and Requests for Admission 1–3, 46–54, and 56–60.
Hull ordered Dr. Phillips to produce responsive documents and serve amended responses to the discovery requests within 14 days of the order.
The judge declined to impose sanctions on Dr. Phillips for failing to respond adequately, denying Hinson’s request for attorneys’ fees for filing the motion to compel.
Hinson’s counterclaim for declaratory judgment and transfer of the www.drphillipscharities.com domain remains pending before the presiding district judge, who has not yet ruled on Dr. Phillips’ motion to dismiss it.