In this patent infringement case, the Southern District of Ohio ruled that “the power of a U.S. Court to require compliance with U.S. discovery obligations does not arise until and unless the Court has jurisdiction”.
Among other discovery issues, the Court addressed the question of the moment in which the duty to preserve evidences arises for foreign companies. Defendant is an Australian company with offices and facilities only in Australia. The company did not do any significant sale in the US, and it had no US presence.
Plaintiff accused defendant of failing to preserve and produce evidence. Plaintiff argued that defendant’s duty to preserve began after the license agreement had been signed. However, defendant disagreed, and claimed that the duty to preserve under US law arose only after it answered the complaint and consented to U.S. jurisdiction.
The Court held that defendant was not excused from the obligation to preserve evidence simply because it is a foreign company. However, it could not have been anticipated the U.S. to be a place of litigation. Accordingly, it found that the duty to preserve began only after defendant was served with the complaint.
February 15, 2015
Lunkenheimer Co. v. Tyco Flow Control Pacific Party Ltd., No. 1-11-cv-824, 2015 WL 631045 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 12, 2015) is available at http://www.ediscoverylaw…
Follow us on& Like us on