RB Distribution Incorporated, et al. v. Skyward Automotive Products LLC, et al.

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5

9 RB Distribution Incorporated, et al., No. CV-23-01068-PHX-KML

10 Plaintiffs, ORDER

11 v.

12 Skyward Automotive Products LLC, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 The parties ask the court to resolve two discovery disputes in this patent 16 infringement case between plaintiffs RB Distribution, Inc. (“RB”) and Dorman Products, 17 Inc. (“Dorman”) and defendants Skyward Automotive Products, LLC (“SKP”) and Ningbo 18 Skyward Industrial Co. Ltd. (“Ningbo”). (Docs. 124, 125.) The parties contest whether 19 Ningbo (Doc. 124 at 6) and SKP (Doc. 125 at 6) should be compelled to supplement their 20 responses to Dorman’s RFPs and interrogatories. 21 Dorman’s set of interrogatories to Ningbo requested information regarding 22 Ningbo’s involvement in the manufacturing, design, development, and conception of the 23 products which are accused of infringing on the plaintiffs’ patents. (Doc. 124 at 6.) Ningbo 24 produced three pages of documents and responses which did not include information about 25 Ningbo’s involvement in the relevant products. (Doc. 124 at 6.) Separate SKP responses 26 show Ningbo was directly involved in manufacturing the products and therefore possesses 27 and is withholding responsive information. (Doc. 124 at 7.) Additionally, Ningbo agreed 28 to produce documents responsive to RFP 6 but has not done so. (Doc. 124 at 7.) Dorman 1 alleges SKP’s responses to its RFPs and interrogatories are similarly incomplete; certain responses contradict each other and show SKP had more involvement and information than is reflected in SKP’s document production. (Doc. 125 at 6.) SKP also has apparent control over Ningbo and Ningbo’s responsive materials which are allegedly being withheld. (Doc. 125 at 6.) Additionally, some of SKP’s interrogatory responses do not fully address the 6 interrogatory’s question. (E.g., Doc. 125 at 7 (interrogatory requests that SKP describe conception, design, and development of the relevant products and SKP’s response states 8 only that SKP employees “participated” in the conception, design, and development of certain products).) 10 Ningbo and SKP did not submit arguments on the merits in either joint discovery 11 dispute summary. (Docs. 124 at 8, 125 at 8.) They also appear to have ignored Dorman’s letter outlining these deficiencies.! (Doc. 125 at 7.) Defendants have therefore presented 13 no reason to rule in their favor. Based on Dorman’s summary, Dorman’s requests appear reasonable and the defendants’ responses appear incomplete. Ningbo and SKP must 15 supplement their responses within 21 days of this order. 16 IT IS ORDERED no later than 21 days after the date of this order, Ningbo and 17 Skyward shall supplement their responses according to Dorman’s requested relief. 18 Dated this 9th day of March, 2026. 19

Honorable Krissa M. Lanham 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 1 Defendants appear to believe the pending motion to stay should excuse their failure to 28 Stay does not impact the obligation to proceed: oniy an order granting such relief imposes a stay.” PlayUp, Inc. v. Mintas, 635 F. Supp. 3d 1087, 1094 (D. Nev. 2022). -2-