Professional Documents
Culture Documents
On March 23, 2010, Plaintiff The Flag Company, Inc. ( Plaintiff ) served
Chan failed to serve timely responses. In addition to being late, Defendant Chan s
every document request (and each and every interrogatory and request for
objections:
2809466v1
Chan objects on the following grounds: compound, ambiguous,
oppressive and burdensome, relevance, privacy, trade secret,
attorney/client communication, attorney work product, work product.
Plaintiff informed Defendant Chan that his objections had been waived and
requested full and complete responses to its document requests, without objection.
Defendant Chan then served a second set of responses, again asserting identical
For the reasons set forth in this Motion and in Plaintiff s accompanying
Memorandum of Law, Plaintiff requests that the Court grant its Motion and award
I hereby certify that I have at conferred about the issues involved in the
foregoing Motion with Defendant Chan in a good faith effort to resolve them, but
Respectfully submitted,
2809466v1
-2-
Suite 2100
171 17th Street, N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30363
(404) 873-8624
(404) 873-8625 (facsimile)
2809466v1
-3-
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that I have this day electronically filed the foregoing
system, and further certify that I have this day served Defendants with same by
placing a copy in the United States mail, first class, addressed to:
2809466v1
-4-
Steven A. Chan
720A Center Street
Costa Mesa, California 92627
2809466v1
-5-
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED IN CL. E R K ~ O F F I CE
l~ .S.D.C . - A~~ to
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
2
JUN a 7 z~ 1 a
3 A
12 resident,
13 Defendant
14
20
MEMORANDOM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
21
I . Introduction
22
Plaintiff Flag Company's Motion is fatally flawed procedurally and
23
substantively meritless . Like the rest of this litigation, it is abusive and
overreaching : It is the product of the haughtiness of the Flag Company exploiting
24
26
cannot afford. Flag Company is using its economic advantage in this court like a
2
bully would push around a weaker child in a schoolyard . If this court values
3
~ j ustice, it should allow this defendant , Mr. Chan , a li ttle room for procedural error .
4
The Flag Company claims to have valid and enforceable intellectual property
5
rights to the phrase "farming flag ." It claims to have invented the term , just like Al
6
Gore invented the Internet. They have brought this act i on alleging that its
compet itor, Mr. Chan and his company, which is now a d i ssolved entity, violated
s
its property r i ghts.
9
Farming is a term used in the real estate industry . It refers to prospecting in
(usually a geographic) area for buyers and sellers of residential real estate . Real
estate professionals are trained in "Farming" techniques and methods using a wide
12
~ array of `farming tools' . It is a `famous' word in the consuming public, is a generic
13
~ term, and has been pre sent in real-estate dict ionaries for at lea st 10 years prior to
14
the Plaintiff' s registration of the term ` farming flag ' . "Farming" with the American
15
flag is a famous activ ity within the consuming public . It is well-documented
16
activity done nationw i de since the early 1980 ' s by the US residential brokerage
17
industry . It is a generic term . Plaintiff's proprietary right claim is as spurious as Al
18
Gore's claim that he invented the Internet . The license issued to plaintiff in
19
recognition of that claim is based on plaintiff's fraud and is a nullity . Plaintiff's
20
action is not an effort to enforce a proper property right, but an abusive effort to
21
use the processes of the court to close down its competitor, wh ich in large part it
22
I already has succeeded .
23
Discovery was opened on this matter on December 28, 2009 . By order of this
24
25
26
Sitting on its dilatory hands until almost the last speck of sand dropped
3
through the hourglass, plaintiff served Mr . Chan on March 23, 2010 discovery that
4
26
April 29, 2010 letter is a meet & confer letter regard ing the all-objections
5
discovery responses served on April 27, 20 10. However, on May 4, 2010, Mr.
6
pages of documents in PDF and other digital form were sent to Plaintiff, which is
9
26
some of the written responses incomplete . Regarding many items, he intended the
3
25
26
response .
2
The court should also deny plaintiffs Motion because it is not in proper
3
the party met and conferred in good faith in an attempt to resolve the discovery
B
dispute. As the statute provides in pertinent part :
26
Local Rule 37 .113 sets forth the time limits to file a discovery motion . They
If plaintiff argues that the April 29th letter constitutes the required meet and
', confer, then its motion is too late. The April 29th letter, if admissible, relates to the
response served on April 27th .
12
The objections at issue are those set forth in the April 27th responses . If its
13
meet and confer letter is adequate, then the dispute at issue relates to the objections
14
' at issue . But, plaintiff did not file its discovery motion within 14 days of that
15
response . It filed it on May 18th, which is untimely.
16
17
~ IV. Plaintiff's Motion Is Not In Proper Form
18
LR37 . lA dictates the form required for a discovery motion . It requires the
19
moving party : 1) To quote, verbatim, the request for inspection at issue ; 2) State
20
the objection; 3) State the grounds assigned for the objection, and 4) Cite and
21
discuss authority in support of your motion . The Rule specifically provides that :
22 ~
"The motion shall be arranged so that the objection, grounds,
23
authority, and supporting reasons follow the verbatim statement
24
25
26
26
25
26
26
10
"CD" Attached
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
EVIDENCE O BJECTIONS
: Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that I have this day manually filed by placing into a package, sent
by United States Postal Service, the foregoing OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO
COMPEL REPSONSES ; DECLARATION OF STEVEN A. CHAN ;
EVIDENCE OBJECTIONS with the Clerk of Court . The Clerk of Court will use
the CM/ECF system to automatically send e-mail notification of such filing to the
following attorneys of record:
J. Tucker Barr
Arnold Golden Gregory LLP
171 17th Street, N .W., Suite 2100
Atlanta, GA 30363-1031
Tel : (404) 873-8500
Fax : (404) 873-8501
Email: Tucker.barr@agg .com
Page I of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DJSTRICT COURT
1 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
2
15 EVIDENCE OBJECTIONS
16 Defendant Steve Chan obj ects to Exhibits A, B, and C plaint iffs discovery
17 notion . He obj ects to these documents on the grounds that they are hearsay and
18 inadm issible. There is no foundation testimony in support, .. of any of the documents .
19 Mr, Chan moves the court to str ike those exhibits .
20 Dated the 6th of June, 2010
.w
21 --~~- _.~
22
Steven A Chan
23
American Flag Manufacturer
720 Center Street
24
4
25
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
26 r
EVIDENCE OBJECTIONS
Page I of
1 '
2
Further, a copy has been placed in the US Mail, and sent to :
J . Tucker Barr
Arnold Golden Gregory LLP
171 17t" Street, N .W., Suite Z 1. 00
5
Atlanta., GA 30363-10-31
6 Tel : (404) 873-8500
Fax: (404) 873- 8501.
Email : ri`ucker .barr@agg .com
8
10
/
11
Steven A Char
12
American Flag Manufacturer
13
720 Center Street
14
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
15
949-650-669
16
.2 V 1 aVT ~~ 1~"111 j .C q1'il
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
P age 2 of 3
1 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
2 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7 .1D, this is to certify that the foregoing
Opposition to Motion to Compel Responses ; Declaration of Steven A. Chan ;
Evidence Objections complies with the font and point selections approved by the
10 Steven A Chan
11 Amer ican F lag Manufacturer
14 949-650-6698
15
?via r Cq2.grn ai L corn
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Page 3 of 3
Dated the 6'" of June, 201 0
1 ff
4
Steven A Chan
5
American Flag Manufacturer
720 Center Street
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
949- 6 50-6 6 9 8
8
lfl
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26