Fantasia Distrib., Inc. v. Rand Wholesale, Inc., No. 14 C 1546, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Dec. 2, 2014) (Chang, J.).

Judge Chang ruled upon the following discovery disputes in this case regarding alleged counterfeit sales of ehookah products:

  • Defendant Rand was to conduct a “reasonable” search for exchanges of returned products having plaintiff Fantasia’s Fantasia label and provide a sworn affidavit how the relevant records are generated and maintained, stating that the records were searched and describing the search, and supplying any results of the search.
  • Rand had sufficiently produced sales summaries and underlying documents, although the parties were to work together if any unreadable PDFs were identified.
  • Fantasia’s interrogatory was overbroad.  Fantasia could not ask for “basically every record of any kind that Defendant has on any e-hookah” based upon suspicions generated from a separate case that did not involve Rand.