United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER RE: DISCOVERY IN CONNECTION WITH ADT’S
APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DKT.
NOS. 377, 391
YVONNE
GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
Plaintiff
ADT Security Services, Inc. (“ADT”) filed a
Motion for Order to Show Cause regarding alleged contempt by
Defendant Security One International Inc. (“Security
One”). (Dkt. No. 377.) The Court heard argument on June
7, 2016.[1] Subsequent to the hearing, the parties
submitted requests for additional discovery in connection
with the motion. (Dkt. No. 399, 401.)
The
permanent injunction in this matter provides, in part, that
Security One is prohibited from “[m]aking any false
representation to any ADT customer while soliciting the
customer’s business, including without limitation, as
it relates to their relationship and/or affiliation with the
manufacturer of the customer’s alarm equipment
(i.e. General Electric or Honeywell).” The
question central to determining whether Security One acted in
contempt of this provision of the permanent injunction is:
did Security One falsely represent that it was “an
authorized GE Security Dealer” as of the time of the
calls at issue?
The
parties are in agreement that a deposition from the person
most knowledgeable about the relationship between Security
One and UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation
(“UTC”), the company that acquired GE Security in
March of 2010, [2] is necessary to answer the central
question here. The Court agrees that this discovery is
appropriate and Orders that the parties may
conduct a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of a representative of UTC
on the subjects of the relationship between UTC and Security
One; any authorization by UTC permitting Security One to
represent itself as an authorized GE Security dealer; and any
efforts undertaken by Security One to clarify that
relationship and authorization from October 2013 to present.
In
addition, however, ADT seeks discovery ranging beyond these
limitations. First ADT asks that the Court permit discovery
related to UTC, including:
• all communications between UTC and Security One from
September 2013 to present;
• all records of UTC concerning that relationship; and
• records concerning UTC s decision to terminate all
dealers’ rights to claim GE dealer status.
Reaching
beyond this, ADT seeks discovery from Security One
encompassing:
• all recordings of telemarketing calls placed from
October 2013 to the present;
• all call scripts defendants provided the telemarketers
from October 2013 to the present; and
• all customer call lists defendants gave the
telemarketers from October 2013 to the present.
And
with respect to ADT’s anticipated damages, ADT also
seeks production of
• defendants’ list of customers who signed
contracts with Security One from October 2013 to ...