ADT Security Services, Inc. v. Security One International, Inc.

          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 ...