vs. Peerless Crimson provides audiovisual mounting solutions claims patent infringement by sycamore but there is also former manufacturer for (non-party) Peerless and Crimson are in Illinois, USA is in China No. 1:11–cv–1768. Jan. 8, 2013. The court had previously found that
(Tony Jin was identified
Peerless is asking for sanctions because Crimson is not producing documents from Sycamore
The court had already told defendants to contact individuals at Sycamore and play a role in obtaining the necessary discovery. The court finds that defendants did not do this and finds that defendants took a back seat approach and... let the process proceed through a vendor. (there was a process outlined) “I guess by the vendor” Defendants cannot place the burden of compliance on an outside vendor and have no knowledge, or claim no control, over the process.
Sanctions approved. Plaintiffs - submit your bill. Defendants - show that you searched for documents and verify what you cannot produce. It was important to this case that the court found Mr. Jin was a managing agent of Crimson and that he needs to appear for deposition in Northern District of Illinois, where Crimson's corporate headquarters is located. Note the court's five factor analysis of agency and