Free Affidavit - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

I rrrr ~- -— s._.#~... ....Y..._..T,._,. _ ,. _ _I___
I Case 3:03-cv-00958-MRK Document 28 Filed 01/08/2004 Page 1 of 3 I
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT yi?/i, f___ I
Iz, . if Iii I
W-III: é} } I
—-----------------—---------——------—--------—-------- x 1.4 __aE // éir? {II; I
CONAIR CORPORATION : I:·_- _ UI} I
Plaintiff, I I It- I
: Case No.: 303CV0958 (MRK) I
v. :
EURASIA CONCEPTS, INC. dlbla
BIO IONIC, INC. :
Defendant. I
------------·-------------------—--------------------- x I
DECLARATION OF DONALD S. GRIER, ESQ. I
, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) I
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.: I
I, Donald S. Grier, state as follows:
1. I am over eighteen years of age and believe in the obligation of an cinath.
2. I am the principal of the Law Office of Donald S. Grier and am admitted to
the Bar of the State of California. I act, essentially, as general corporate counsel
for the Defendant Bio Ionic Inc.
3. I submit this declaration in support of the Defendant's Memorandum in
Opposition to PIaintiff’s Motion for An Order Compelling Discovery and in support I
of Defendant’s Motion for Fees and Costs. I
4. After Plaintiff filed the Motion to Compel, I contacted in-house counsel for I
Plaintiff, Mr. Larry Cruz, by telephone on or about December 18, 2003. I called
l
Mr. Cruz because I was surprised by the filing ofthe Motion and to discu$s what I
exactly it was that Plaintiff was seeking by the motion. I made it clear on prior
- I

I-
A Case 3:03-cv-00958-MRK Document 28 Filed O1/O8/2004 Page 2 of 3
I - I I
I occasions to il/lr. Cruz and to l\/lr. Handal, counsel for Plaintiff, that the Defendant
I does not manufacture the product accused of infringement (hereinafter
"Products"), that Defendant has limited information in this regard and that the I
Plaintiff essentially sued the wrong party in this case. I
5. ln the call with l\/Ir. Cruz, we discussed the demand for sales information
and we addressed the specific information or items that the Plaintiff was
requesting which fell into three major categories consisting of:
a. Purchase orders for the bulk purchase of the Products to determine the
amount of Product sold;
io. Invoices to retail accounts; and
c. Formulation and ingredients for the Products. I
6. I advised lVlr. Cruz that I would seek to obtain whatever information was I
available in this regard, but again stressed the fact that the Defendant is merely a I
distributor of the Products and thus does not maintain nor is it in the position to
force the manufacturer to provide some of the information requested such as the
formulations for the Products. I also advised i\/lr. Cruz that invoices tio retail
accounts purchasing the Products may represent tens of thousands of
documents. In fact, the Defendant does not even have custody or contiiol over I I
these invoices as it sells the Products to sub-distributors which in turn slslls the Z
Products to hundreds, if not thousands of individual retail accounts.
6. I immediately contacted the Defendant and requested copies of the purchase
orders for the purchase of the bulk Products (i.e. the equivalent 55 gallon drums I
of the Products) and requested the Defendant to compile the sales information of I
I
2
I

I‘ I
I Case 3:03-cv-00958-MRK Document 28 Filed 01/08/2004 Page 3 of 3
I » " I
the Products to breakdown the specific number of units sold as requested by
Plaintiff. This information was immediately compiled and thereaftemsent to I
counsel for Defendant.
I hereby declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct.
I I
Dated: January 5, 2004 " ` `”"'““"
Dojald S Grier I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

I
3 I
a I