Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
In re Alpha Industries, Inc.
Citations: 159 F.R.D. 456; 31 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1125; 1995 WL 13115; 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 576Docket: No. M 8-85
Court: District Court, S.D. New York; January 18, 1995; Federal District Court
A petition to perpetuate testimony under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 27 has been granted by Senior District Judge Whitman Knapp. Alpha Industries, Inc. (petitioner), a manufacturer of military-style clothing, claims that Mika Overseas Corporation (respondent) is exporting Alpha jackets to Japan, in violation of agreements with Alpha’s U.S. distributors, who are prohibited from distributing goods to Japan. Petitioner suggests that this export may involve either a breach of contract by its distributors or the sale of counterfeit goods by respondent. Respondent admits to exporting jackets but contends they are genuine products purchased from a distributor of Alpha, whose identity remains undisclosed. The petitioner seeks to question respondent to determine the source of the alleged wrongdoing. The court finds that Rule 27 is applicable as the petitioner expects to bring a lawsuit for copyright or trademark infringement under the Lanham Act but is currently unable to do so. The inability arises from the requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, which prevents the petitioner from suing all distributors without knowing which one is at fault or from suing for counterfeit goods without clear evidence of such. Petitioner asserts ongoing economic harm due to the exports and argues that respondent may possess information that could mitigate this harm. The court acknowledges that the perpetuation of testimony is necessary to prevent a failure or delay of justice, as delaying the action could lead to the loss of critical evidence. Respondent's position that Rule 27 is not a discovery method to determine the existence of a cause of action does not hold, as the petitioner’s inability to bring suit and the potential for loss of evidence justify the use of Rule 27. The court concluded that the need for testimony is sufficient to warrant the petition, and it also noted that the court could have diversity jurisdiction due to the differing states of incorporation of the parties involved.