RB Distribution Incorporated et al v. Skyward Automotive Products LLC et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
RB Distribution Incorporated, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Skyward Automotive Products LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-23-01068-PHX-KML
ORDER
The parties ask the court to resolve two discovery disputes in this patent
infringement case between plaintiffs RB Distribution, Inc. (“RB”) and Dorman Products,
Inc. (“Dorman”) and defendants Skyward Automotive Products, LLC (“SKP”) and Ningbo
Skyward Industrial Co. Ltd. (“Ningbo”). (Docs. 124, 125.) The parties contest whether
Ningbo (Doc. 124 at 6) and SKP (Doc. 125 at 6) should be compelled to supplement their
responses to Dorman’s RFPs and interrogatories.
Dorman’s set of interrogatories to Ningbo requested information regarding
Ningbo’s involvement in the manufacturing, design, development, and conception of the
products which are accused of infringing on the plaintiffs’ patents. (Doc. 124 at 6.) Ningbo
produced three pages of documents and responses which did not include information about
Ningbo’s involvement in the relevant products. (Doc. 124 at 6.) Separate SKP responses
show Ningbo was directly involved in manufacturing the products and therefore possesses
and is withholding responsive information. (Doc. 124 at 7.) Additionally, Ningbo agreed
to produce documents responsive to RFP 6 but has not done so. (Doc. 124 at 7.) Dorman
Case 2:23-cv-01068-KML Document 126 Filed 03/09/26 Page 1 of 2

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
alleges SKP’s responses to its RFPs and interrogatories are similarly incomplete; certain
responses contradict each other and show SKP had more involvement and information than
is reflected in SKP’s document production. (Doc. 125 at 6.) SKP also has apparent control
over Ningbo and Ningbo’s responsive materials which are allegedly being withheld. (Doc.
125 at 6.) Additionally, some of SKP’s interrogatory responses do not fully address the
interrogatory’s question. (E.g., Doc. 125 at 7 (interrogatory requests that SKP describe
conception, design, and development of the relevant products and SKP’s response states
only that SKP employees “participated” in the conception, design, and development of
certain products).)
Ningbo and SKP did not submit arguments on the merits in either joint discovery
dispute summary. (Docs. 124 at 8, 125 at 8.) They also appear to have ignored Dorman’s
letter outlining these deficiencies.1 (Doc. 125 at 7.) Defendants have therefore presented
no reason to rule in their favor. Based on Dorman’s summary, Dorman’s requests appear
reasonable and the defendants’ responses appear incomplete. Ningbo and SKP must
supplement their responses within 21 days of this order.
IT IS ORDERED no later than 21 days after the date of this order, Ningbo and
Skyward shall supplement their responses according to Dorman’s requested relief.
Dated this 9th day of March, 2026.
1 Defendants appear to believe the pending motion to stay should excuse their failure to
participate in discovery. That is incorrect. “It is . . . axiomatic that the filing of a motion to
stay does not impact the obligation to proceed; only an order granting such relief imposes
a stay.” PlayUp, Inc. v. Mintas, 635 F. Supp. 3d 1087, 1094 (D. Nev. 2022).
Case 2:23-cv-01068-KML Document 126 Filed 03/09/26 Page 2 of 2