Shang Hai Ai Mu Bo Zhi Neng Ke Ji You Xian Gong Si et al v. NOCO Company

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
Shang Hai Ai Mu Bo Zhi Neng Ke Ji You
Xian Gong Si, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
NOCO Company,
Defendant.
No. CV-25-02985-PHX-KML
ORDER
The court’s case management order outlines the procedures in the event the parties
are unable to resolve a discovery dispute. (Doc. 34 at 11.) Those procedures allow the
parties to file a notice, not a motion, outlining their positions. Contrary to those procedures,
the parties filed a motion regarding discovery disputes on October 12, 2026. The court
resolves the disputes but in the future the parties must comply with all aspects of the case
management order, including by filing a notice, not a motion, regarding discovery disputes.
The present dispute involves plaintiffs’ allegedly incomplete responses to defendant
NOCO Company’s discovery requests. NOCO asks the court to compel each plaintiff to
produce (1) certain remaining technical documents, including those maintained by
manufacturers of the accused products, (2) information about the manufacturers’ addresses,
contact information, supply agreements, invoices, or persons most knowledgeable, and (3)
information about the sales data, invoices, and forecasts of the accused products. (Doc. 50
at 3-4.)
Case 2:25-cv-02985-KML Document 54 Filed 10/15/26 Page 1 of 3

- 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
I. Technical Documents
NOCO seeks additional technical documents related to the accused products from
plaintiffs, which plaintiffs claim are in the possession of third-party manufacturers. NOCO
states “documents obtainable on request are within a party’s ‘control.’” (Doc. 50 at 2.) The
correct standard for control is whether a party has a “legal right to obtain documents upon
demand.” In re Citric Acid Litig., 191 F.3d 1090, 1107 (9th Cir. 1999) (simplified). A legal
right to obtain documents is evidenced by an ownership interest, binding contract, fiduciary
duty, or other legally-enforceable arrangement. See SiteLock LLC v. GoDaddy.com LLC,
No. CV-19-02746-PHX-DWL, 2023 WL 3344638, at *27 (D. Ariz. May 10, 2023). The
fact that a third party has produced documents to the party in the past does not establish
control absent some legal right. See In re Citric Acid, 191 F.3d at 1108.
As such, that plaintiffs previously obtained circuit schematics from manufacturers
does not establish that other documents maintained by the manufacturers are in plaintiffs’
control. (Doc. 50 at 2.) Plaintiffs maintain that they do not have any supplier agreements
with manufacturers related to the accused products. (Doc. 50 at 5.) Because NOCO has not
shown that the additional technical documents it seeks are within plaintiffs’ control, the
court cannot compel their production at this time. See United States v. Int’l Union of
Petroleum & Indus. Workers, AFL-CIO, 870 F.2d 1450, 1452 (9th Cir. 1989) (“The party
seeking production of the documents . . . bears the burden of proving that the opposing
party has such control.”). If NOCO can establish such control under the applicable standard
and plaintiffs continue to refuse production, the parties may file a joint notice with the
court.
II. Manufacturer Information
To comply with interrogatories 1 and 14 and RFPs 7, 9, and 17, plaintiffs shall
produce the names and contact information of each manufacturer or supplier of the accused
products by the October 16, 2026, deadline they propose. (Doc. 50 at 5.)
III. Financial Information
To comply with interrogatories 3-4 and RFPs 10 and 11, plaintiffs shall produce the
Case 2:25-cv-02985-KML Document 54 Filed 10/15/26 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
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
sales data for each of the accused products as promised. (Doc. 50 at 5.) Plaintiffs do not
identify a date by which they will produce this information. Plaintiffs must do so within
one week of this order.
IV. Initial Disclosures
NOCO argues plaintiffs have inappropriately amended their initial disclosures.
(Doc. 50 at 3.) This argument appears aimed at establishing plaintiffs have additional
documents to produce. Because NOCO does not seek any relief based on the initial
disclosures beyond that regarding technical documents, manufacturer information, and
financial information, there is no need for the court to address the initial disclosures issue.
IT IS ORDERED that the parties may file a joint notice with the court if defendant
can establish that the remaining technical documents are in fact under the plaintiffs’ control
using the applicable legal test.
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs shall provide the contact information for each
manufacturer or supplier of the accused products, including the manner and method by
which plaintiffs contact those entities, by October 16, 2026.
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs shall provide the sales data for each of the accused
products within seven days of this order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the parties’ joint motion for discovery dispute
resolution (Doc. 50) is DENIED AS MOOT.
Dated this 14th day of October, 2026.
Case 2:25-cv-02985-KML Document 54 Filed 10/15/26 Page 3 of 3