<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:8.0pt;
margin-left:0in;
line-height:105%;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.annotate-ok, li.annotate-ok, div.annotate-ok
{mso-style-name:annotate-ok;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ligatures:none;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72" style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Diane,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>The general rule is that each party has an independent obligation to comply with the discovery rules. The fact that one party does not comply does not excuse non-compliance by the other.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>That said, if the proceeding is suspended, I take that literally: no discovery unless noticed prior to the filing of the motion to compel. So, I think it is appropriate not to supplement until the motion is decided and the schedule is reset.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Paul<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;line-height:normal'>Paul W. Reidl<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;line-height:normal'>Dickenson, Peatman & Fogarty<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;line-height:normal'>1455 1st St #301<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;line-height:normal'>Napa, CA 94559<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;line-height:normal'>707-261-7010 x 7210<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;line-height:normal'><a href="mailto:preidl@dpf-law.com">preidl@dpf-law.com</a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;line-height:normal'>@TMGuy<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;line-height:normal'><b>From:</b> E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com> <b>On Behalf Of </b>dbmelnick--- via E-trademarks<br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, February 8, 2024 4:14 PM<br><b>To:</b> e-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com<br><b>Cc:</b> dbmelnick@gmail.com<br><b>Subject:</b> [E-trademarks] TBMP Section 523.01<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:105%'>Good evening: I am wondering if anyone would like to opine (informally) about the language of TBMP 523.01 regarding motions to compel. The scenario is that both parties have served discovery. Opposer has responded, but Applicant has not.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:105%'>The pertinent portion of the section reads as follows: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=annotate-ok style='margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:#333333'>In accordance with <b><a href="https://tbmp.uspto.gov/RDMS/TFSR/current#/current/r-80607ff4-32db-4110-9ea3-b0566a6418da.html" target="_blank"><span style='color:#008CFF'>37 C.F.R. § 2.120(f)</span></a></b>, when a party files a motion to compel disclosures or discovery, the Board will issue an order suspending the proceeding with respect to all matters not germane to the motion, and no party should file any paper that is not germane to the discovery dispute, except as otherwise specified in the Board’s suspension order. However, <b>neither the filing of a motion to compel nor the Board’s resulting suspension order tolls the time for parties to make required disclosures or respond to any outstanding discovery requests which had been served prior to the filing of the motion to compel,</b> nor does it excuse a party’s appearance at any discovery deposition which had been duly noticed prior to the filing of the motion to compel. When the motion to compel is filed after discovery has closed, but before the day of the deadline for pretrial disclosures for the first testimony period, the time period for making pretrial disclosures will be suspended and dates will be reset after the motion to compel is decided. [ <a href="https://tbmp.uspto.gov/RDMS/TBMP/current#endnote-p-9d8d2fc7-f2b3-462e-8989-b0ce93590518" title="8. See 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(f)(2) ("><b><span style='color:#008CFF'>Note 8</span></b></a>.]<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal>Does Opposer have to continue to supplement its discovery responses pending the resolution of the Motion to Compel? At that point, it does feel like the discovery will be flowing in solely one direction. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Thanks in advance for any thoughts that you can provide.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Diane B. Melnick<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Practus LLP<o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>