522 Motion for Order re Manner or Place of Document Production
37 C.F.R. § 2.120(e) ... The time, place, and manner for production of documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things shall comport with the provisions of Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or be made pursuant to agreement of the parties, or where and in the manner which the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, upon motion, orders.
In an inter partes proceeding before the Board, the place where documents and things are to be produced is governed by 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(e). The responding party is obligated to make the documents and materials responsive to the requests available for inspection where the documents and materials are kept in the ordinary course of business. [ Note 1.] In Board proceedings, the responding party generally extends the courtesy of copying and sending the documents to the requesting party at the requesting party’s expense. [ Note 2.] For a discussion of the elements of a request for production and place of production see TBMP § 406.03. [ Note 3.]
Accordingly, upon motion, the Board, in its discretion, may make any appropriate order concerning the place and/or manner of production of documents and things. [ Note 4.]
NOTES:
1. No Fear Inc. v. Rule, 54 USPQ2d 1551, 1555 (TTAB 2000).
2. No Fear Inc. v. Rule, 54 USPQ2d 1551, 1555 (TTAB 2000).
3. See also M.C.I. Foods Inc. v. Bunte, 86 USPQ2d 1044, 1047 (TTAB 2008) (citing No Fear v. Rule, 54 USPQ2d 1551, 1554 (TTAB 2000)) (improper to object regarding place of production when ordered to provide responses without objection); Unicut Corp. v. Unicut, Inc., 220 USPQ 1013, 1014-15 (TTAB 1983) (while normal practice is for party to produce documents at the place where they are kept, Board ordered respondent to make copies and mail to petitioner’s attorney at petitioner’s expense or hand-deliver the documents to petitioner’s attorney); Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Great Plains Bag Co., 190 USPQ 193, 195 (TTAB 1976) (documents to be produced as part of a discovery deposition would be produced where they are located).
4. See Unicut Corp. v. Unicut, Inc., 220 USPQ 1013, 1014-15 (TTAB 1983). See also No Fear Inc. v. Rule, 54 USPQ2d 1551, 1556 (TTAB 2000) (applicant ordered to copy responsive documents and forward them to opposer at applicant’s expense as discovery sanction); Jain v. Ramparts Inc., 49 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (TTAB 1998).