December 4, 2024
Mlazgar and Current Legal Tussle Escalates Over Discovery
Legal battle intensifies over document disputes, former employee devices and spoliation claims
The longstanding dispute between Mlazgar Associates, a Minnesota-based lighting agency, and Current and Progress Lighting continues to escalate. Mlazgar, which represents lighting manufacturers across the Upper Midwest, filed a lawsuit against Current in December 2022, alleging breach of contract, unpaid commissions and misuse of proprietary information. Current, a leading provider of lighting and controls solutions, countersued, accusing Mlazgar of violating its agreement by representing a competing manufacturer. Progress Lighting, a residential lighting brand and former sister brand to Current when both were owned by Hubbell, is also implicated.
The conflict dates back to Mlazgar's decision in 2020 to sever ties with Current (then Hubbell Lighting) and align with Cooper Lighting Solutions. Mlazgar took on Cooper’s product lines for the same geographic territory it previously covered for Current, a move that sparked tensions between the two parties. Current accused Mlazgar of breaching a contract clause requiring prior approval before representing competitors. Mlazgar, in turn, claimed that Current failed to properly terminate their agreement, leading to claims of unpaid commissions and damages.
These allegations remain at the heart of a protracted legal battle, with both sides locked in contentious discovery disputes that threaten to delay resolution. The most recent litigation grievances, disclosed in court filings on December 2, 2024, include:
Document Production
The parties dispute whether the defendants have complied with the court’s orders to supplement interrogatories and document production.
- Mlazgar's Stance: Current has failed to supplement responses to specific interrogatories and document requests as mandated by the court’s August 2024 order. Mlazgar contends this warrants sanctions under Rule 37(b) for non-compliance.
- Current’s Stance: Current claims it has fully responded to all interrogatories and produced all relevant documents. The company argues that Mlazgar’s accusations of deficiencies are untimely under local rules.
Discovery Deficiencies
Mlazgar argues that even where defendants have supplemented responses, those responses remain insufficient.
- Mlazgar's Stance: Defendants’ supplemental responses to specific interrogatories and document requests are incomplete and do not satisfy court directives. This includes claims about inadequacies in responses to interrogatories on key issues.
- Current’s Stance: Current contends that its supplemental responses provide additional information as required and maintains they are sufficient for discovery purposes.
Document Retention and Spoliation
Mlazgar accuses defendants of failing to preserve documents stored on company-issued devices and alleges spoliation of evidence.
- Mlazgar's Stance: Current failed to retain company-issued devices of key former employees, including former Acting Group President of Hubbell Lighting, Jim Farrell, and did not conduct searches of devices for other employees. Mlazgar argues this constitutes spoliation of evidence.
- Current’s Stance: Current states that these devices were controlled by its former parent company, Hubbell, prior to Current’s acquisition by Current, and therefore, it cannot be held responsible for their retention.
Litigation Hold
Questions have arisen regarding when litigation hold notices were issued to preserve relevant documents.
- Mlazgar's Stance: Current has failed to confirm whether or when it implemented a litigation hold, raising concerns about potential deletion of responsive documents.
- Current’s Stance: Current asserts it issued a litigation hold notice in January 2023, shortly after the lawsuit was filed, and disputes any improper deletion.
Progress Lighting’s Document Production
Progress Lighting’s document production has been a key point of contention, with disagreements over the volume and adequacy of disclosure.
- Mlazgar's Stance: Progress’s production of only 532 pages is grossly insufficient. The plaintiff is concerned that Progress may have deleted or failed to produce critical documents under Hubbell's document retention policies.
- Progress’s Stance: Progress states it has identified additional responsive materials and is working to supplement its production by December 13, 2024. Progress denies any spoliation and claims earlier misstatements about document deletion were corrected.
Progress Lighting is no longer affiliated with Hubbell as it was acquired by Los Angeles-based private equity firm Kingswood Capital Management earlier this year.
Subpoena to Hubbell Incorporated
Defendants and Mlazgar have issued subpoenas to Hubbell Incorporated for access to documents potentially under Hubbell’s control.
- Mlazgar's Stance: Mlazgar anticipates that Hubbell will object to the subpoena, requiring court intervention to compel compliance.
- Progress’s Stance: Progress has already encountered objections from Hubbell to its subpoena and claims it is working with its IT department to locate responsive documents independently.
Deposition Scheduling and Scope
The parties are at odds over the scheduling and number of depositions allowed under Rule 30.
- Mlazgar's Stance: Mlazgar seeks to expand the deposition limit to 15 per side, citing the complexity of the case. It also demands complete document production before proceeding with additional depositions.
- Defendants’ Stance: Current and Progress oppose expanding depositions, arguing that the standard 10-per-side limit is sufficient. They assert that Mlazgar’s insistence on more depositions will delay the case.
Attorney’s Fees
The court previously awarded attorney’s fees to Mlazgar in connection with its motion to compel discovery, but these remain unpaid.
- Mlazgar's Stance: Current has failed to pay court-ordered attorney’s fees, which Mlazgar claims is a further breach of obligations.
- Current’s Stance: Current has stated that it is prepared to remit the fees as soon as Mlazgar specifies the payment account.
Expert Witness Deadlines
The parties dispute whether discovery deadlines, including the December 26 expert witness disclosure date, should be extended.
- Mlazgar's Stance: Given the delays in discovery, Mlazgar has requested a three-month extension of expert disclosure and discovery deadlines.
- Defendants’ Stance: Current and Progress strongly oppose any extensions, arguing that the case has already experienced significant delays.
The ongoing litigation among Mlazgar Associates, Current, and Progress Lighting remains a complex and unresolved matter, with both sides entrenched in disputes over discovery and compliance. As key deadlines approach in early 2025, the case continues to unfold, reflecting the challenges of addressing contractual disagreements and business conflicts among lighting manufacturers and their representatives.
