The trial is likely to begin in May, two months later than originally expected because of a flurry of research and legal activity over the last few months.
The judge presiding over the case, Hon. Randolph Randa, made an extraordinary complaint about the wranglings of both sides of the case in a ruling in November.
“In an ideal world, issues are briefed thoroughly and accurately so as to illuminate those factors that courts must consider, both factual and legal. The briefing for the motions before the court – both the motion to compel and the requested protective order – has been lacking. Legal arguments have been thin or non-existent; factual arguments have been questionable,” he said.
The case centres on the aftermarket business for spare parts. Morris Material Handling alleges that KCI Konecranes has been passing off sub-standard spare parts as genuine P&H products. In turn, KCI Konecranes denies this, and also claims that Morris has wrongfully kept a $250,000 it paid Morris during the early stages of an acquisition deal that fell through. Konecranes also argued that Morris lured away Konecranes staff at a time when the acquisition deal prohibited Konecranes from luring away Morris staff, which it says was unfair.
According to a court document, settlement talks fell through in July.
In October, Morris applied to force Stig Gustavson, then CEO of KCI Konecranes, and Teuvo Rintamäki, KCI Konecranes chief financial officer, to formally answer questions. Morris claimed that “these KCI executives were also involved in developing and implementing Defendants’ strategy of competing with Plaintiffs by reverse-engineering parts,” it said in a brief. Konecranes replied that it was unnecessary and harassing to depose them. (The judge later denied Morris’s request).
Also in October, Konecranes Inc claimed that Morris supplied aftermarket parts, including under its AllParts label. “If so, Plaintiffs’ allegations that Konecranes is somehow in the wrong on this point are seriously undermined,” it said in a brief. It filed a motion to force Morris to submit any complaints that its customers have made to it about these products, and other documents about its procurement of these kinds of parts. It also argued that some documents to and from one of the Morris lawyers in this case should be admitted as evidence.
Morris Material Handling replied that the documents were irrelevant because Morris was not on trial, and that many of the documents were not held centrally and would be difficult to assemble. In the second case, it claimed lawyer-client privilege but eventually submitted the documents to the court for appraisal.
In two rulings in November and December, Judge Randa blocked access to some of these documents, and granted access to others. Although these documents have since been submitted to the court, they have been sealed to protect trade secrets. As a result they are not available to Hoist magazine.
In November, Judge Randa also denied a motion from MMH Holdings, the 100% owner of Morris Material Handling Group, to dismiss the Konecranes counterclaim against it, or to move these parts of the case to a court in New York.
As Hoist went to press, there appeared to be two motions upon which the court had not ruled.
First, in October, Morris filed a motion to dismiss Konecranes’ counterclaims based on recent depositions and on the outcome of a recent Texas lawsuit between Konecranes and a Morris employee. Konecranes’ reply was sealed and not available to Hoist.
Second, in December, Konecranes apparently also moved for the judge to make a judgement before the case goes to court. Konecranes alludes to the motion in a later document that was not sealed under the court confidentiality agreement. “In their original motion, the defendants challenged Morris to present evidence of actual confusion among independent customers. Despite a response and now an attempted surreply [an additional filed brief], Morris continues to miss the point – and continues to lack evidence showing actual confusion,” Konecranes said in a brief filed in late December.
It would appear that the court has sealed Konecranes’ motion for summary judgement, Morris’s reply and its surreply. None of these documents are available to Hoist.
