NW Controls, Inc. v. Outboard Marine Corporation, Civ. A. No. 3730.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Delaware)
Writing for the CourtLATCHUM
Citation349 F. Supp. 1254
PartiesN. W. CONTROLS, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation, Plaintiff, v. OUTBOARD MARINE CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Defendant.
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 3730.
Decision Date18 October 1972

349 F. Supp. 1254

N. W. CONTROLS, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation, Plaintiff,
v.
OUTBOARD MARINE CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 3730.

United States District Court, D. Delaware.

October 18, 1972.


349 F. Supp. 1255

Arthur G. Connolly, Jr., of Connolly, Bove & Lodge, Wilmington, Del., and John T. Synnestvedt and J. Donald McCarthy, of Synnestvedt & Lechner, Philadelphia, Pa., of counsel, for plaintiff.

James M. Tunnell, Jr. and William O. LaMotte, III, of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell, Wilmington, Del., and Max H. Fruhauf, of Butzel, Levin, Winston & Quint, Detroit, Mich., of counsel, for defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

LATCHUM, District Judge.

This case is presently before the Court on the motion of the defendant, Outboard Marine Corporation ("O.M.C.") to strike interrogatories propounded to it by the plaintiff, N. W. Controls, Inc. ("N.W."). In this action, originally brought pursuant to the antitrust provisions of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., and the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 12 et seq., the Court held that O.M.C. had committed an antitrust violation under Section 3 of the Clayton Act, 15 U. S.C. § 14, by tying its sales of remote control throttle cables with sales of its electric shift outboard and stern drive engines.1 Final judgment was entered on November 9, 1971 in which the Court awarded damages for past injuries to N.W.2 enjoined O.M.C. in the future from tying in any manner the sales of remote control cables to sales of O.M.C.'s outboard or stern drive engines and directed O.M.C. to treat the sales of such remote control cables and marine engines as sales of separate and independent products. Also during the course of the proceeding the parties stipulated to a secrecy order governing pre-trial discovery of confidential information.3

N.W. now asserts that O.M.C. has violated the injunction by misrepresentations made in correspondence with its dealers, causing a market place detriment to N.W., and has violated the secrecy order by making improper disclosures of confidential information on two occasions.

1. The Injunction.

As previously noted, the Court enjoined O.M.C. from tying in any manner the sale of remote control cables to sales

349 F. Supp. 1256
of outboard or stern drive engines, and directed it to treat in all respects the sales of the cables and the marine engines as sales of separate and independent products. N.W. alleges that, despite the injunction, O.M.C. has made statements in written correspondence with one of its dealers which imply that the remote control cable had been a free accessory with the purchase of an engine which must now be paid for and that the present cost increase was a result of N. W.'s successful suit. N.W. has served interrogatories on O.M.C. to determine whether similar misrepresentations have been made to other dealers allegedly in violation of the injunction. O.M.C. has moved to strike the interrogatories on the ground that no action is now pending since a final judgment was entered almost a year ago. N.W. claims that the Court has continuing jurisdiction to discipline parties who violate its orders

Unquestionably under its ancillary jurisdiction a court has power to enforce obedience to its orders. Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 370, 86 S.Ct. 1531, 16 L.Ed.2d 622 (1965); and in order to determine whether its order is being obeyed, a court has the right to inquire whether there has been any disobedience thereof. In re Debs, 158 U.S. 564, 595, 15 S.Ct. 900, 39 L.Ed. 1092 (1895); In re Williams, 306 F. Supp. 617 (D.D.C.1969). However, before a court initiates a contempt proceeding or permits extensive discovery of suspected violations of its judgment, there should be at least a prima facie showing by the aggrieved party of disobedience of the order. MacNeil v. United States, 236 F.2d 149, 152 (C.A. 1, 1956), cert. den. 352 U.S. 912, 77 S.Ct. 150, 1 L.Ed.2d 119 (1956); National Labor Relations Board v. Arcade-Sunshine Co., Inc., 74 App.D.C. 361, 122 F. 2d 964, 965 (1941). Thus before the Court will permit...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • Florida Medical Ass'n v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ETC., No. 78-178-Civ-J-S.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Florida
    • July 11, 1978
    ...F.2d 789, 793 (1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 869, 95 S.Ct. 128, 42 L.Ed.2d 108 (1974); N. W. Controls, Inc. v. Outboard Marine Corp., 349 F.Supp. 1254, 1257 (D.Del.1972); Dillon 454 F. Supp. 331 v. Berg, 347 F.Supp. 517, 519 (D.Del.1972); Wilgus v. Peterson, 335 F.Supp. 1385, 1389 (D.Del.19......
  • Cardell Fin. Corp. v. Suchodolskt Assocs., Inc., 09 Civ. 6148 (VM)(MHD)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • July 17, 2012
    ...Adept, Inc. v. Murex Sees. Ltd., 2007 WL 2826247, *2 (M.D.Fla. Sept. 25, 2007) (same); N.W. Controls, Inc. v. Outboard Marine Corp., 349 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (D.Del. 1972) (requiring "prima facie case raising a likelihood that the . . . injunction is being violated" before permitting discove......
  • Kifafi v. Hilton Hotels Ret. Plan, Civil Action No. 98–1517 CKK
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • February 4, 2015
    ...No. 6:02–cv–1354–ORL–19DAB, 2007 WL 2826247, at *2 (M.D.Fla. Sept. 25, 2007) (quoting N.W. Controls, Inc. v. Outboard Marine Corp., 349 F.Supp. 1254 (D.Del.1972) ); see also79 F.Supp.3d 101Pierce, 1983 WL 150, at *4 (concluding that “since plaintiffs have failed to present a prima facie cas......
  • Wesley Jessen Corp. v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc., No. Civ.A. 01-294-KAJ.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Delaware
    • April 3, 2003
    ...Jessen must make a prima facie showing that a court order has been disobeyed. N.W. Controls, Inc. v. Page 230 Outboard Marine Corp., 349 F.Supp. 1254, 1256 IV. DISCUSSION 1. The Parties' Arguments There is no dispute between the parties regarding the validity of the Court imposed injunction......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • Florida Medical Ass'n v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ETC., No. 78-178-Civ-J-S.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Florida
    • July 11, 1978
    ...F.2d 789, 793 (1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 869, 95 S.Ct. 128, 42 L.Ed.2d 108 (1974); N. W. Controls, Inc. v. Outboard Marine Corp., 349 F.Supp. 1254, 1257 (D.Del.1972); Dillon 454 F. Supp. 331 v. Berg, 347 F.Supp. 517, 519 (D.Del.1972); Wilgus v. Peterson, 335 F.Supp. 1385, 1389 (D.Del.19......
  • Cardell Fin. Corp. v. Suchodolskt Assocs., Inc., 09 Civ. 6148 (VM)(MHD)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • July 17, 2012
    ...Adept, Inc. v. Murex Sees. Ltd., 2007 WL 2826247, *2 (M.D.Fla. Sept. 25, 2007) (same); N.W. Controls, Inc. v. Outboard Marine Corp., 349 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (D.Del. 1972) (requiring "prima facie case raising a likelihood that the . . . injunction is being violated" before permitting discove......
  • Kifafi v. Hilton Hotels Ret. Plan, Civil Action No. 98–1517 CKK
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • February 4, 2015
    ...No. 6:02–cv–1354–ORL–19DAB, 2007 WL 2826247, at *2 (M.D.Fla. Sept. 25, 2007) (quoting N.W. Controls, Inc. v. Outboard Marine Corp., 349 F.Supp. 1254 (D.Del.1972) ); see also79 F.Supp.3d 101Pierce, 1983 WL 150, at *4 (concluding that “since plaintiffs have failed to present a prima facie cas......
  • Wesley Jessen Corp. v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc., No. Civ.A. 01-294-KAJ.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Delaware
    • April 3, 2003
    ...Jessen must make a prima facie showing that a court order has been disobeyed. N.W. Controls, Inc. v. Page 230 Outboard Marine Corp., 349 F.Supp. 1254, 1256 IV. DISCUSSION 1. The Parties' Arguments There is no dispute between the parties regarding the validity of the Court imposed injunction......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT