HM Electronics, Inc. v. R.F. Technologies, Inc.

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants R.F. Technologies, Inc. (“RFT”) and Babak Noorian’s (“Noorian”), and non-parties LeClairRyan LLP and attorney Thomas O’Leary’s (“O’Leary”), (collectively, “Sanctionees”) separate motions objecting to Magistrate Judge Mitchell Dembin’s August 7, 2015 order imposing sanctions against them for various discovery abuses. (ECF Nos. 422, 424.) Among other objections, Sanction-ees argue that settlement of the underlying case has mooted the issue of costs and fees, rendering any award of compensatory sanctions improper. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART Sanctionees’ motions in objection (ECF Nos. 422, 424) and VACATES AS MOOT the imposition of compensatory sanctions (ECF No. 420).

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff HM Electronics, Inc. (“HME”) brought this now-settled action against Defendants RFT and Noorian (collectively, “RF Defendants”) asserting claims for federal trademark and trade dress infringe *1024 ment, and related claims. (ECF No. 156.) HME designs, manufacturers, and sells digital drive-thru headsets and related products, while RFT specializes in the repair of such products. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges…