Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00162/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00162-39/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1338 Patent Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NICHIA CORPORATION, No. C-06-00162 MMC (JCS)

Plaintiff(s),

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

v. DENYING IN PART MOTION

TO COMPEL [Docket No. 252]

SEOUL SEMICONDUCTOR, LTD., 

ET AL.,

(E-FILING CASES)

Defendant(s).

___________________________________/

The Court has received a Joint Letter dated May 2, 2007 [Docket No. 252], which it

interprets as a Motion to Compel (the “Motion”). The Court heard arguments on May 8, 2007, at

10:00 a.m. Nancy J. Geenen and Michael J. Song appeared as counsel for Plaintiff. Beth H. Parker

appeared as counsel for Defendants. For the reasons stated on the record, and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as

follows: 

1. The Motion to Compel Boris Kim to appear and answer the questions listed in

Exhibit A to the Motion is GRANTED; however, Mr. Kim need not appear and answer those

questions with respect to which Defendants satisfy the following conditions: (1) the question was

answered by another witness, and (2) Defendants formally adopt by pleading filed with this Court

that answer as its 30(b)(6) deposition answer to the question.

2. The Motion to Compel Sang Min Lee to appear and answer further questions is

DENIED. Notwithstanding this Court’s repeated admonitions that an authentic, in-person, meetand-confer session between lead trial counsel must occur, during the meet-and-confer session with

Case 3:06-cv-00162-MMC Document 256 Filed 05/09/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

respect to this Motion, not a single specific question that was posed to Mr. Lee, and that he was

unable to answer, was addressed.

3. The Motion to Compel Takashi Sakamoto to appear and answer the questions

attached as Exhibit C to the Motion, along with appropriate follow-up questions, is GRANTED. Mr.

Sakamoto shall be prepared to answer, including all information known to or reasonably available to

Plaintiff.

4. To the extent that the Motion seeks an extension of the May 2, 2007 cut-off date for

the filing of motions to compel responses to deposition questions, the Motion is DENIED based on

the current record before the Court. The Court has not addressed the question of whether, in the

event that the discovery cut-off for depositions has been extended, or will be extended, a new and

different date for motions to compel responses to deposition questions is automatically set by the

Local Rules. The Court is also not addressing the question of whether, based on facts that are

currently not known to the Court, good cause may appear in the future to extend the deadline to file 

such motions to compel. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 9, 2007

___________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00162-MMC Document 256 Filed 05/09/07 Page 2 of 2