Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-00790/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-00790-24/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 02-00790 SI

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY

Via letter brief, plaintiff Boston Scientific seeks permission to depose two third-party

corporations after the close of fact discovery. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s

request.

The fact discovery cut-off date in this case was June 1, 2007. On May 24, 2007, Boston

Scientific served deposition subpoenas on North American Scientific Association (“NAMSA”) and

DHL. The depositions were noticed for June 1, 2007, the last day of the fact discovery period. Prior

to the deposition date, NAMSA and DHL informed Boston Scientific that June 1 was inconvenient;

Boston Scientific relayed this fact to Cordis by May 30, 2007. On June 1, Cordis informed Boston

Scientific that it did not consent to the depositions being taken after June 1. Boston Scientific

subsequently filed the instant request. 

According to Civil Local Rule 26-2, “a ‘discovery cut-off’ is the date by which . . . all

depositions must be concluded.” “Discovery requests that call for responses or depositions after the

applicable discovery cut-off are not enforceable, except by order of the Court for good cause shown.”

Id. Boston Scientific has not shown good cause for allowing the depositions to proceed after the cut-off

date. Both of the depositions at issue seek information bearing on the date that Asuka catheters were

Case 3:02-cv-00790-SI Document 530 Filed 06/19/07 Page 1 of 3
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

first imported in to the United States; this fact relates to the dates of conception and reduction to practice

of the claimed inventions. These are not new issues. The date that the Asuka catheters were present

in the United States was a principal issue on the recent summary judgment motion, which the parties

argued on February 23, 2007, and the Court decided on March 14, 2007. See March 14, 2007 Order at

10:13-20 (“BSC further maintains that ‘Asuka’ catheters, which embodied the invention described in

the Kastenhofer patents, were imported into the U.S. sometime before September 27, 1993. As evidence,

BSC has produced a letter dated September 27, 1993 from the NamSA testing laboratory requesting

[additional Asuka catheters] . . . . [T]he evidence presented is sufficient to establish a triable issue of

fact.”). 

Boston Scientific provides no explanation for why it did not notice these depositions sooner.

Boston Scientific cannot blame DHL and NAMSA, as they were given little more than a week’s notice

of the depositions. Boston Scientific attempts to fault Cordis for the failure to complete the depositions

within the cut-off, arguing that “[h]ad Cordis timely indicated its desire to conclude the NAMSA and

DHL depositions prior to the close of fact discovery (unlike the many other depositions postponed by

agreement), of course, Boston Scientific would have done everything possible to proceed with the

depositions as originally scheduled.” Letter Br. at 2. It was not, however, Cordis’ responsibility to

insist that Boston Scientific comply with the Court-ordered discovery cut-off. Boston Scientific never

asked Cordis if it would agree to postponing the DHL and NAMSA depositions, and it does not appear

from the meet and confer e-mails provided to the Court that Cordis ever attempted to mislead Boston

Scientific into thinking that it would so agree. 

Boston Scientific has not shown good cause for failing to complete the DHL and NAMSA

depositions by the discovery cut-off, and the Court therefore DENIES its request to take those

depositions after the close of fact discovery. [Docket No. 523] 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 19 , 2007 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:02-cv-00790-SI Document 530 Filed 06/19/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Case 3:02-cv-00790-SI Document 530 Filed 06/19/07 Page 3 of 3