Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03843/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03843-30/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

ORDER OVERRULING STC'S OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S MARCH 19, 2007 ORDER—C-04-03843 RMW

MAG

E-FILED on 4/13/07

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MEMRY CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

KENTUCKY OIL TECHNOLOGY, N.V.,

PETER BESSELINK, MEMORY METALS

HOLLAND, B.V.,

Defendants.

No. C-04-03843 RMW

ORDER REQUESTING KOT'S RESPONSE

TO STC'S OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE

JUDGE'S MARCH 19, 2007 ORDER

[Re Docket No. 558]

KENTUCKY OIL TECHNOLOGY, N.V.,

Counterclaimant,

v.

MEMRY CORPORATION and 

SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY

CORPORATION,

Counterdefendants.

Counterdefendant Schlumberger Technology Corporation ("STC") filed a motion to compel

production against defendant and counterclaimant Kentucky Oil Technology ("KOT"). STC sought to

Case 5:04-cv-03843-RMW Document 621 Filed 04/13/07 Page 1 of 3
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 1 Pisano is KOT's patent prosecution, transaction and litigation counsel in this matter. 

She is also a witness. 

ORDER OVERRULING STC'S OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S MARCH 19, 2007 ORDER—C-04-03843 RMW

MAG 2

compel production of an intellectual property evaluation conducted by attorney Nicola Pisano1 in 2003

on behalf of Jomed, a predecessor in interest to KOT. The magistrate judge assigned to this case denied

STC's motion to compel in an order dated March 19, 2007 ("Order") after determining that the

evaluation was protected by the work-product doctrine and that STC had not shown substantial need

because the evaluation would only be corroborating evidence.

STC asks this court to review the Order because the magistrate judge did not review the

privileged materials in dispute in camera. STC argues that because KOT offered to make the disputed

materials available for in camera review, it was error for the magistrate judge not to undertake such a

review in light of the judge's determination that the information STC sought to compel "is not an

essential element of STC's prima facie case." Order at 4. STC contends that the evaluation may contain

a party admission or prior inconsistent statements that would not be otherwise available through

witnesses previously deposed, and would thus be more than corroborating evidence. In camera review,

according to STC, would have permitted the magistrate judge to determine whether the evaluation

would provide evidence beyond that which is merely corroborating. 

The court shall permit KOT to file a brief of no longer than seven pages in opposition to STC's

objection by Monday, April 23, 2007. STC shall not be entitled to file a reply. Thereafter the matter

will be deemed submitted on the papers.

DATED: 4/9/07

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:04-cv-03843-RMW Document 621 Filed 04/13/07 Page 2 of 3
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

ORDER OVERRULING STC'S OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S MARCH 19, 2007 ORDER—C-04-03843 RMW

MAG 3

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Memry:

Andrew C. Ryan ryan@cantorcolburn.com 

William J. Cass wcass@cantorcolburn.com 

Thomas Mango tmango@cantorcolburn.com 

Benjamin J. Holl benjamin.holl@dbr.com 

Charles A. Reid, III charles.reid@dbr.com 

Counsel for STC:

Nancy J. Geenen ngeenen@foleylaw.com 

David B. Moyer dmoyer@foley.com 

Kimberly K. Dodd kdodd@foley.com 

Counsel for KOT:

Michael H. Bierman mbierman@luce.com 

Nicola A. Pisano npisano@luce.com

Jeffrey David Wexler jwexler@luce.com 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not registered

for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 4/13/07 /s/ MAG

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:04-cv-03843-RMW Document 621 Filed 04/13/07 Page 3 of 3