Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01988/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01988-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement

---

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

AZUL SYSTEMS, INC.,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC.,

Defendant(s).

______________________________/

Case No. C-06-1988 CRB (JCS)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO

PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO AZUL’S

INTERROGATORIES [Docket No. 123]

On March 16, 2007, the parties filed a Joint Discovery Letter Brief, which the Court has

construed as Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Provide Further Responses to

Interrogatories (the “Motion”).

On March 26, 2007, the Motion came on for hearing. Robert Haslam, counsel for Plaintiff,

appeared. Benjamin K. Riley, counsel for Defendant, also appeared.

For reasons stated on the record, and good cause shown,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED IN PART. By June 15, 2007,

Defendant shall provide complete and detailed answers, under oath, to the following interrogatories:

1. Identify each and every element of each Trade Secret listed in your C.C.P. 2019.210

statement in this case, including but not limited to an identification of each element which must be

present, and each element which may be present.

2. For each element of each Trade Secret identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1

above, identify specifically and in complete detail where and how each element is used in each

accused device.

Case 3:06-cv-01988-CRB Document 126 Filed 03/28/07 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

The responses to these interrogatories shall be binding on Defendant. Defendant may not

prove at trial or summary judgment (1) any element of any Trade Secret or (2) that any part of any

accused device uses each such element, unless they were disclosed in these answers. The answers

may be amended, upon Court order, for good cause shown.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 27, 2007 _______________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01988-CRB Document 126 Filed 03/28/07 Page 2 of 2