Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01470/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01470-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 Patent Infringement

---

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 05cv1470

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NEIL MINTZ; MARCUS MINTZ; and

JIF-PAK MANUFACTURING, INC.,

Civil No. 05cv1470-L (CAB)

Plaintiffs,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

PROTECTIVE ORDER

[Doc. No. 103]

v.

DIETZ & WATSON, INC.; and PACKAGE

CONCEPTS & MATERIALS, INC.,

Defendants.

And related counterclaims.

On April 25, 2008, the Court held a telephonic discovery conference on Defendants’ request for a

protective order preventing the deposition of Herbert O’Toole and Robert Bertin, attorneys who

provided opinions to Defendant Package Concepts & Materials (“PCM”) regarding the patent in suit. 

Lael Andara, Esq., appeared for Plaintiffs. Jonathan Hangartner, Esq., appeared for defendants. Having

considered the submissions of the parties and the arguments of counsel, the motion is DENIED.

Attorneys O’Toole and Bertin provided opinions to PCM, that were apparently shared with

Defendant Dietz & Watson (“D&W”), regarding infringement of the patent at issue. In an interrogatory

response served on or about April 4, 2007, D&W stated that it relied upon those opinions in its decision

to continue to use the accused products and provided the opinions to Plaintiffs. Having asserted advice

of counsel in this litigation, D&W waived the privilege related to the preparation of these opinions. 

Plaintiffs now seek the deposition of these attorneys.

Case 3:05-cv-01470-L-JMA Document 105 Filed 04/28/08 Page 1 of 2
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 05cv1470

PCM relies upon the Patent Local Rules which state a decision to rely upon advice of counsel as

a defense to willfulness must be elected no later than 30 days after the issuance of a claim construction

order. Patent L.R. 3.8. PCM therefore argues the election, regardless of earlier interrogatory or

deposition testimony, has not been made so the depositions are premature. Patent L.R. 3.8 requires a

party to decide whether it will assert reliance on counsel no later than 30 days after the claim

construction order issues, but does not prevent a party from asserting advice of counsel earlier in the

litigation, as D&W elected to do. The motion for protective order is DENIED.

As to the matter of damages discovery, the parties represented that they are still in the process of

meeting and conferring on this issue. The plaintiffs may raise the matter again with the Court following

the completion of the parties’ attempt to resolve the dispute, if necessary. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 28, 2008

CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01470-L-JMA Document 105 Filed 04/28/08 Page 2 of 2