Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00087/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00087-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:0256 Patent Non-Infringement (Correction of Named Inventor)

---

1

17cv0087-GPC-MDD

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNIVERSAL STABILIZATION 

TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

ADVANCED BIONUTRITION 

CORP., 

Defendant.

Case No.: 17cv0087-GPC-MDD

ORDER ON JOINT MOTION 

FOR DETERMINATION OF 

DISCOVERY DISPUTE RE: 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR 

PROTECTIVE ORDER 

REGARDING RULE 30(b)(6) 

DEPOSITION

[ECF NO. 57]

Before the Court is the Joint Motion of the parties, filed on February 7, 

2018, to determine a discovery dispute presenting Defendant’s motion for a 

protective order regarding a noticed deposition of Defendant under Rule 

30(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P. (ECF No. 57). In this case, Plaintiff seeks to correct

the inventorship of a specific patent, the ‘245 patent. Infringement of the 

patent is not alleged. At issue are 7 topics specified by Plaintiff for testimony 

by designees of Defendant.

Legal Standard

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorize parties to obtain 

discovery of “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or 

Case 3:17-cv-00087-GPC-MDD Document 58 Filed 02/15/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

17cv0087-GPC-MDD

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

defense and proportional to the needs of the case . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(b)(1). “Information within the scope of discovery need not be admissible in 

evidence to be discoverable.” Id.1 District courts have broad discretion to 

limit discovery where the discovery sought is “unreasonably cumulative or 

duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more 

convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). 

Rule 30(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P., allows a party to depose an entity. The 

party seeking the deposition must describe with reasonable particularity the 

matters for examination. The entity must then designate one or more 

persons to testify. The designees must testify about information known or 

reasonably available to the organization. 

Rule 26(c), Fed. R. Civ. P., allows a party or person from whom 

discovery is sought to move for a protective order. For good cause, the Court 

may issue an order to protect the party or person from annoyance, 

embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. 

Discussion

Regarding each of the disputed topics, Defendant seeks protection on 

the grounds that the information sought is “irrelevant, overly broad, unduly 

burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 

admissible evidence.” (See ECF No. 57 at 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, and 15). 

Regarding topics 8 and 9, Defendant adds “harassing” to the list. And, 

regarding topics 8, 9, 10, 16, and 17, Defendant also asserts privilege and 

confidentiality of third parties. (See ECF No. 57 at 10, 12, 13, 14, and 15-16). 

 

1 Rule 26(b) no longer contains the language quoted by Defendant defining the scope of 

discovery as including information “reasonably calculated to the lead to the discovery of 

admissible evidence.” That language was eliminated effective December 1, 2015. Counsel 

for Defendant should know better. 

Case 3:17-cv-00087-GPC-MDD Document 58 Filed 02/15/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

17cv0087-GPC-MDD

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

Plaintiff is correct that it is not grounds for a protective order that the 

information sought may be irrelevant, overbroad, potentially privileged or 

confidential. Accordingly, only Defendant’s objections based upon undue 

burden and harassment will be considered. 

1. Topic 4

Plaintiff seeks a designee to testify regarding “all research and 

experiments conducted by Mordechi Harel for or on behalf of Defendant. 

Inasmuch as this lawsuit relates only to the inventorship of the ‘245 patent, 

it would be unduly burdensome for Defendant to have someone prepared to 

testify regarding research and experiments conducted by Mordechi Harel 

beyond research and experiments leading to the ‘245 patent. Even if Dr. 

Harel is designated, the Court finds it would be an undue burden, 

considering the limited scope of this lawsuit, for Dr. Harel to be prepared to 

testify regarding all of the research and experiments conducted for 

Defendant. The topic should be limited to the ‘245 patent.

2. Topic 5

Plaintiff seeks a designee to testify regarding “all research and 

experiments conducted by Keren Kohavi-Beck for or on behalf of Defendant. 

Inasmuch as this lawsuit relates only to the inventorship of the ‘245 patent, 

it would be unduly burdensome for Defendant to have someone prepared to 

testify regarding research and experiments conducted by Keren Kohavi-Beck 

beyond research and experiments leading to the ‘245 patent. Even if Dr. 

Kohavi-Beck is designated, the Court finds it would be an undue burden, 

considering the limited scope of this lawsuit, to be prepared to testify 

regarding all of his research and experiments conducted for Defendant. The 

topic should be limited to the ‘245 patent. 

Case 3:17-cv-00087-GPC-MDD Document 58 Filed 02/15/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

17cv0087-GPC-MDD

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

3. Topic 8

Plaintiff seeks a designee to testify regarding Defendant’s financials, 

balance sheets, and capitalization from December 2005, to present. The 

Court finds, considering the limited scope of potential damages in this case, 

and Defendant’s unequivocal assertion that the ‘245 patent never has been 

monetized, that it would constitute an undue burden for Defendant to 

prepare and produce someone to testify on this topic unless limited solely to 

financial information pertaining to the ‘245 patent. (See ECF No. 47 at 6; No. 

52 at 4). 

4. Topic 9

Plaintiff seeks a designee regarding the subject matter of any investor 

presentations given by Defendant from December 2005 to present. The Court 

finds that it would be an undue burden for Defendant to have someone 

prepared to testify on this broad a topic, over a 13 year period, considering 

the limited scope of this lawsuit. If restricted to presentations regarding the 

‘245 patent, the burden can be minimized. 

5. Topic 10

Plaintiff seeks a designee to testify regarding the investors and 

stockholders of Defendant. The Court can conceive of exactly zero relevance 

of this topic to this lawsuit. Consequently, almost by definition, it would 

constitute an undue burden for Defendant to have to prepare someone to 

testify on this topic. 

6. Topic 16

Plaintiff seeks a designee to testify regarding the licensing or 

acquisition of Defendant’s technology by third-parties. Considering that this 

lawsuit is limited to the ‘245 patent, it would be unduly burdensome for 

Defendant to have to prepare someone to testify regarding other technology 

Case 3:17-cv-00087-GPC-MDD Document 58 Filed 02/15/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

17cv0087-GPC-MDD

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

deals. 

7. Topic 17

Plaintiff seeks a designee to testify regarding the asset purchase 

agreement identified previously by Defendant. The Court previously opined 

that the asset purchase agreement is not relevant as it did not include the 

‘245 patent family. (See ECF No. 52 at 4-5). The Court did state, however, 

that Defendant properly may inquire regarding whether consideration was 

paid by Defendant for a related covenant not to sue regarding the ‘245 patent 

family. (Id.). The Court finds that it would constitute an undue burden for 

Defendant to have to produce someone to testify about the asset purchase 

agreement unless limited to the question of consideration for the related 

covenant not to sue. 

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion for protective order, as 

presented in the instant Joint Motion, is GRANTED IN PART AND 

DENIED IN PART.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 15, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-00087-GPC-MDD Document 58 Filed 02/15/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5