Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00986/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00986-57/pdf.json

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

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

UNTED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NOV A MEASURNG INSTRUMENTS

11 LTD.,

12 Plaintiff,

13 v.

No. C 05-0986 MMC (BZ)

DISCOVERY REFEREE ORDERS NO.3

14 NANOMETRICS, INC.,

15 Defendants.

16

17 A telephonic hearing was heard on the morning of February 5, 2007. Counsel for

18 plaintiff and counsel for defendant submitted various requests/motions to be resolved. Lead

19 counsel for plaintiff were Mauricio Flores and Darren Frankin. Lead counsel for defendant

20 were Ron Finley and Craig Hansen.

21 Two motions came before the Discovery Referee, one by the plaintiff and one by the

22 defendant. The plaintiffs motion was to access "System Files" of Nanometrics. Those fies

23 had been accessed by plaintiff earlier in a number approaching 80 files. Plaintiff seeks the right

24 to access approximately 75 additional System Files from Nanometrics. The defendant made a

25 motion to have further supplemental admissions to requests for admissions nos. 2 - 11 and 13 -

26 4 i . Defendant stated that the failure by plaintiff to admit to facts which were within the dispute

27 and verifiable from public records should require plaintiff to admit those requests for

28 admissions. Following a review of written materials submitted by the defendant and oral

i 98977 -003/2250 i 5 1

DISCOVERY REFEREE ORDERS NO.3

Case 3:05-cv-00986-MMC Document 308 Filed 02/05/07 Page 1 of 2
1 argument submitted by plaintiff and defendant, IT is ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:

3

2 REQilREMENT FOR FURTHER ADMISSIONS TO REQUEST

FOR ADMISSIONS BY DEFENDAN

4 The motion is denied. Defendant cited the California Practice Guide for the authority

5 that the failure of the plaintiff to reasonably inquire and admit to what were essentially

6 requests that various patents had been applied for before May 23, 1995 were required to

7 be answered more fully by plaintiff. However, plaintiff cited a further basis of authority

8 from the California Practice Guide that indicates that there is no obligation to search for

9 information from third parties. Accordingly, the Discovery Referee has denied the

10 request for supplemental answers to the requests for admissions. However, it is to be

11 noted that the Discovery Referee advised plaintiff's counsel that the failure to be

12 reasonable on this issue would probably result in the trial court issuing appropriate

13 sanctions. Suggestions were made that the plaintiff inform the defendant that the

14 admissions that plaintiff was able to verify as legitimate be accomplished as soon as

15 possible. Failing that advice to the plaintiff, appropriate sanctions should be considered.

16 SYSTEMS FILES

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

This motion by the plaintiff is granted. Access to the System Files of defendant is

permitted on a weekend day with a maximum time by plaintiff at defendant's site of five

hours. Plaintiff is to take with it sufficient copy services so that no more than 75 System

Files can be Bates stamped and copied during the five hour period of time. The time for

the review and copying is limited to five hours and the number of fies is limited to 75.

Dated: February 5, 2007

~/1~~ '/ 'l~ Wíllam J. McLean F o¡¿

Discovery Referee

i 98977 -003/22505 i 2

DISCOVERY REFEREE ORDERS NO.3

Case 3:05-cv-00986-MMC Document 308 Filed 02/05/07 Page 2 of 2