Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02073/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02073-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SYNERGY TECH & DESIGN INC. d/b/a

ROAD ARMOR,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JIM TERRY, SANDY TERRY, JIM

MEEKINS, DIXIE MEEKINS, JD

DISTRIBUTING, and ROAD ARMOR USA,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-02073 JSW

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE

The Court has received Plaintiff’s letter brief filed November 27, 2006 regarding

Defendants-Counterclaimants Jim and Sandy Terry’s responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for

Documents, Set One. In their responses to each and every documents request, the Terrys

indicate that a representative of Plaintiff trespassed on their property and removed all

potentially responsive documents contained therein. According to Plaintiff’s version of events,

counsel for the Terrys has indicated some responsive documents may actually now be available. 

The Court hereby ORDERS that the Terrys shall respond to Plaintiff’s outstanding

documents requests with all responsive documents currently in their possession or control by no

later than December 5, 2006 at 4:00 p.m. To the extent the Terrys currently do not have in their

possession or control any responsive documents to any particular documents request, the Terrys

are ordered to produce a declaration under penalty of perjury detailing the specific efforts made

to locate responsive documents and that they have produced all documents they have located. 

Case 3:06-cv-02073-JSW Document 55 Filed 11/28/06 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

See, e.g., Fresenius Medical Care Holding Co. v. Baxter International, Inc., 224 F.R.D. 644,

652 (N.D. Cal. 2004). 

Counsel are admonished that future failure to comply with this Court’s Standing Order 

¶ 7 to meet and confer in person and to submit a joint letter brief to resolve any requests for

discovery relief shall result in sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 28, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-02073-JSW Document 55 Filed 11/28/06 Page 2 of 2