Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-01786/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-01786-34/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1114 Trademark 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VISA U.S.A., INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

FIRST DATA CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-02-1786 JSW (EMC)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART VISA’S REQUEST

FOR FURTHER DISCOVERY IN

REGARD TO SECOND AMENDED

COUNTERCLAIM

(Docket No. 1011)

Having considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to Visa’s request for

additional discovery, and good cause appearing therefor, the Court hereby orders as follows.

Although coming late, discovery is still governed by the liberality afforded by Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(b). Balanced against the burden of responding at this late stage is the fact that a Second

Amended Counterclaim has been filed. See Docket No. 1017 (second amended counterclaim, filed

on 10/6/05). Moreover, the stakes in this case are substantial. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to

permit discovery sought if occasioned by the Second Amended Counterclaim, even if the relevance

of disputed matters could have been anticipated earlier, so long as the request is for discovery

relevant within the meaning of Rule 26(b) and reasonable in scope.

1. Additional 30(b)(6) deposition regarding “Interchange Overcharge” allegations. 

Visa may take such depositions consistent with this Court’s order of August 5, 2005. The deposition

may cover subject matters raised by the newly produced documents, but shall focus solely on First

Data’s damages theory based on interchange fees.

Case 3:02-cv-01786-JSW Document 1055 Filed 10/26/05 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

2. UMS discovery. Visa is entitled to the discovery as requested since UMS is a new party. 

If all documents responsive to Visa’s request have been produced, UMS may so certify. As for the

deposition of a UMS representative, the parties should meet and confer as to whether that person

should be Mr. Goldsberry or another individual.

3. VIPP program. Visa is entitled to additional discovery as to documents responsive to

the four subjects identified on pages 3 and 4 of its opening memorandum. As to items (3) and (4),

production shall be limited to high-level documents. As to items (1) and (2), production shall not

include every conceivably relevant documents, but only documents sufficient to show the identity of

such banks and communications specifically about the refusal. 

4. “On-Us” transactions. Visa shall obtain documents responsive to items (3) and (5) on

page 4 of its opening memorandum dated on or after October 1, 2004. If First Data stipulates that it

is not seeking damages, it need not produce documents responsive to the other items.

5. “Real Time Data” offer. Visa is entitled to the requested documents (if any exists

beyond that already produced by First Data) if the depositions of First Data’s designated nonretained experts do not suffice.

6. “Lost profits.” Visa is entitled to high-level documents regarding unexpended

investment costs and marginal costs in order to determine lost profits.

7. Further 30(b)(6) depositions. With the exception of the deposition of a UMS

representative, as discussed above, the Court shall not at this time permit additional 30(b)(6)

depositions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 26, 2005

 EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:02-cv-01786-JSW Document 1055 Filed 10/26/05 Page 2 of 2