Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04839/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04839-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BV RIGHTS ANSTALT,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ABAXIS INC,

Defendant. /

No. C-04-04839 SC (EDL)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

ABAXIS, INC.’S MOTION TO

COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO

ABAXIS, INC.’S FIRST SET OF

REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF

DOCUMENTS AND TANGIBLE

THINGS

The Motion to Compel Further Responses to Abaxis, Inc.’s First Set of Requests for

Production of Documents and Tangible Things (“Motion to Compel”) came before the abovecaptioned court on January 17, 2006, the Honorable Elizabeth D. Laporte, Magistrate Judge,

presiding. Diana Fung of DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US LLP appeared on behalf of

defendant and counterclaimant Abaxis, Inc. (“Abaxis”). Jethro Busch of Luscutoff, Lendormy &

Associates appeared on behalf of plaintiff and counterdefendant BV Rights Anstalt (“BV

Rights”). The Court, having considered the papers submitted and arguments presented thereon,

and good cause appearing therein, HEREBY ORDERS THAT the Motion to Compel is

GRANTED in part. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that BV Rights serve further written responses and

documents responsive to Abaxis’ First Set of Requests for Production of Documents and Tangible

Things (“RFP”) Nos. 1-6, 9-11, 13-47, 53-54, 60, 63-64, and 66-70 by February 16, 2006. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the time period encompassed by RFP Nos. 9-11 is

limited to the time period of January 1, 1995 through April 7, 2004, and the time period

Case 3:04-cv-04839-SC Document 87 Filed 01/27/06 Page 1 of 3
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

encompassed by RFP Nos. 27-29, and 42 is limited to the time period of January 1, 1999 through

April 7, 2004. The time period encompassed by RFP Nos. 5-6, 13-20, 36, and 39-40 is January 1,

1995 to the present, and the time period encompassed by RFP Nos. 1-4, 21-26, and 30-34 is

January 1, 1999 to the present. With respect to RFP Nos. 35, 37-38, 41, 43-47, 53-54, 60, 63-64,

and 66-70, there is no limitation as to time. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that BV Rights shall provide the confirmation (in the form

of a verified declaration from the appropriate BV Rights representative with personal knowledge)

and privilege log required under paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Court’s Order re Discovery Procedures

by February 16, 2006.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Abaxis shall provide BV Rights with revised definitions

of the following terms defined in the RFPs—“Abaxis,” “BV Rights,” “Melet,” and the “Melet

Companies”—that are limited to identified entities and individuals believed to be affiliated with

these respective entities. BV Rights shall provide supplemental responses to the RFPs utilizing

these revised definitions. This Order is made without prejudice to Abaxis’ right to request

additional discovery with respect to other entities or individuals affiliated with “BV Rights,”

“Melet,” and/or the “Melet Companies” should the identity of such other entities or individuals

become available to Abaxis at a later time.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that BV Rights shall not withhold documents responsive to

the RFPs based upon its invocation of trade secrets, privacy, and/or taxpayers privileges because

such documents, if necessary, can be adequately protected by the Stipulated Protective Order

entered on December 10, 2004 in this action. Furthermore, the trade secrets privilege does not

apply because there is no pending trade secrets claim to this case. Federal privilege law governs

the RFPs, because the RFPs do not seek discovery relevant solely to the state law claims asserted

in this action, but also to the federal law claims. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the RFPs identified below—and BV Rights’

supplemental responses thereto—shall be limited in scope as follows:

Case 3:04-cv-04839-SC Document 87 Filed 01/27/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

1. As to RFP No. 1, BV Rights shall produce documents sufficient to show the

corporate structure and/or organization of BV Rights; 

2. As to RFP No. 2, BV Rights shall produce documents sufficient to show the owners of BV

Rights; 

3. As to RFP No. 5, BV Rights shall produce documents sufficient to show the number of

transfers of BV Rights’ assets or liabilities to the Melet Companies; and 

4. As to RFP No. 6, BV Rights shall produce documents sufficient to show the number of

transfers of the Melet Companies’ assets or liabilities to BV Rights. 

This Order shall be subject to any stipulation between the parties regarding a standstill for

all deadlines in this case entered into after the January 17, 2006 hearing. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 27, 2006 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:04-cv-04839-SC Document 87 Filed 01/27/06 Page 3 of 3