Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03843/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03843-26/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

ORDER DENYING KENTUCKY OIL'S MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME FOR FILING MOTIONS TO COMPEL; GRANTING

MEMRY'S REQUEST IN PART TO ALLOW TAKING ONE ADDITIONAL DEPOSITION—No. C-04-03843 RMW 

MAG

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-FILED on 3/21/07

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MEMRY CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

KENTUCKY OIL TECHNOLOGY, N.V.,

PETER BESSELINK, MEMORY METALS

HOLLAND, B.V.,

Defendants.

No. C-04-03843 RMW

ORDER DENYING KENTUCKY OIL'S

MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME FOR FILING

MOTIONS TO COMPEL; GRANTING

MEMRY'S REQUEST IN PART TO ALLOW

TAKING ONE ADDITIONAL DEPOSITION

[Re Docket Nos. 437, 438, 510]

KENTUCKY OIL TECHNOLOGY, N.V.,

Counterclaimant,

v.

MEMRY CORPORATION and 

SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY

CORPORATION,

Counterdefendants.

Recently, the parties have filed certain discovery-related motions to be decided by this court. 

First, on February 12, 2007 plaintiff and counterdefendant Memry Corporation filed an objection to

Case 5:04-cv-03843-RMW Document 553 Filed 03/21/07 Page 1 of 4
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

ORDER DENYING KENTUCKY OIL'S MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME FOR FILING MOTIONS TO COMPEL; GRANTING

MEMRY'S REQUEST IN PART TO ALLOW TAKING ONE ADDITIONAL DEPOSITION—No. C-04-03843 RMW 

MAG 2

the magistrate judge's determination limiting Memry and STC to a combined total of ten depositions

per Federal Rule of Procedure 30(a)(2)(A). The court confirmed the ten-deposition limit, but

tentatively granted Memry's request to take three additional depositions, which Kentucky Oil

opposes. 

Second, on February 27, 2007 Kentucky Oil moved to enlarge time to file five discovery

motions. Kentucky Oil's motion came four days after the court's February 21, 2007 deadline for

filing discovery motions. Two motions are based upon based on an asserted waiver of attorneyclient privilege and work product doctrine (a motion to compel discovery concerning STC's

"reasonable beliefs" as to Memry's Rights and motion for discovery concerning STC's evaluation of

Shell's intellectual property); two motions seek sanctions and further discovery regarding a recentlydeposed STC witness, Zaki Selim (a motion to compel further deposition of Mr. Selim and a motion

for sanctions for, inter alia, conduct at Mr. Selim's deposition); and one motion seeks production of

a memorandum from Memry. STC and Memry oppose this motion.

A. Additional Memry Depositions

Kentucky Oil opposes this court's tentative order granting Memry's request to take the

depositions of United Stenting, Mr. Shukov and Mr. Vanderbruggen. Kentucky Oil argues that

Memry has not shown good cause to take these depositions. It also contends that Memry

misrepresents the facts when it states it had no basis to know that these witnesses related to United

Stenting would have relevant information on the damages asserted by Kentucky Oil until Kentucky

Oil served its Third Amended Initial Disclosure on January 11, 2007. As Kentucky Oil points out,

the same language used in the Third Amended Initial Disclosure was also included in its Second

Amended Initial Disclosure served on December 18, 2006. It also points out that United Stenting

was originally a party to this action.

The court nevertheless agrees with Memry that permitting a deposition of a United Stenting

witness is appropriate given Kentucky Oil's second and third amended disclosures. Because

Memry's motion seeking the additional discovery was made before the magistrate judge prior to the

end of the discovery period, the motion is not untimely. The court will, however, limit Memry to

one additional deposition, either that of Mr. Shukov, Mr. Vanderbruggen or a single 30(b)(6)

Case 5:04-cv-03843-RMW Document 553 Filed 03/21/07 Page 2 of 4
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

ORDER DENYING KENTUCKY OIL'S MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME FOR FILING MOTIONS TO COMPEL; GRANTING

MEMRY'S REQUEST IN PART TO ALLOW TAKING ONE ADDITIONAL DEPOSITION—No. C-04-03843 RMW 

MAG 3

witness for United Stenting. Memry may choose which of the three individuals it deposes. The

court will not entertain further motions to increase the deposition limits in this case.

B. Motion to Enlarge Time

The fact discovery cut-off in this case was February 9, 2007. Local Rule 26-2 provides that

no motions to compel fact discovery may be filed more than seven court days after the fact

discovery cut-off, or February 21, 2007. Kentucky Oil sought permission to file five discoveryrelated motions on February 28, 2007, four court days after the deadline for filing discovery

motions. 

The discovery and motion practice in this case have been excessive. It is time to bring

matters to a close. Therefore, the court is unwilling to extend the deadline for bringing motions to

compel. However, nothing in this order should be interpreted as precluding Kentucky Oil from

objecting to the admission of evidence that was previously withheld as attorney-client privileged or

protected by the work product doctrine.

DATED: 3/21/07

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:04-cv-03843-RMW Document 553 Filed 03/21/07 Page 3 of 4
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

ORDER DENYING KENTUCKY OIL'S MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME FOR FILING MOTIONS TO COMPEL; GRANTING

MEMRY'S REQUEST IN PART TO ALLOW TAKING ONE ADDITIONAL DEPOSITION—No. C-04-03843 RMW 

MAG 4

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Memry:

Andrew C. Ryan ryan@cantorcolburn.com 

William J. Cass wcass@cantorcolburn.com 

Thomas Mango tmango@cantorcolburn.com 

Benjamin J. Holl benjamin.holl@dbr.com 

Charles A. Reid, III charles.reid@dbr.com 

Counsel for STC:

Nancy J. Geenen ngeenen@foleylaw.com 

David B. Moyer dmoyer@foley.com 

Kimberly K. Dodd kdodd@foley.com 

Counsel for KOT:

Michael H. Bierman mbierman@luce.com 

Nicola A. Pisano npisano@luce.com

Jeffrey David Wexler jwexler@luce.com 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not

registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 3/21/07 /s/ MAG

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:04-cv-03843-RMW Document 553 Filed 03/21/07 Page 4 of 4