Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03148/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03148-41/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 Patent 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

MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL

CO., LTD.,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

 MEDIATEK, INC., ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

____________________________________/

Case No. C-05-3148 MMC (JCS)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE

DEPOSITION OF SUSUMU KOIKE

[Docket No. 328]

Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. (“Plaintiff”)

filed a Motion for Protective Order to prevent the deposition of one of its high-ranking executives,

Susumu Koike, (the “Motion”) [Docket No. 328]. Defendant Mediatek, Inc. (“Defendant”) filed an

opposition, to which Plaintiff replied. The Court finds the Motion suitable for decision without oral

argument. Civil L.R. 7-1(b). For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the Motion. 

Mr. Koike is the fourth highest ranking executive at Matsushita, a company with more than

$76 billion in sales per year and 330,000 employees. Defendant seeks to take Mr. Koike’s

deposition on a series of subjects identified in the opposition. All of those subjects have been the

topics of deposition examination by many other employees of Plaintiff. Mr. Koike’s additional

knowledge on these subjects will be largely repetitive, and will add very little, if anything, in the

way of relevant knowledge. Indeed, some of the subjects – such as why the decision was made to

file the instant lawsuit – are of only marginal relevance to the merits. On the other hand, to cause

such a deposition to occur, in Japan, would not only be expensive and time-consuming, but would

also disrupt Plaintiff’s ongoing business. Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

Case 3:05-cv-03148-MMC Document 370 Filed 02/12/07 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

26(b)(2), the Court has determined that the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative and

duplicative, is obtainable from other less burdensome and less expensive sources, and, finally the

burden and expense of this discovery far outweighs its benefits.

The Motion is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 12, 2007 _______________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03148-MMC Document 370 Filed 02/12/07 Page 2 of 2