Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05368/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05368-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

BEILSTEIN-INSTITUT ZUR FÖRDERUNG

DER CHEMISCHEN WISSENSCHAFTEN, et

al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

MDL INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C 04-05368 SI

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL

Now before the Court is a discovery dispute in this matter. Defendant, MDL Information

Systems, Inc. (“MDL”), seeks to compel plaintiffs to provide additional discovery in a number of

different areas. Having carefully considered the papers submitted, and for good cause appearing, the

Court hereby GRANTS IN PART defendant’s motion.

DISCUSSION

MDL’s motion requests that the Court compel Beilstein to produce five categories of

information. First, MDL seeks a supplemental response to its first interrogatory, which requested all

witnesses and facts on which Beilstein relied when it denied MDL’s requests for admission. Beilstein

agreed to produce the names of the witnesses, but has refused to provide the facts. It argues that it need

not provide the facts it relied upon because is has not yet had a “full and fair opportunity” to investigate

all the issues.

There are two problems with Beilstein’s argument. First, it already responded to MDL’s

requests for admission. Thus, there must be some facts on which it based its denials. Second, the

Case 3:04-cv-05368-SI Document 170 Filed 09/06/06 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

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state that interrogatory responses should be seasonably amended as

additional information becomes available. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e). Thus, plaintiff need not wait until it

has concluded its investigation before supplementing its interrogatory responses. Accordingly, MDL’s

motion is GRANTED as to Interrogatory No. 1

The second subject of MDL’s motion to compel concerns a number of its document requests for

which it contends it received no responsive documents. For each of these document requests, MDL

seeks confirmation that “no responsive documents were produced, the reason why no documents have

been produced, and that a diligent search was undertaken for responsive documents.” Discovery in this

matter, however, is not yet complete. Further, Beilstein has represented that it, like MDL, continues to

produce documents as they become available. Thus, the Court finds that MDL’s request is premature.

It therefore DENIES MDL’s motion as to Requests for Production 2, 5, 13, 16, 21, 34, 35, 56, 58-60,

69, 76-77, and 87.

Third, MDL seeks confirmation that Beilstein searched its electronic mail and other computer

sources for documents. In its opposition brief, Beilstein represents that it searched these sources.

Accordingly, the Court finds that nothing further is required from Beilstein on this topic.

Fourth, MDL requests that Beilstein be compelled to “re-produce” all documents in the manner

in which they were ordinarily kept, in conformance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(e).

Beilstein, however, contends that it has complied with Rule 34(e). It argues that MDL’s dissatisfaction

with its production stems from the fact that Beilstein is a small nonprofit that keeps its documents

informally. The Court finds Beilstein’s response, and its assertion that its documents were produced

in compliance with Rule 34(e), sufficient, and therefore DENIES MDL’s motion as to its request that

Beilstein reproduce its responsive documents.

Finally, MDL requests that Beilstein produce a privilege log. From the parties’ briefs, however,

it appears that this issue has been resolved and that the parties will exchange privilege logs after their

productions are complete. Accordingly, the Court DENIES MDL’s request that Beilstein be compelled

to immediately produce a privilege log.

Case 3:04-cv-05368-SI Document 170 Filed 09/06/06 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

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, the Court hereby GRANTS IN PART

MDL’s motion to compel (Docket No. 114).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 6, 2006 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-05368-SI Document 170 Filed 09/06/06 Page 3 of 3