Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01686/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01686-7/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OCULUS INNOVATIVE SCIENCES, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

NOFIL CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-01686 SI

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

REQUEST TO STAY AND FOR 

CONTINUANCE OF DISCOVERY 

On March 20, 2007, the parties collectively filed a Joint Case Management Statement (Docket

No. 36). This statement specified that defendants’ responses to plaintiff’s initial round of written

discovery were due by April 19, 2007. On March 30, 2007, defendant sent a letter to this Court which,

although unclear, appears to request that the Court stay this matter one month and that it continue any

discovery disputes. For the following reasons, this Court DENIES defendant’s request for a stay and

continuance of discovery and ORDERS that defendants comply with their discovery obligations under

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

I. The FRCP governs the conduct of discovery in this matter

Citing no legal authority, defendants first appear to argue that Japanese law, or some unspecified

body of international law, applies to discovery matters in this case. The Court disagrees. The Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure govern discovery in this case. See Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale

v. U.S. Dist. Court for Southern Dist. of Iowa, 482 U.S. 522, 538 (1987) (the Hague Evidence

Convention does not provide an exclusive mandatory procedure for obtaining documents and it is within

the trial court’s discretion to compel discovery under the court’s procedures). Defendants provide no

Case 3:06-cv-01686-SI Document 47 Filed 04/13/07 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

1

Because the deadline for plaintiff’s initial discovery responses has not yet passed, and there are

no particular discovery disputes currently pending, the Court questions whether this issue is ripe for

consideration.

2

support for their claim that foreign governments or attorneys must be involved in discovery in this case.

Defendants also fail to sufficiently demonstrate that they cannot participate in discovery without

violating foreign law. As such, defendants have not met their burden of showing that the Federal Rules

should not apply here. See United States v. Vetco, Inc., 691 F.2d 1281, 1289 (9th Cir. 1981) (a “party

relying on foreign laws has the burden of showing that such law bars the production of evidence.”).

II. Continuation of discovery is improper

Defendants request that the Court continue all discovery disputes until after the June, 2007

mediation.1

 Defendants present no compelling reason for doing so, and the parties may need the Court’s

guidance on discovery matters before the mediation. The Court therefore DENIES defendants’ request.

Defendants also request that the Court continue discovery pending the outcome of unspecified

patent applications now before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The applications do not

appear to be at issue in this action and the Court therefore DENIES defendants’ request.

Defendants further ask that the Court stay the matter entirely and submit it to an “International

Commerce Forum.” Again, defendants provide no support for their argument. Moreover, defendants

have already appeared in this Court and asserted significant counterclaims. The Court therefore

DENIES defendants’ request.

III. Request to stay 

Defendants also request that the Court stay the present action while defendants’ counsel is out

of the office for a month recuperating from surgery. The schedule established in the Pretrial Preparation

Order provides sufficient time for the parties to prepare this case, even with a month-long absence.

Further, plaintiff has expressed a willingness to accommodate defense counsel’s anticipated one-month

absence. The Court therefore DENIES defendants’ request. 

Case 3:06-cv-01686-SI Document 47 Filed 04/13/07 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, the Court DENIES defendants’ requests and ORDERS that they

comply with the discovery procedures outlined in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 13, 2007 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01686-SI Document 47 Filed 04/13/07 Page 3 of 3