Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03843/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03843-20/pdf.json

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

---

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 OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FEBRUARY 2, 2007 ORDER; ORDER TENTATIVELY

GRANTING MEMRY'S REQUEST TO TAKE THREE ADDITIONAL DEPOSITIONS—C-04-03843 RMW

MAG

E-FILED on 2/14/07

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 OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO

THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FEBRUARY

2, 2007 ORDER; ORDER TENTATIVELY

GRANTING MEMRY'S REQUEST TO TAKE

THREE ADDITIONAL DEPOSITIONS

[Re Docket No. 433]

KENTUCKY OIL TECHNOLOGY, N.V.,

Counterclaimant,

v.

MEMRY CORPORATION and 

SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY

CORPORATION,

Counterdefendants.

Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows parties to file timely objections to

rulings of a magistrate judge in nondispositive matters. Such objections are sustained if the magistrate

judge's order is "found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

Case 5:04-cv-03843-RMW Document 437 Filed 02/14/07 Page 1 of 4
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 OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FEBRUARY 2, 2007 ORDER; ORDER TENTATIVELY

GRANTING MEMRY'S REQUEST TO TAKE THREE ADDITIONAL DEPOSITIONS—C-04-03843 RMW

MAG 2

On February 12, 2007 plaintiff and counterdefendant Memry Corporation filed his objection to

the magistrate judge's February 2, 2007 Order Re: KOT's [Kentucky Oil Technology, NV] Motion for

a Protective Order. Memry objects to the portion of that order wherein the magistrate judge limited

Memry and STC to a combined total of 10 depositions per Federal Rule of Procedure 30(a)(2)(A). The

court has reviewed the magistrate judge's order and finds it to be neither clearly erroneous nor contrary

to law. 

Admittedly, the case history is ambiguous as to the number of depositions allowed. However,

the Case Management Conference Order dated August 23, 2006 stated that the parties were to comply

with the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, which sets forth a ten deposition limit per side. Fed. R. Civ.

P. 30(a)(2)(A); see also Advisory Comm. Notes to 1993 Amendments to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)

("Paragraph (2)(A) is new. It provides a limit on the number of depositions the parties may take, absent

leave of court or stipulation with the other parties. One aim of this revision is to assure judicial review

under the standards stated in Rule 26(b)(2) before any side will be allowed to take more than ten

depositions in a case without agreement of the other parties.") (emphasis added). The fact that the court

referred to KOT's previous successful attempt to limit depositions to ten per party may or may not have

been in error but it did not modify the August 23, 2006 Order. The discovery history does not convince

the court that the parties necessarily intended a ten deposition per party limit.

However, the court tentatively agrees that the three additional depositions of United Stenting,

Mr. Shukov and Mr. Vanderbruggen requested by Memry are appropriate. The court will give KOT an

opportunity to respond to Memry's request. If desired, KOT shall file an opposition no later than Friday,

February 16, 2007. 

ORDER

Memry's objection to the magistrate judge's February 2, 2007 order is overruled. Memry's

request to take the depositions of United Stenting, Mr. Shukov and Mr. Vanderbruggen is tentatively

Case 5:04-cv-03843-RMW Document 437 Filed 02/14/07 Page 2 of 4
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 OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FEBRUARY 2, 2007 ORDER; ORDER TENTATIVELY

GRANTING MEMRY'S REQUEST TO TAKE THREE ADDITIONAL DEPOSITIONS—C-04-03843 RMW

MAG 3

granted. If KOT does not file an objection to this court's tentative ruling regarding the three additional

depositions, the tentative ruling will become final. 

DATED: 2/14/07

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:04-cv-03843-RMW Document 437 Filed 02/14/07 Page 3 of 4
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 OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FEBRUARY 2, 2007 ORDER; ORDER TENTATIVELY

GRANTING MEMRY'S REQUEST TO TAKE THREE ADDITIONAL DEPOSITIONS—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: 2/14/07 /s/ MAG

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:04-cv-03843-RMW Document 437 Filed 02/14/07 Page 4 of 4