Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03291/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03291-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract

---

[Proposed] Order Re: Plaintiff’s Letter Brief Case No. CV 05-03291 WHA 

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 

DANIEL J. BERGESON, State Bar No. 105439; dbergeson@be-law.com 

INA STANGENES, State Bar No. 156559; istangenes@be-law.com 

MELINDA M. MORTON, State Bar No. 209373; mmorton@be-law.com 

BERGESON, LLP 

303 Almaden Boulevard, Suite 500 

San Jose, CA 95110-2712 

Telephone: (408) 291-6200 

Facsimile: (408) 297-6000 

Attorneys for Defendants 

RESECT MEDICAL, INC. and 

STEVEN DANIEL 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

RITA MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC., 

a Delaware Corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

RESECT MEDICAL, INC., a Delaware 

Corporation, STEVEN DANIEL, individually, 

and DOES 1 to 100, 

Defendants. 

 Case No. C-05-03291-WHA 

[Proposed] Order Re: Plaintiff’s Letter 

Brief to Compel Defendants to Respond to 

Discovery 

 

Case 3:05-cv-03291-WHA Document 39 Filed 03/27/06 Page 1 of 2
- 1 - 

[Proposed] Order Re: Plaintiff’s Letter Brief Case No. CV 05-03291 WHA 

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 

A telephone conference regarding Plaintiff Rita Medical Systems, Inc.’s (“Rita”) Letter 

Brief dated March 8, 2006 was held on March 22, 2006. Shreya Ramchandani of Perkins Coie, 

LLP appeared on behalf of Rita. Melinda Morton of Bergeson, LLP appeared on behalf of 

Defendants, Resect Medical, Inc. and Steven Daniel (collectively “Defendants”). Upon 

considering Rita’s letter brief, Defendants’ opposition, and oral argument before the Court, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

1. Rita must produce its final trade secret disclosure pursuant to California Code of 

Civil Procedure Section 2019.210 (“2019.210 disclosure”) by Monday, March 27, 2006. Should 

Defendants still contend that the 2019.210 disclosure is not “reasonably particular,” Defendants 

have until Monday, April 3, 2006 to file a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment challenging the 

sufficiency of Rita’s 2019.210 disclosure. Defendants have the option, but will not be required, to 

argue that the alleged trade secrets are not trade secrets on the merits (in addition to arguing that 

the form of the disclosure is not specific enough). 

2. Defendants have until Monday, March 27, 2006 to respond to certain discovery 

requests. Rita has until Monday, April 3, 2006 to file a formal Motion to Compel concerning its 

discovery requests that are in dispute. The Motion to Compel shall be heard on the same day as 

Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. 

3. Oppositions and replies to any motion filed on Monday, April 3, 2006 will be due 

pursuant to the Local Rules of the Northern District of California. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 27, 2006 ______________________________ 

 The Honorable William H. Alsup 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:05-cv-03291-WHA Document 39 Filed 03/27/06 Page 2 of 2