Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03843/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03843-7/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

ORDER REGARDING KENTUCKY OIL'S OBJECTIONS TO PORTIONS OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER—No.

C-04-03843 RMW

JAH

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-FILED on 9/27/06

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 REGARDING KENTUCKY OIL'S

OBJECTIONS TO PORTIONS OF

MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER

[Re Docket Nos. 193, 197]

On September 6, 2006, the magistrate judge assigned to this case ruled on several motions to

compel. Kentucky Oil Technology, N.V. ("KOT") objects under Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a) to two aspects

of the magistrate judge's order on these motions. 

The magistrate judge rejected KOT's claim that communications with Wilfried van

Moorleghem were protected by the attorney-client privilege, finding that KOT's evidence of

Moorleghem's relationship to the KOT was insufficient to establish that he is the functional

equivalent of a KOT employee. The magistrate judge's order on this point is not "clearly erroneous

or contrary to law." See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). The court necessarily rejects KOT's alternate

argument that if the magistrate judge was correct, KOT should nonetheless be allowed to submit

Case 5:04-cv-03843-RMW Document 203 Filed 09/27/06 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 1

 The court expresses no opinion regarding KOT's motion to augment the record and for

reconsideration, which is currently pending before the magistrate judge.

ORDER REGARDING KENTUCKY OIL'S OBJECTIONS TO PORTIONS OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER—No.

C-04-03843 RMW

JAH 2

more evidence because it did not know to what standard of proof it would be held when asserting

its claim of privilege.1

The magistrate judge also ordered KOT to provide further responses to an interrogatory of

Schlumberger Technology Corporation ("STC") seeking dates of reduction to practice. KOT

objects that its counterclaim for patent invalidity has been dismissed, making irrelevant any

reduction to practice. Though expressing no opinion on KOT's objections to this aspect of the

magistrate judge's order, the court, pursuant to Civil L.R. 72-2, gives STC the opportunity to file an

opposition to KOT's objection regarding the reduction-to-practice interrogatory. Any such

opposition shall be filed by October 11, 2006, and shall not exceed two pages. No hearing will be

held absent further order of the court.

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the court:

1. overrules KOT's objections regarding privilege; and

2. grants STC the opportunity to file an opposition to KOT's objection regarding the

reduction-to-practice interrogatory.

DATED: 9/26/06

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:04-cv-03843-RMW Document 203 Filed 09/27/06 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

ORDER REGARDING KENTUCKY OIL'S OBJECTIONS TO PORTIONS OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER—No.

C-04-03843 RMW

JAH 3

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiff:

Andrew C. Ryan ryan@cantorcolburn.com

Michael A. Cantor 

Thomas J Mango tmango@cantorcolburn.com

William J. Cass wcass@cantorcolburn.com

Benjamin J. Holl benjamin.holl@dbr.com

Charles A. Reid, III charles.reid@dbr.com

Counsel for Defendants:

Michael H. Bierman mbierman@luce.com

Nicola A. Pisano npisano@luce.com

Counsel for Counterdefendants:

Nancy J. Geenen ngeenen@foleylaw.com 

Simon E. Dance 

David B. Moyer dmoyer@foley.com

Kimberly K. Dodd kdodd@foley.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: 9/27/06 SPT

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:04-cv-03843-RMW Document 203 Filed 09/27/06 Page 3 of 3