Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-02110/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-02110-5/pdf.json

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

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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 holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances

underlying the present motion.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ON COMMAND VIDEO 

CORPORATION, 

Plaintiff,

v.

DIGITAL INFINITY, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 06-2110 JW (PVT)

INTERIM ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL

On December 15, 2006, Plaintiff On Command Video Corporation (“On Command”) filed a

Motion to Compel Discovery Responses in which it seeks an order compelling Defendant Digital

Infinity, Inc. (“Digital Infinity”) to provide a more detailed response to Interrogatory No. 6.1 Digital

Infinity opposed the motion. Having reviewed the papers submitted by the parties, the court finds it

appropriate to issue this interim order. Based on the moving, opposition and reply papers submitted,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that no later than February 9, 2007, counsel shall conduct an 

in person meet and confer regarding Interrogatory No. 6. Prior to the meet and confer, both sides

shall research the case law regarding what level of detail a party is required to provide in response to

a contention interrogatory such as Interrogatory No. 6, as well as the case law regarding the timing of

Case 5:06-cv-02110-JW Document 67 Filed 01/23/07 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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 On Command’s failure to submit copies of the interrogatories and responses did warrant

summary denial of the motion. However, Digital Infinity supplied the missing documents with its

opposition, and thus that defect was cured.

ORDER, page 2

contention interrogatories. 

Plaintiff’s briefs contain no citation to legal authorities whatsoever, and Digital Infinity’s

brief cites only the local rule that requires a party moving to compel discovery to provide copies of

the disputed discovery requests and responses.2 Thus it appears neither counsel has researched the

legal standards regarding the issue of how much detail a party must include in responding to a

contention interrogatory such as Interrogatory No. 6, nor the issue of when a party should be required

to respond to contention interrogatories. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if the parties resolve their dispute as to Interrogatory No. 6,

Plaintiff shall promptly file a withdrawal of the motion. If the parties are unable to resolve their

dispute, then no later than February 14, 2007, the parties shall submit simultaneous supplemental

briefs setting forth their respective positions. Any such supplemental briefs must include citation to

the legal authorities relied upon. Absent further order of the court, the motion will be submitted on

the papers.

Dated: 1/23/07

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:06-cv-02110-JW Document 67 Filed 01/23/07 Page 2 of 2