Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-00710/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-00710-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IMMERSION CORPORATION,

 Plaintiff(s).

 v.

SONY COMPUTER

ENTERTAINMENT AMERICA,

INC., et al., 

 Defendant(s).

_____________________________/

No. C 02-0710 CW (WDB)

ORDER FOLLOWING SEPTEMBER

20, 2005, TELEPHONIC DISCOVERY

CONFERENCE

This morning, the morning of September 20, 2005, the Court acquiesced to defense

counsel's request to conduct an impromptu telephonic discovery conference in the abovereferenced case to discuss issues that have arisen during the taking of Rule 60(b) depositions.

For reasons articulated more thoroughly on the record, the Court ORDERS as follows:

1. The Court is not inclined to enter an order prohibiting deponents and their counsel

from discussing matters of substance during deposition breaks (unless an unanswered

question is pending).

 2. The Court hereby SUBSTITUTES Sony's in-house counsel Mr. James Leong for

Ms. Anne-Marie Dinius under the protective order. Defense counsel must use his best efforts

to provide plaintiff's counsel with a copy of Mr. Leong's resume by the close of business

today, September 20, 2005. 

Case 4:02-cv-00710-CW Document 1765 Filed 09/20/05 Page 1 of 2
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 is not certain how to spell Mr. Viega and Mr. Smollens' names.

2

3. Defense counsel is permitted to take Mr. Smollen's deposition this week. The

deposition must be taken at a time and place convenient to Mr. Smollen.

1

4. The information provided by counsel, some of it disputed with vigor, was not

sufficient to enable the court to determine whether it would be appropriate to condition

defense counsel’s right to take Mr. Smollen’s deposition on defendant reimbursing Mr.

Smollen for travel expenses and/or lost work time. If counsel for plaintiff elects to pursue

this matter, they must submit for the court’s review a copy of the transcript of the deposition

of Mr. Viega that was taken on September 19, 2005. If it appears to the court, after

reviewing the transcript, that defense counsel wasted substantial time during that deposition,

e.g., by asking forseeably unproductive questions or by repeated visits to the same subjects,

the court will afford defense counsel an opportunity to defend the manner in which he used

the time consumed by Mr. Viega’s deposition. If, after considering defense counsel’s

submission, the court concludes that the way defense counsel used the time consumed by the

Viega deposition was a substantial factor in causing Mr. Smollen’s deposition to be

postponed, the court will permit plaintiff’s counsel and/or Mr. Smollen to submit a claim for

reimbursement of reasonable expenses incurred.

 5. The Court will NOT conduct any additional impromptu telephonic discovery

conferences in connection with the remaining Rule 60(b) depositions. Counsel wishing to

bring any such discovery disputes to the Court's attention must do so by way of a written

motion that complies with the Civil Local Rules. 

Dated: September 20, 2005 /s/ Wayne D. Brazil 

WAYNE D. BRAZIL

United States Magistrate Judge

Copies to:

All parties, WDB, Stats, CW

Case 4:02-cv-00710-CW Document 1765 Filed 09/20/05 Page 2 of 2