Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-00824/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-00824-13/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

SHARPER IMAGE

CORPORATION,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

THE MAY DEPARTMENT

STORES, et al., 

 Defendant(s).

___________________________/

No. C 04-0824 CW (WDB)

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION

TO COMPEL FILED DECEMBER

28, 2005

 The court has reviewed the papers submitted by the parties that present their

positions about when the court should hear plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant

Ionic Pro to produce additional information related to damages. The court also has

reviewed the substance of plaintiff’s motion to compel (filed December 28, 2005). 

Having considered this material, and understanding fully that Ionic Pro has not

had occasion to set forth in full (in an opposition brief) the bases for its position, the

court is mystified about why there is a need for any motion activity in this arena. The

way counsel have handled discovery in this case raises serious questions about their

professionalism – and tempts the court to considerinitiating disciplinary proceedings.

Case 4:04-cv-00824-CW Document 653 Filed 01/04/06 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

2

Regardless of how stored (in hard copy or electronically), if Ionic Pro has

access to periodic or occasional reports (whether considered ‘interim’ or ‘draft’ or

‘provisional’ or anything else) that were generated in the normal course of business

and that disclose income received from the sale of air purifiers or expenses/costs

incurred in connection with the manufacture or sale of air purifiers, Ionic Pro must

produce those reports to counsel for plaintiff by January 23, 2006. If no such periodic

or occasional reports remain in existence (in any form), Ionic Pro need not undertake

to create them from retained raw data. 

Defendants will be prohibited from using at trial (or for any other purpose in

this litigation) any data or reports that were generated in the normal course of

business that defendants have not disclosed to counsel for plaintiff by January 23,

2006. 

Given these orders, there is no need to schedule a hearing on the motion to

compel that plaintiff filed on December 28, 2005. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2006 /s/ Wayne D. Brazil 

 WAYNE D. BRAZIL

United States Magistrate Judge

cc: parties, WDB, CW,

stats.

Case 4:04-cv-00824-CW Document 653 Filed 01/04/06 Page 2 of 2