Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01147/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01147-8/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

cal 

1 06CV1147

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RPA INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD., d/b/a

NUFURN PTY LTD.; NUFURN, INC. and

DENNIS MICHAEL KRAWCHUK, an

individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMPACT INTERNATIONAL, INC.; LEE

JOHNSON, an individual; PRE SALES, INC;

ERIC SEGAL, an individual; BZ GLOBAL

SDN. BHD.; BZ GLOBAL (H.K.) LIMITED;

CHEE CHOON CHEAH, an individual; and

KOK CHEONG SOO, an individual,

Defendants. 

KOK CHEONG SOO, an individual; and

CHEE CHOON CHEAH, an individual,

Counter-Plaintiffs,

v.

DENNIS MICHAEL DRAWCHUK, an

individual,

Counter-Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No.06cv1147 WQH(AJB)

Order Following Discovery Conference

The parties contacted the Court regarding a discovery dispute involving Defendant’s failure to

provide written responses and additional documents to Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production of

Case 3:06-cv-01147-WQH-AJB Document 101 Filed 11/02/07 Page 1 of 3
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 06CV1147

Documents and Things, served on Defendant May 18, 2007, and Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s

First Set of Interrogatories, served on Plaintiff August 17, 2007. The parties submitted a Joint Statement

Regarding Discovery Issues on September 26, 2007, and a telephonic discovery conference was held on

September 26, 2007, at 5:00 p.m.

Upon review of the Requests for Production of Documents, Interrogatories and Responses that

were submitted by the parties, the Court directs the parties as follows: 

1) Defendant must provide written responses under oath to Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for

Production of Documents and Things. The Court notes that Defendant previously agreed to

provide written responses. Defendant must serve the responses on or before November 19, 2007.

2) Defendant must produce all documents in his possession, custody or control that are

responsive to Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents and Things, and

provide a Withheld Document Log listing any privileged/confidential documents he is not

producing and the reason for withholding. The Court notes that Defendant must not only locate

and produce all responsive documents in his possession and custody but also all responsive

documents in his control, even if the documents are in the possession of another person, i.e.

former attorneys. Also, as a co-owner and Director of Defendant corporations, Defendant must

respond and produce all responsive documents in his possession, custody or control that relate to

these Defendants as well. The Court also notes that Defendant previously agreed to provide

additional documents. Defendant must serve the documents and Withheld Document Log, if

necessary, on or before November 19, 2007.

3) Defendant failed to provide his responses to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories under oath

and must provide the required oath by November 19, 2007.

4) Defendant's responses to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2,3,7 and 12 are not responsive or are

incomplete. As a co-owner and Director of Defendant corporations, Defendant must fully

respond to the best of his knowledge and ability to interrogatories related to Defendant corporations. To the extent he does not know and cannot obtain with reasonable due diligence the

requested information, Defendant must so state in his responses. Defendant must serve

supplemental responses under oath on or before November 19, 2007. 

Case 3:06-cv-01147-WQH-AJB Document 101 Filed 11/02/07 Page 2 of 3
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

K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\CASES\RPA Int'l\06cv1147.RPA.v.Compact.order.fdc.wpd 3 06CV1147

5) Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 5 is incomplete. Defendant must supplement his

response to confirm the dates on which he "first became aware" of the stated Patent Application

and U.S. Patent. The Court notes that Defendant provided a new response in the Joint Statement

Regarding Discovery, but such response must be provided to Plaintiff in a formal supplemental

interrogatory response. Defendant must serve the supplemental response under oath on or before

November 19, 2007.

6) Defendant agrees to supplement response to Interrogatory No. 11 to clarify his response and

must serve the supplemental response under oath on or before November 19, 2007. 

7) Defendant agrees to supplement responses to Interrogatory Nos. 4, 8, 9, 13 and 14. With

respect to No. 9, Defendant’s supplemental response must state the date he claims he conceived

of the invention, state the date he allegedly reduced the invention to practice and identify all

supporting documents and things (and produce such documents). This information is inferred

from the interrogatory and essential to the issue of inventorship. Defendant must serve the

supplemental responses under oath on or before November 19, 2007.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 1, 2007

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:06-cv-01147-WQH-AJB Document 101 Filed 11/02/07 Page 3 of 3