Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00087/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00087-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:0256 Patent Non-Infringement (Correction of Named Inventor)

---

1 

17cv0087-GPC-MDD 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

UNIVERSAL STABILIZATION 

TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

ADVANCED BIONUTRITION 

CORP., 

Defendant.

Case No.: 17cv0087-GPC-MDD

ORDER ON JOINT MOTION 

FOR DETERMINATION OF 

DISCOVERY DISPUTE RE: 

PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR 

PRODUCTION 21-26

[ECF NO. 47]

Before the Court is the Joint Motion of the parties, filed on November 

20, 2017, to determine a discovery dispute regarding Plaintiff’s requests for 

production 21 through 26 in its second set of requests for production (“RFP”). 

(ECF No. 47). The Court allowed for a reply to be filed on November 28, 

2017, and a sur-reply on December 5, 2017. (ECF Nos. 48, 50). The RFPs all 

relate to documents pertaining to an asset purchase agreement between 

Defendant and a third party and a separate agreement (the “side agreement’) 

with the third party regarding the patent in dispute. (ECF No. 47 at 9-18). 

Defendant challenges the relevance of the requested documents and the 

timeliness of the motion under this Court’s chambers rules.

Legal Standard 

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorize parties to obtain 

Case 3:17-cv-00087-GPC-MDD Document 52 Filed 12/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2 

17cv0087-GPC-MDD 

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

discovery of “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or 

defense and proportional to the needs of the case . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(b)(1). “Information within the scope of discovery need not be admissible in 

evidence to be discoverable.” Id. District courts have broad discretion to 

limit discovery where the discovery sought is “unreasonably cumulative or 

duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more 

convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). 

A party may request the production of any document within the scope of 

Rule 26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). “For each item or category, the response 

must either state that inspection and related activities will be permitted as 

requested or state an objection to the request, including the reasons.” Rule 

34(b)(2)(B). If the responding party chooses to produce responsive 

information, rather than allow for inspection, the production must be 

completed no later than the time specified in the request or another 

reasonable time specified in the response. Id. An objection must state 

whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that 

objection. Rule 34(b)(2)(C). An objection to part of a request must specify the 

part and permit inspection or production of the rest. Id. The responding 

party is responsible for all items in “the responding party’s possession, 

custody, or control.” Rule 34(a)(1). Actual possession, custody or control is 

not required. Rather, “[a] party may be ordered to produce a document in the 

possession of a non-party entity if that party has a legal right to obtain the 

document or has control over the entity who is in possession of the 

document.” Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 620 (N.D. Cal. 1995). 

Discussion 

Before getting to the merits, the Court is compelled to address 

Plaintiff’s use of pejorative language in its portion of the Joint Motion. 

Case 3:17-cv-00087-GPC-MDD Document 52 Filed 12/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3 

17cv0087-GPC-MDD 

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

Plaintiff says that Defendant “developed a ‘sneaky’ way to avoid discovery on 

this asset sale,” and that Defendant “cooked up” one of the documents at 

issue. (ECF No. 47 at 3-4). First, using disparaging language is not 

persuasive; it has the opposite effect. Second, section XVIII of this Court’s 

civil chambers rules provide: 

The Court insists that all counsel and parties be courteous, 

professional, and civil at all times to opposing counsel, parties, and the 

Court, including all court personnel. Professionalism and civility is the 

rule and not the exception. Personal attacks on counsel or opposing 

parties will not be tolerated. 

Counsel for Plaintiff shall refrain from further nastiness. It is not clever, it is 

not smart and it is not helpful to Plaintiff’s cause. 

A. Timeliness 

Section IV.C.2 of the Court’s civil chambers rules provides:

Any motion related to discovery disputes must be filed no later than 

thirty (30) days after the date upon which the event giving rise to the 

dispute occurred. For oral discovery, the event giving rise to the dispute 

is the completion of the transcript of the relevant portion of the 

deposition. For written discovery, the event giving rise to the discovery 

dispute is the date of service of the response, not the date on which 

counsel reach an impasse in meet and confer efforts. 

Defendant asserts that the instant motion is untimely. According to 

Defendant, it produced the redacted “side agreement” and refused to produce 

on relevance grounds the asset purchase agreement and related documents 

on July 31, 2017. (ECF No. 47 at 5 n.2). The production and objection were 

in response to Plaintiff’s RFP No. 4, served on May 22, 2017, requesting the 

production of “[a]ll Documents reflecting licenses, research agreements, 

technology agreements, grant requests or applications, or other agreements 

that refer or Relate to the subject matter claimed in the ‘245 patent.” (ECF 

Case 3:17-cv-00087-GPC-MDD Document 52 Filed 12/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4 

17cv0087-GPC-MDD 

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

No. 47 at 2). On September 11, 2017, Plaintiff sought to meet and confer 

with Defendant regarding the redactions and objections. (ECF No. 46, Exh. 

A). Accordingly, Defendant urges the Court to find that the discovery dispute 

was ripe as early as August 30, 2017. 

Plaintiff has a different view of things. According to Plaintiff, this 

motion is timely because Plaintiff served its second set of RFP’s on 

September 20, 2017, specifically calling for the production of an unredacted 

version of the “side agreement,” the asset purchase agreement and all related 

documents and correspondence. The response by Defendant was served on 

October 20, 2017, making the instant motion, filed on November 20, 2017, 

timely. (ECF No. 47 at 2). 

The instant motion is untimely. The six RFP’s in issue here request 

information called for in the original RFP No. 4. Defendant produced the 

redacted “side agreement” and specifically refused to produce the asset 

purchase agreement and related documents, on or about July 31, 2017. The 

obligation of Plaintiff was to attempt to meet and confer prior to the 

expiration of the 30-day period and timely file a joint discovery motion or 

seek relief from the 30-day rule from the Court. It did neither. Serving a 

new set of RFP’s calling for the production of the same documents does not 

and cannot restart the clock. 

B. Merits 

Out of an abundance of caution, and to assure that enforcing the Court’s 

30-day rule does not result in a manifest injustice, the Court has reviewed 

the merits of the dispute. The Court finds that no manifest injustice in 

enforcing its rule. Defendant has stated unequivocally that the ‘245 patent 

has never been commercialized or monetized. (ECF No. 47 at 6). The asset 

Case 3:17-cv-00087-GPC-MDD Document 52 Filed 12/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5 

17cv0087-GPC-MDD 

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

purchase agreement and related documents appear not relevant as the ‘245 

patent family was not part of that purchase. 

The Court agrees with Plaintiff that the covenant not to sue contained 

within the “side agreement” is tantamount to a license for the ‘245 family of 

patents. See Transcore, LP v. Electronic Transaction Consultants Corp., 563 

F.3d 1271, 1275-76 (Fed. Cir. 2009). To the extent that there was 

consideration paid for the covenant not to sue, evidence of that consideration 

may be relevant. Although Plaintiff is denied discovery of that information 

pursuant to these RFP’s by virtue of its violation of this Court’s civil 

chambers rules, discovery remains open and Plaintiff appears to have other 

discovery vehicles to obtain the information it seeks. 

Conclusion 

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of 

documents, as presented in the instant Joint Motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: December 13, 2017 __________________________ 

Mitchell D. Dembin 

U. S. Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:17-cv-00087-GPC-MDD Document 52 Filed 12/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5