Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02319/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02319-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 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 09cv2319 BEN (NLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEN-PROBE INCORPORATED, a Delaware

corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY, a

New Jersey corporation,

Defendant. 

BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY, a

New Jersey corporation,

Counterclaimant,

v.

GEN-PROBE INCORPORATED, a Delaware

corporation,

Counterdefendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 09cv2319 BEN (NLS)

Civil No. 10cv0602 BEN (NLS)

ORDER DETERMINING JOINT

MOTION FOR DISCOVERY DISPUTE

No. 8, GRANTING DEFENDANTS'

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

[Doc. No. 134.]

The parties filed a joint motion in this patent suit asking the court to determine a dispute arising

out of defendant Becton-Dickinson’s (BD) response to an interrogatory served by plaintiff Gen-Probe

Incorporated (Gen-Probe). This is the second joint motion for determination brought in regard to this

single interrogatory. On December 22, 2010, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Determination of

Discovery Dispute (Sixth Dispute). [Docket No. 111.] In that motion, Gen-Probe sought to require BD

to supplement its response to Interrogatory Number 14, which asked: 

Case 3:09-cv-02319-BEN-NLS Document 136 Filed 03/18/11 Page 1 of 5
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 09cv2319 BEN (NLS)

Please list all contact information (e.g., name, business/residential addresses, email

addresses, and telephone numbers) last-known by You for each inventor or author named

on any alleged prior art identified in Your Preliminary Invalidity Contentions. 

(Interrogatory Number 14, Ware Decl. Ex 1.) This interrogatory asked BD to provide all last-known

contact information for each of the 290 listed authors or inventors of the over 90 prior art references BD

identified in its preliminary invalidity contentions. BD provided the contact information for seven of the

inventors or authors who are or were affiliated with BD, but no other contact information. Gen-Probe

asked this court to compel BD to disclose the contact information known to BD or to its outside counsel

for the remaining prior art inventors and authors whose identities BD already disclosed. 

The Court agreed with Gen-Probe that the contact information was purely factual and nonprivileged and ordered the information produced. [Docket No. 112, the "Order."] BD has now twice

supplemented its response to Interrogatory Number 14 and has provided Gen-Probe, where available, a

phone number, address, and email address for each potential witness. [Ware Decl. ¶¶ 6, 11.] GenProbe, however, is still not satisfied and has asked BD to supplement its disclosures with any additional

contact information it either has or discovers during the course of this litigation. BD argues that

revealing contact information gained during its defense of this action would violate the work product

immunity and seeks a protective order precluding such disclosures. In the motion currently before the

Court, Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute (Eighth Dispute), BD seeks a Protective

Order finding that its Second Supplemental Response to Interrogatory Number 14 is sufficient and that

it has no duty to provide ongoing supplementation. 

For the following reasons, the court GRANTS BD's motion for a protective order.

Discussion.

As the Court noted in the Order, two competing discovery rules come into play in this dispute:

(1) the general discovery rule requiring disclosure of the identity and location of persons who have

knowledge of any discoverable matter; and (2) work product protection of information prepared by

outside counsel in anticipation of trial. The court found that, at the early stages of the litigation, Rule

26(b)(1) determined this issue because the work product doctrine does not protect the strictly factual

information that Gen-Probe requested at the time. As the Order noted: “Parties may obtain discovery

regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense--including . . . the

Case 3:09-cv-02319-BEN-NLS Document 136 Filed 03/18/11 Page 2 of 5
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

By its terms, Rule 26 only applies to "documents and tangible things." Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(b)(3)(A). Intangible work product remains protected under Hickman v. Taylor 329 U.S. 495 (1947). 

See Laxalt v. McClatchy, 116 F.R.D. 438 (D. Nev. 1987); see also Ford v. Philips Electronics

Instruments Co., 82 F.R.D. 359 (E. D. Pa. 1979); Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, 8 Federal 

Practice and Procedure. §§ 2023, 2024 (3rd ed.).

2

The Court is not impressed with the parties' disparaging remarks made in reference to intentions

and ethics. The Court makes no finding of fault and encourages the parties to keep their arguments on a

more professional and courteous level.

3 09cv2319 BEN (NLS)

identity and location of persons who know of any discoverable matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 

As the Order also noted, the work product immunity precludes the discovery of the mental

processes of an attorney.1

 The work product doctrine affords a qualified protection from discovery for

all trial preparation materials prepared “in anticipation of litigation.” Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495

(1947); Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(3). “[B]ecause the work product doctrine is intended only to guard against

the divulging of attorney’s strategies and legal impressions, it does not protect facts concerning the

creation of work product or facts contained within the work product.” Garcia v. City of El Centro, 214

F.R.D. 587, 591 (S.D. Cal. 2003) (emphasis in original) (citations omitted). “Only when a party seeking

discovery attempts to ascertain facts, ‘which inherently reveal the attorney's mental impression,’ does

the work product protection extend to the underlying facts.” Id. (emphasis in original). 

The Order reasoned that Gen-Probe sought contact information for all 290 authors of the

asserted prior art and did not seek contact information for just the authors or inventors that BD had

interviewed. At the time, the facts Gen-Probe requested did not inherently reveal the mental

impressions of BD’s litigation counsel because it sought information about all potential witnesses.

In seeking supplementation throughout the litigation, however, Gen-Probe seeks, intentionally or

unintentionally,2

 information that invades the work product immunity. As BD argues, if it is forced to

reveal new contact information, it will be forced to reveal the witnesses with whom it is in contact. 

While the identity of potential witnesses is generally not protected, the identity of witnesses who have

been interviewed by one side is protected by the work product immunity. As two courts have aptly

stated: "The Court is persuaded by the rationale underlying this distinction; that is, 'if the identity of

interviewed witnesses is disclosed, the opposing counsel can infer which witnesses counsel considers

important, revealing mental impressions and trial strategy.'" Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 572 Pension

Case 3:09-cv-02319-BEN-NLS Document 136 Filed 03/18/11 Page 3 of 5
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

3

Gen-Probe argues that BD improperly seeks reconsideration of the Order and should be

sanctioned for this conduct. The Order noted the two competing concerns at play: the need to disclose

the location of witnesses under Rule 26 and the work product immunity. The Order required BD to

supplement its response and BD has supplemented its response. BD sought a protective order because it

believed that its supplementation was sufficient and further supplementation would invade the

protections of the work product immunity. Accordingly, circumstances have changed and BD's request

for a protective order is supported by the record currently before the Court. What is not supported by

the record, however, is Gen-Probe's request for sanctions without first meeting and conferring with BD. 

Civil Local Rule 26.1 states: "The court will entertain no motion pursuant to Rules 26-37, Fed. R. Civ.

P., unless counsel have previously met an conferred concerning all disputed issues." The same

requirement is set forth in the Scheduling Order [Docket No. 25] governing this case and the Chambers

Rules. Accordingly, the Court will not entertain Gen-Probe's request for sanctions.

4

Gen-Probe purports to incorporate into this motion the points and authorities it submitted for the

sixth discovery dispute. The purpose of the Chambers Rule limiting points and authorities to 10 pages

per side is to urge the parties to succinctly state their best arguments. Because allowing incorporation of

other points and authorities would frustrate this purpose, the Court declines to consider any argument

not made within the allotted ten pages of points and authorities submitted for this motion.

4 09cv2319 BEN (NLS)

Fund v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 2005 WL 1459555 (N.D. Cal. Jun 21, 2005), quoting In re MTI Tech.

Corp. Sec. Litig. II. 2002 WL 32344347 (C.D. Cal. June 13, 2002). The supplementation that GenProbe seeks would transform the information from the type where the identity of witnesses interviewed

is not disclosed into the type where such disclosure can be inferred.3 This is precisely the type of

information protected by the work product immunity. In re Ashworth, Inc. Securities Litigation, 213

F.R.D. 385 (S.D. Cal. 2002)(work product protected information as to whether investigator had

interviewed a particular witness); see also Laxalt v. McClatchy, 116 F.RD. 438, 443 (D. Nev. 1987);

Ferruza v. MTI Technology, 2002 WL 32344347 at *3 (C.D. Cal. Jun 13, 2002).

 If the party invoking the protection establishes the applicability of the work product doctrine,

the qualified protection can be overcome by “a showing that the party seeking the discovery has

substantial need of the materials,” and that “the party is unable, without undue hardship, to obtain the

substantial equivalent of the material by other means.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(3). 

At this point, Gen-Probe has not shown either a substantial need for the information or any

undue hardship in discovering the information for itself.4

 In fact, Gen-Probe has failed to identify even

a single witness that it has been unable to contact. [Ware Decl. ¶ 8.] As in Ferruza, "Defendants have

not shown that there is either a substantial need for the particular information sought, beyond reducing

their investigative costs by riding on Plaintiffs' coattails, or that they will face an undue hardship . . . " 

Ferruza, 2002 WL 32344347 at *4.

Case 3:09-cv-02319-BEN-NLS Document 136 Filed 03/18/11 Page 4 of 5
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

5

If Gen-Probe cannot successfully contact one or more potential witnesses disclosed, it may seek

additional contact information from BD as to that witness or those witnesses. The Court fully expects

that the parties will use their best efforts to attempt to resolve amongst themselves any disputes that

may arise. It would reflect poorly upon the parties, and likely result in sanctions, if this single

interrogatory were the subject of a third discovery motion. 

5 09cv2319 BEN (NLS)

Rule 26(c) provides, in relevant part: 

A party or any person from whom discovery is sought may move for a protective

order . . . . The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from

annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense . . . .

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). Because a continuing duty to supplement contact information would invade the

protections of the work product immunity, good cause exists for the Court to issue the Protective Order

sought by BD.5

The rest of the allegations and alleged disputes put forth in the joint motion do not warrant any

further attention from this court.

Order.

Good Cause Appearing, It Is Hereby Ordered that: BD's Motion for Protective Order is Granted

and BD need not further supplement its responses to Gen-Probe’s Interrogatory No. 14.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 18, 2011

Hon. Nita L. Stormes

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:09-cv-02319-BEN-NLS Document 136 Filed 03/18/11 Page 5 of 5