Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03715/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03715-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

C-02-5273 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PHOTOFLEX.COM,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMVONA.COM,

Defendant.

________________________________/

No. C 04-3715 JSW (JL)

ORDER Granting in part Defendant’s

Motion to Compel (Docket # 63)

Introduction

All discovery in this case has been referred by the district court (Hon. Jeffrey S.

White) as provided by 28 U.S.C. §636(b) and Civil Local Rule 72. Before the Court is

Amvona’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories and to Compel the

Production of Documents. (Dkt # 63). The Court is deciding the motion without oral

argument as provided by Civil Local Rule 7-1.

In the interest of judicial economy, and to facilitate the resolution of this discovery

dispute, the Court ordered all counsel involved with any of the motions to meet and confer

as provided in this Court’s Standing Order and provide to the Court a statement on the

status of their disputes no less than two weeks from the issuance of the order. The parties

Case 3:04-cv-03715-JSW Document 101 Filed 08/18/06 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

C-02-5273 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 2 of 3

met and conferred by telephone, despite the Court’s Standing Order that counsel meet and

confer in person. They filed their joint statement as ordered by the Court. 

Discovery Dispute: Analysis and Order

The parties were able to resolve the following discovery in dispute:

In light of the partial stay, Amvona withdrew Interrogatory No. 7 and Requests for

Production Nos. 5, 17 and 20. Amvona also narrowed the following discovery to exclude

matters related to the subject patent: Interrogatory Nos. 4 and 5. Request for Production

No. 15.

The following discovery remains at issue: Interrogatory Nos. 1-6, 9-10; Request for

Production Nos. 1-4, 6-16 and 21-22.

Photoflex agreed to provide some amended responses but Amvona observes that it

made the same promise in the April 2006 opposition. The Court hereby orders that any

amended responses be served on or before August 30, 2006.

Amvona contends that Photoflex has not produced verified copies of the images at

issue. Photoflex agrees to supplement a response listing all the images currently known to

be at issue by Bates-Stamped Number which it previously identified by informal letter to

Amvona’s counsel. The Court hereby orders Photoflex to produce this response on or

before August 30.

Photoflex shall respond to Interrogatories 4, 6, 9 and 10 and Requests for

Production of Documents Nos. 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 21 and 22 with financial

information sufficient to show how their damages claims were calculated or other evidence

that would allow Amvona to test the damage claims, as provided by Rule 33 and 34,

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, by either narrative response or production of documents

as provided by FRCP 33(d). Photoflex shall also attribute its damages to either the nowstayed patent claim or the other remaining claims.

Photoflex shall also respond to document requests relevant to whether the inventor

met the statutory time requirements for filing the patent at issue (Request Nos. 16 and 19).

Case 3:04-cv-03715-JSW Document 101 Filed 08/18/06 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

C-02-5273 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 3 of 3

Photoflex shall produce documents in response to Amvona’s Request No. 14. It is

not a valid objection that Photoflex may also have copies of these documents.

All compliance shall be due on or before August 30, 2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 18, 2006

__________________________________

JAMES LARSON

Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 3:04-cv-03715-JSW Document 101 Filed 08/18/06 Page 3 of 3