Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-00521/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-00521-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 Patent 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

1

*E-FILED 7/7/06*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

HILL DESIGN GROUP, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

SPRING WANG, ET AL.,

Defendants . /

NO. C 04-00521 JF (RS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

TO COMPEL AND DENYING

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

I. INTRODUCTION

Before the court is plaintiff Hill Design Group’s motion to compel defendants to produce

further interrogatory responses and documents, and Hill’s separately noticed motion for sanctions. 

The motions were heard on June 28, 2006. Based on the argument of counsel and all the papers filed

to date, the motion to compel will be granted and the motion for sanctions will be denied, for the

reasons set forth below.

 II. BACKGROUND

Hill brought this action to recover royalties it contends it is owed for defendants’ use of

Hill’s designs incorporated in various outdoor furniture products. Hill also alleges copyright and

patent infringement. The discovery in dispute in this motion essentially seeks to quantify and

document the products that defendants made and sold containing any of Hill’s designs, although at

least some of the requests appear to seek information beyond that directly relating to products

incorporating Hill’s designs. (See e.g. Interrogatory No. 5, seeking information as to defendants’

Case 5:04-cv-00521-JF Document 62 Filed 07/07/06 Page 1 of 6
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

2

customers for any “outdoor furniture.”)

This is the second motion to compel and request for sanctions that Hill has brought with

respect to these interrogatories and document requests. Initially, defendants had not responded to

the interrogatories at all, had not produced written responses to the document requests, and had

produced only some documents. In response to the first motion to compel, defendants’ counsel filed

a declaration explaining why he had previously believed that written responses were not going to

become necessary, but that he was then in the process of preparing them. Based on those

representations, the Court granted the motion to compel, but denied sanctions, by a written order

dated May 26, 2005.

Defendants thereafter served responses to the interrogatories and document requests, and

produced additional documents, within the time period set by the prior order. Hill contends,

however, that those responses were inadequate and that they improperly included objections.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Motion to Compel

The record reflects that there has been a total breakdown in how the discovery process and

meet and confer negotiations are supposed to function. The Court is not in a position to sort through

exactly how that breakdown occurred and it is unwilling to attempt to assign the relative levels of

blame and responsibility each side may bear. There is little doubt that both sides have made some

reasonable attempts to compromise at points along the way, but conversely, there is also little doubt

that both sides have taken positions and acted in ways at times that exacerbated the conflict

unnecessarily. Various outside factors appear also to have contributed to the situation, including

such things as plaintiff’s counsel’s relocation to another state and some resulting delays in the

transmission of correspondence.

Additionally, the Court’s ability to discern what substantive relief may be warranted at this

point in time is hampered by the state of the record. Hill apparently would prefer that the Court

simply order defendants to fill out the Excel spreadsheet that Hill prepared, but the concept of the

spreadsheet was developed during the failed meet and confer process–it is not an interrogatory or

document request, and the Court is disinclined to require its use where there was never a meeting of

Case 5:04-cv-00521-JF Document 62 Filed 07/07/06 Page 2 of 6
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

3

the minds as to whether it was appropriate. Defendants, in turn, appear to be taking the position that

there simply is no more information or documents that they could provide. By failing to file an

actual opposition brief, however, and by addressing virtually none of Hill’s specific contentions in

the declaration that they did file, defendants have given the Court no reasonable basis to conclude

that in fact no further responsive materials exist. Review of the responses provided as well as the

record on was represented during meet and confer discussions strongly suggests that the contrary is

true.

The situation is further complicated by the question of whether or not defendants are

withholding anything based on objections to the requests. Hill argues, with some justification, that

defendants waived any and all objections by failing to serve timely responses in the first instance,

and that under the Court’s prior order, defendants were not entitled to assert any objections. The

Court’s prior order, however, did not directly address waiver–rather, based on the declaration

defendants filed at the time, the Court understood that defendants did not intend to assert any

substantive objections. When defendants served their responses, they did include numerous

objections, but in many cases agreed to provide information or documents or both notwithstanding

those objections. On this record, however, it is not possible to determine whether defendants

ultimately relied on any of the objections as a basis for not producing additional documents or more

complete interrogatory answers.

Based on defendants’ failure to serve timely responses initially and on their representations

to the Court at the time of the first motion, the Court concludes that it would be inappropriate to

permit defendants to assert or to rely on any objections as to the form of the discovery requests. The

Court recognizes, however, that at least some of the requests in dispute potentially call for the

production of information or documents that may have relatively little probative value, and that there

is at least a possibility that the burden of compiling, and possibly translating, documents and

information located overseas may not be warranted. Accordingly, the Court will not rule at this

juncture that defendants necessarily have waived the right to object to any such burdens. If, after

defendants have complied with this order, there is still a controversy between the parties as to

whether additional responsive materials must be produced, defendants may seek a protective order

Case 5:04-cv-00521-JF Document 62 Filed 07/07/06 Page 3 of 6
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

4

that makes a particularized showing as to what materials have not been produced and what the

burdens of doing so would be. Defendants are cautioned, however, that there do appear to be

grounds upon which the Court might find that all objections have been waived. For its part, Hill is

cautioned that the Court generally is reluctant to order a party to engage in unduly expensive or

burdensome productions where the material is of tangential relevance, even in the face of a claim

that all objections have been waived. Accordingly, it remains in both parties’ interest to resolve any

disputes that may remain through negotiation and compromise.

In light of all of the foregoing, the motion to compel will be granted on the following terms:

1. No later than August 1, 2006, defendants shall serve amended interrogatory responses and

amended written responses to the documents requests. The amended responses shall not include any

objections, with the exception that if defendants contend that fully responding to any particular

request would be unduly burdensome, they may so state, as long as they specifically describe the

nature of the burden and fully identify what materials they believe may exist but have not been

produced. The amended responses shall also address, as fully as possible, each and every point

raised by Hill in its moving papers for this motion as to why the prior responses appear incomplete

or non-responsive.

2. No later than August 1, 2006, defendants shall produce any additional responsive

documents in their possession, custody, or control, except to the extent that it is withholding

documents based on a claim of burden, as described above. Defendants shall identify as fully as

possible the nature and number of any documents so withheld. If no additional documents exist,

defendants shall provide a verified statement so stating.

B. Motion for Sanctions

As reflected in the proceeding discussion, it does appear that defendants have not fully

complied with their discovery obligations, but that there has been a breakdown in communication on

both sides during this process. Under these circumstances, sanctions will not be imposed. The

parties are directed to address any remaining or future discovery disputes with a renewed effort at

cooperation. To that end, the parties are strongly encouraged to focus only on the current state of

affairs rather than the history of these discovery disputes, to meet face-to-face when practicable, and

Case 5:04-cv-00521-JF Document 62 Filed 07/07/06 Page 4 of 6
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

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL AND DENYING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 

C 04-00521 JF (RS) 

5

to utilize direct telephone contact as an alternative to exchanging messages or correspondence.

IV. CONCLUSION

The motion to compel is granted, as set forth above. The motion for sanctions is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 7, 2006 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:04-cv-00521-JF Document 62 Filed 07/07/06 Page 5 of 6
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

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL AND DENYING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 

C 04-00521 JF (RS) 

6

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS ORDER HAS BEEN GIVEN TO:

Paul L. Gumina paul@svbusinesslaw.com,

Thomas Allen Moore tom@noveckandmoore.com

Julianne Pinter juliannepinter@sbcglobal.net, karen@rpmlegal.com

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not

registered for e-filing under the Court's CM/ECF program. 

Dated: 7/7/06 Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

By: /s/ BAK 

Case 5:04-cv-00521-JF Document 62 Filed 07/07/06 Page 6 of 6