Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03843/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03843-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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 REGARDING SCHEDULING OF SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL

SUMMARY JUDGMENT—No. C-04-03843 RMW

JAH

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-FILED on 6/12/06

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MEMRY CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

KENTUCKY OIL TECHNOLOGY, N.V.;

PETER BESSELINK; MEMORY METALS

HOLLAND, B.V.,

Defendants.

No. C-04-03843 RMW

ORDER REGARDING SCHEDULING OF

SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY

CORPORATION'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

[Re Docket Nos. 135, 139, 140, 142]

Schlumberger Technology Corporation ("STC") has moved for summary adjudication that

Kentucky Oil Technology, N.V. ("KOT") lacks standing to pursue its claim against STC for trade

secret misappropriation or KOT's request to correct inventorship. KOT filed an affidavit in

opposition under Rule 56(f), requesting more time to obtain testimony from others involved in

transfers of the intellectual property rights KOT asserts against STC. 

Here, KOT bears the burden of showing that the additional discovery it wishes to engage in

will lead to admissible evidence that would preclude the court granting STC's motion for summary

adjudication. Nidds v. Schindler Elevator Corp., 113 F.3d 912, 921 (9th Cir. 1996). KOT's lack of

diligence in pursuing past discovery is a proper basis for denying KOT's Rule 56(f) request. Id.

Case 5:04-cv-03843-RMW Document 143 Filed 06/12/06 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

1

 KOT admits as much, stating that "it would appear that no additional evidence is required." 

Pisano Decl. ¶ 45.

2

 STC's motion to strike portions of Nicola Pisano's declaration is therefore moot.

ORDER REGARDING SCHEDULING OF SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL

SUMMARY JUDGMENT—No. C-04-03843 RMW

JAH 2

The court is disturbed that KOT appears to lack at present evidence establishing that it

owns the trade secrets it alleges STC misappropriated. The action has been before this court since

September 2004 (having been transferred here from the Southern District of Texas). KOT filed

counterclaims against KOT in November 2004, including claims against STC for trade secret

misappropriation and correction of inventorship. Docket no. 14. That KOT at this juncture lacks

evidence that it owns the trade secrets at issue indicates a lack of diligence on its part. Its request

for additional time to develop evidence to oppose STC's motion on this point is therefore denied.

KOT's Rule 56(f) affidavit does not show that there further discovery is needed regarding

any disputed issues of material fact relevant to the correction of inventorship issue.1 Furthermore,

KOT does not show it has been diligent with respect to this issue. KOT was made aware that STC

would challenge KOT's standing to pursue its counterclaim for correction of inventorship no later

than February 2005, when STC filed a motion to dismiss on that basis. See docket no. 34. KOT's

request for additional time to develop evidence to oppose STC's motion on this point is therefore

denied.2

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the court:

1. denies KOT's request for additional time to conduct discovery under Rule 56(f);

2. instructs KOT to file any opposition to STC's motion for partial summary judgment

by June 30, 2006;

3. instructs STC to file any reply by July 7, 2006;

4. sets STC's motion for hearing on July 21, 2006 at 9 a.m.

DATED: 6/12/06

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:04-cv-03843-RMW Document 143 Filed 06/12/06 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

ORDER REGARDING SCHEDULING OF SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL

SUMMARY JUDGMENT—No. C-04-03843 RMW

JAH 3

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiff:

Andrew C. Ryan ryan@cantorcolburn.com

Michael A. Cantor 

Thomas J Mango tmango@cantorcolburn.com

William J. Cass wcass@cantorcolburn.com

Benjamin J. Holl benjamin.holl@dbr.com

Charles A. Reid, III charles.reid@dbr.com

Counsel for Defendants:

Michael H. Bierman mbierman@luce.com

Nicola A. Pisano npisano@luce.com

Counsel for Counterdefendants:

Nancy J. Geenen ngeenen@foleylaw.com 

Simon E. Dance 

David B. Moyer dmoyer@foley.com

Kimberly K. Dodd kdodd@foley.com

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

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

Dated: 6/12/06 /s/ JH

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:04-cv-03843-RMW Document 143 Filed 06/12/06 Page 3 of 3