Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01830/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01830-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 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

C-04-1830 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FUNAI ELECTRIC COMPANY, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DAEWOO ELECTRONICS

CORPORATION, ET AL.,

Defendants.

________________________________/

No. C 04-1830 CRB (JL)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Introduction

This Court received the parties’ joint statement regarding compliance with this Court’s

April 14, 2005 order. That order granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s motion to compel.

Defendants’ compliance was due within thirty days, or by May 14, 2005. 

Order

The Court reviewed the joint statement and hereby orders Defendants to appear

before this Court and show cause why they and their counsel should not be sanctioned under

Rule 37(b)(2), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for failure to comply with this Court’s order.

The Court hereby issues its preliminary orders on some of the questions addressed in the

joint statement.

With respect to the “Composition Agreement,” Defendants contend that they have no

possession, custody or control of this Agreement, the same argument they raised in the

Case 3:04-cv-01830-JCS Document 104 Filed 07/14/05 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

 On June 17, Plaintiff dismissed without prejudice its complaint against

Daewoo International (America) Corporation (DIAC) and Daewoo International Corporation

(DIC). These are only two of multiple Daewoo entities which are defendants in this case. 

C-04-1830 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Page 2 of 3

previous discovery motion and which this Court rejected. The Court then ordered them to

produce the Composition Agreement. (Order at page 3). Defendants did not appeal this

ruling. Defendants shall produce the Composition Agreement forthwith.

With regard to the cross-referencing of customer numbers and Daewoo1 product

numbers, the Court rejects Defendants’ contention that reconciling this information is the same

for Daewoo as it is for Funai. These are Daewoo’s products. If they are identified differently by

customer numbers and product numbers, that is more in the province of Daewoo than of Funai

and Daewoo shall perform the reconciliation. This cross-referencing shall be provided

forthwith.

Further Briefing

The parties shall submit letter briefs as follows.

With respect to the translated attachments to the Asset Purchase Agreement,

Defendants contend that these are irrelevant and “take time to translate.” The Court previously

decided the issue of relevance when it ordered Defendants to produce the translated

attachments to the Asset Purchase Agreement on or before May 14. While translation may

take time, Defendants shall explain why the documents have not been translated in three

months, including documentation of their efforts to obtain a translation. Defendants shall also

respond to Plaintiff’s allegation that the translation of the Asset Purchase Agreement is

inconsistent with the partial translation previously produced by Daewoo.

For every discovery response for which Defendants contend there are no responsive

specimens or documents they shall describe in detail their efforts to locate responsive

specimens or documents including the names of those who searched, the locations searched,

when the search was initiated and the time spent searching.

Case 3:04-cv-01830-JCS Document 104 Filed 07/14/05 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-04-1830 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Page 3 of 3

Plaintiff shall provide to the Court its declaration documenting its expenses associated

with both the previous discovery motion before this Court and its efforts to obtain Defendants’

compliance with this Court’s order of April 14, 2005.

The parties’ letter briefs shall be filed on or before July 25, 2005. 

Hearing

The matter will be heard on August 3, 2005 at 9:30 a.m.

If the parties resolve their dispute prior to this date, they shall advise the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 14, 2005

 

__________________________________

JAMES LARSON

Chief United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:04-cv-01830-JCS Document 104 Filed 07/14/05 Page 3 of 3