Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00324/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00324-3/pdf.json

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

07cv0324-WQH (BLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ZODIAC POOL CARE, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

PENTAIR WATER POOL AND SPA,

INC.,

Defendant. 

PENTAIR WATER POOL AND SPA,

INC.,

Counterclaimant,

v.

ZODIAC POOL CARE, INC.,

Counterdefendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 07cv0324-WQH (BLM)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF

DOCUMENTS AND FOR INSPECTION

[Doc. No. 39] AND GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL

COMPLIANT INVALIDITY

CONTENTIONS [Doc. No. 34]

On October 18, 2007, the Court heard oral argument on Plaintiff’s

Motion to Compel Production of Documents and for Inspection from

Defendant Pentair Water Pool and Spa, Inc. [Doc. No. 39] and Plaintiff’s

Motion to Compel Defendant to Serve Invalidity Contentions that Comply

with the Case Management Conference Order [Doc. No. 34].

Case 3:07-cv-00324-WQH-BLM Document 65 Filed 10/19/07 Page 1 of 4
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 The parties agreed during the hearing to conduct the inspection on October

24, 2007. However, subsequent to the hearing, the parties changed the date and, with

the Court’s approval, agreed to conduct the inspection on October 29, 2007 at 10:30

a.m.

2 07cv0324-WQH (BLM)

For the reasons stated on the record:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel production and inspection

[Doc. No. 39] is GRANTED to the extent Plaintiff seeks to compel

brochures and manuals pertaining to the pool cleaners Defendant agreed

to make available for inspection and to the extent all responsive

documents have not already been produced. 

2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel production and inspection

[Doc. No. 39] also is GRANTED to the extent Plaintiff seeks a date

certain when it may inspect the pool cleaners Defendant agreed to make

available for inspection. The inspection shall occur on October 29,

2007 at 10:30 a.m. in Defendant’s counsel’s Los Angeles offices.1

3. As to Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of

documents held by third parties [Doc. No. 39], the motion is GRANTED IN

PART AND DENIED IN PART. On or before October 26, 2007, Defendant shall

serve on Plaintiff a declaration that explains the precise nature of the

relationship between Pentair Water Pool and Spa, Inc. (“Pentair”) and

its source for the Accused Products. This declaration shall be from

the person at Pentair who is most knowledgeable about the relationship

between Pentair and its source for the Accused Products. However, based

on Defendant’s counsel’s representation during the hearing that Pentair

does not have “the legal right to obtain the documents on demand,” (see

In re Citric Acid Litig., 191 F.3d 1090, 1107 (9th Cir. 1999); United

States v. Int’l Union of Petroleum & Indus. Workers, 870 F.2d 1450, 1452

(9th Cir. 1989)), the Court does not find it appropriate to compel

Case 3:07-cv-00324-WQH-BLM Document 65 Filed 10/19/07 Page 2 of 4
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 07cv0324-WQH (BLM)

Defendant to obtain responsive documents from the third party(ies) and,

therefore, DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to require Defendant to do so. To

the extent Plaintiff seeks documentation in the possession, custody or

control of a third party(ies), it must obtain this information by

serving a subpoena on the appropriate party(ies). 

4. Plaintiff’s motion to compel compliant invalidity contentions

[Doc. No. 34] is GRANTED. On or before November 9, 2007, Defendant

shall serve supplemental invalidity contentions, and all accompanying

documents, in full compliance with the requirements set forth in this

Court’s June 13, 2007 Case Management Conference Order Regulating

Discovery and Other Pretrial Proceedings [Doc. No. 20], as further

confirmed in this Court’s Order Granting Joint Ex Parte Application and

Issuing Revised Case Management Conference Order Regulating Discovery

and Other Pretrial Proceedings (which is being filed concurrently with

the instant order). Defendant’s failure to comply by November 9, 2007

with all such requirements for each asserted item of prior art waives

Defendant’s right to rely on that item of prior art in its invalidity

arguments. 

Failure to comply with any of this Court’s orders, the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, or the Patent Local Rules may result in the

imposition of sanctions including monetary sanctions, evidentiary

sanctions and/or the dismissal or default of your case.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 19, 2007

BARBARA L. MAJOR

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00324-WQH-BLM Document 65 Filed 10/19/07 Page 3 of 4
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 07cv0324-WQH (BLM)

COPY TO: 

HONORABLE WILLIAM Q. HAYES

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

ALL COUNSEL

Case 3:07-cv-00324-WQH-BLM Document 65 Filed 10/19/07 Page 4 of 4