Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03171/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03171-31/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 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-04-3171 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OKI America, Inc, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc, et al.,

Defendants.

________________________________/

No. C 04-3171 CRB (JL)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO QUASH

DEPOSITION OF PANKAJ DIXIT

(Docket #227) AND GRANTING

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION

(Docket # 228)

 Introduction

All discovery in this case has been referred by the district court (Hon. Charles R.

Breyer) as provided by 28 U.S.C. §636(b) and Civil Local Rule 72. The parties’ motion to

quash and motion to compel the deposition of non-party Pankaj Dixit was submitted without

oral argument as provided by Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). The Court considered the pleadings

of counsel and hereby denies the motion to quash and grants the motion to compel the

deposition of Mr. Dixit.

Analysis and Conclusion

Mr. Dixit is one of the named inventors of the patent-in-suit. Mr. Dixit’s co-inventor,

Dr. Richard Klein, testified that Mr. Dixit filled out the papers recommending that AMD seek

a patent on their invention. OKI contends that Mr. Dixit is therefore in the best position of all

the inventors to authenticate and describe the invention disclosure he authored. AMD

Case 3:04-cv-03171-CRB Document 305 Filed 08/08/06 Page 1 of 2
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-04-3171 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 2 of 2

responds that Mr. Dixit remembers little, if anything, of events that occurred twenty years

ago. If so, says OKI, the deposition will be short. The possible memory lapse of a witness

does not justify quashing the subpoena for his deposition. 

When Plaintiff subpoenaed Mr. Dixit as a fact witness he demanded $750 per hour

as an expert witness and AMD’s primary objection to his being deposed is that OKI is

improperly attempting to elicit his expert opinion without paying him for it. OKI responds

that it seeks to ask Mr. Dixit factual questions - based on his personal knowledge – as to

what he did, when he did it, how his invention worked, what he said about it and what he

meant by various words in patent-related papers he wrote or agreed to. If AMD objects to

some of OKI’s questions as being outside the scope of Mr. Dixit’s factual knowledge, it may

object and move for a protective order. 

AMD has no right under the Rules to limit Mr. Dixit’s deposition to one hour or to his

being deposed on written questions.

AMD attempts to use Mr. Cronin as an example of why this Court should quash Mr.

Dixit’s deposition. It claims that OKI tried also to abuse Mr. Cronin by attempting to use him

as an expert witness while compensating him with the modest sums tendered to a fact

witness. Mr. Cronin’s example does not serve AMD very well, since the trial judge in that

instance denied AMD’s motion to quash the subpoena for his deposition.

For all the above reasons, this Court denies the motion to quash and grants the

motion to compel. Mr. Dixit’s deposition shall go forward as soon as possible, but not later

than August 18, 2006, unless the parties stipulate to a later date.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 2006

__________________________________

JAMES LARSON

Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 3:04-cv-03171-CRB Document 305 Filed 08/08/06 Page 2 of 2