Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01147/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01147-10/pdf.json

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

cal 

1 06CV1147

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RPA INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD., d/b/a

NUFURN PTY LTD.; NUFURN, INC. and

DENNIS MICHAEL KRAWCHUK, an

individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMPACT INTERNATIONAL, INC.; LEE

JOHNSON, an individual; PRE SALES, INC;

ERIC SEGAL, an individual; BZ GLOBAL

SDN. BHD.; BZ GLOBAL (H.K.) LIMITED;

CHEE CHOON CHEAH, an individual; and

KOK CHEONG SOO, an individual,

Defendants. 

KOK CHEONG SOO, an individual; and

CHEE CHOON CHEAH, an individual,

Counter-Plaintiffs,

v.

DENNIS MICHAEL DRAWCHUK, an

individual,

Counter-Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No.06cv1147 WQH(AJB)

ORDER FOLLOWING CASE

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Case 3:06-cv-01147-WQH-AJB Document 108 Filed 12/17/07 Page 1 of 3
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 06CV1147

On December 17, 2007, the Court convened a Case Management Conference in the above

entitled action. Appearing were Phil Petti, Esq. and Amanda Lowrey, Esq. on behalf of plaintiff and

Kok Cheong Soo, appearing pro se.

There remain discovery problems which interfere with scheduling final dates.

These relate specifically to the following:

1. Supplemental responses to interrogatories and document requests that are dependent

upon the production of records from defendants two companies, BZ Global SDN.BGD and BZ Global

(HK) Ltd;

2. Interrogatories and documents requests seeking evidence behind the contentions of non

infringement and invalidity, respectively.

It has also become clear that Mr. Soo has come into additional information that supports his

claims and defenses. It will therefore be timely to order the parties to supplement their initial disclosures. Finally, Mr. Soo has not signed off on the protective order agreement which will allow him

access to confidential information plaintiff is prepared to provide. Another copy will be faxed to him for

signature and return to Plaintiff’s cousel.

To help construct a meaningful order for supplementation and compliance with the prior order

compelling responses by defendant, plaintiff’s counsel will submit a letter to the Court and Mr. Soo

identifying the interrogatory and document request numbers, respectively, that relate to the issues stated

above. From there, the Court will set a series of dates for Mr. Soo to supplement his prior responses,

with the information from the BZ Global companies, which he has ownership and control over, as well

as the contention discovery. The Court will also set a date for the supplementation of initial disclosures

and a further Case Management Conference where final dates and deadlines will be established.

To avoid further confusion, the Court has advised Mr. Soo that he must obtain the records from

the BZ Global companies, over which he has ownership and control, and produce them in response to

the interrogatories and document requests that are pending supplementation. With regard to the

contention discovery, and the specific issue of non-infringement, Mr. Soo must define the elements of

the claims of plaintiff’s patent that his chairs do not infringe. With regard to invalidity, Mr. Soo must

produce information responsive to the interrogatories and document requests, that support his claim that

Case 3:06-cv-01147-WQH-AJB Document 108 Filed 12/17/07 Page 2 of 3
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

K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\CASES\RPA Int'l\order.fcmc.d17.wpd 3 06CV1147

plaintiff’s patent is invalid. The essence of Mr. Soo’s position is that he is the inventor, therefore, all

information and documents that support Mr. Soo’s contention that he is the inventor must be produced.

Mr. Soo has been warned that any failure to comply with the Order that will issue shortly, will

result in a recommendation to Judge Hayes that the Answer and Counter-claims be stricken and

judgment entered for the plaintiff accordingly. The discovery disputes in this case have delayed

scheduling final dates far too long, and Mr. Soo needs to accept the realty that the Federal Rules call for

full disclosure of information either through the disclosure process or discovery. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 17, 2007

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:06-cv-01147-WQH-AJB Document 108 Filed 12/17/07 Page 3 of 3