Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00894/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00894-5/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

- 1 - 07cv0894

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARL ZEISS VISION INTERNATIONAL

GMBH and CARL ZEISS VISION INC.,,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 07cv0894 DMS (POR)

ORDER (1) ADOPTING

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION AND

(2) GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART SIGNET’S

MOTIONS FOR SANCTIONS

[Docket Nos. 351, 374, 376, 379, 449] 

vs.

SIGNET ARMORLITE, INC.,

Defendant. ____________________________________

AND ALL RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.

Between September 30, 2009, and November 2, 2009, Defendant/Counterclaimant Signet

Armorlite (“Signet”) filed a series of motions for sanctions with Magistrate Judge Louisa S. Porter.

The primary sanction sought through those motions was the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ Complaint and

entry of their default to the Counterclaim. On January 21, 2010, Judge Porter issued a Report and

Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that the motions be granted in part and denied in part.

Specifically, Judge Porter recommended that the Court impose exclusionary and monetary sanctions,

but not dismissal sanctions. Signet and Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants Carl Zeiss Vision International

GmbH, Carl Zeiss Vision GmbH, Carl Zeiss Vision, Inc., Carl Zeiss Stiftung and Carl Zeiss AG

(“Zeiss”) each filed objections to the R&R on February 5, 2010, and responses to each others’

Case 3:07-cv-00894-DMS-DHB Document 583 Filed 03/01/10 Page 1 of 2
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 - 07cv0894

objections on February 18, 2010. This Court, having reviewed the R&R de novo, adopts the

recommendation in full, and orders as follows:

1. Signet’s motion for sanctions on the financial documents [Docket No. 351] is granted in part.

Zeiss is precluded from (1) relying on the financial records produced on August 28, 2009 and (2)

deriving any damages from the four products identified for the first time on August 28, 2009. The

Court also imposes monetary sanctions on Zeiss to include attorneys’ fees and costs associated with

the filing of the motion. 

2. Signet’s motion for sanctions - third party communications [Docket No. 374] is granted in part.

Specifically, the Court imposes monetary sanctions on Zeiss to include attorneys’ fees and costs

associated with the filing of the motion and Signet’s efforts to pursue its own discovery with Co-Op,

VSP and Satisloh.

3. Signet’s motion for sanctions for spoliation of evidence and other on-going litigation

misconduct [Docket No. 376] is granted in part. Specifically, the Court imposes monetary sanctions

on Zeiss to include attorneys’ fees and costs association with the filing of the motion and the

deposition of Mr. Gnatzig.

4. Signet’s motion for order prohibiting Zeiss from using documents produced on October 29,

2009, [Docket No. 379] is granted. Zeiss is precluded from relying on the documents produced on

October 29, 2009. The Court also imposes monetary sanctions on Zeiss to include attorneys’ fees and

costs associated with the filing of the motion.

5. Signet shall file its brief on attorneys’ fees and costs in consultation with Judge Porter’s

chambers. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 1, 2010

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00894-DMS-DHB Document 583 Filed 03/01/10 Page 2 of 2