Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02948/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02948-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC.,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

 ORTHOCLEAR, INC., ET AL,

Defendant(s).

___________________________________/

Case No. C05-2948 MMC (JCS)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER

RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR

PRODUCTION AND INTERROGATORIES

[Docket No. 81]

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production and

Interrogatories (the “Motion”) came on for hearing on April 21, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. Richard E. Elder

appeared for Plaintiff, Align Technology, Inc. Darin W. Snyder appeared for Defendants

OrthoClear, Inc. and OrthoClear Holdings, Inc. Having heard the arguments of counsel and for the

reasons stated on the record, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. With respect to Request Nos. 20 and 21 of Plaintiff’s October Request for Production

(the “October Request”), the Motion is GRANTED IN PART. Defendants shall

produce all documents regarding the training of dentists and orthodontists regarding

invisible orthodontics.

2. With respect to Request Nos. 38 and 39 of the October Request, the Motion has been

withdrawn.

3. With respect to Request Nos. 43 and 44 of the October Request, the Motion is

GRANTED IN PART. Defendants shall produce all communications between

Defendants on one hand and any dentists or orthodontists on the other, that refer to

the quality of Align’s products.

Case 3:05-cv-02948-MMC Document 122 Filed 04/25/06 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

2

4. With respect to the January 23, 2006 Interrogatory No. 1 to OrthoClear Holdings,

Inc., the Motion is GRANTED IN PART. Defendants shall identify all of the

shareholders of OrthoClear Holdings, Inc. that are also officers, directors, or

employees of OrthoClear, Inc., and with respect to each such shareholder, the

percentage of share ownership and the purchase dates of the shares.

5. With respect to Request Nos. 40 and 45 of Plaintiff’s January 23, 2006 Request for

Production (the “January Request”), the Motion is DENIED.

6. With respect to Request Nos. 15 and 16 of the January Request, the Motion is

DENIED.

7. With respect to Request No. 3 of the October Request, the Motion is DENIED as

moot.

8. With respect to Request No. 35 of the January Request, the Motion is DENIED.

Except as so expressly granted, the Motion is DENIED. Defendants shall provide the

information and documents required by this Order not later than April 28, 2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 24, 2006 _______________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-02948-MMC Document 122 Filed 04/25/06 Page 2 of 2