Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01572/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01572-3/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 06cv1572

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JENS ERIK SORENSEN, as trustee of

SORENSEN RESEARCH AND

DEVELOPMENT TRUST,

Civil No. 06cv1572-BTM (CAB)

Plaintiff, ORDER FOLLOWING 3-28-07

DISCOVERY CONFERENCE,

GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING

IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

COMPEL

v.

THE BLACK & DECKER CORPORATION, a

Maryland corporation,

Defendant.

On March 28, 2007, the Court held a telephonic discovery conference on Defendant

Black & Decker Corporation’s (“B&D”) motion to compel further responses to discovery. 

Michael Kaler, Esq., and Melody Kramer, Esq., appeared for Plaintiff Sorensen Research and

Development Trust (“Sorensen”). Dina Hays, Esq., appeared for B&D. Having considered the

papers submitted by the parties and the arguments of counsel, Defendant’s motion was

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

Defendant’s request for further production of documents and things regarding the

structure and assets of Plaintiff Trust and the rights granted to Jens Erik Sorensen as Trustee of the

Trust was DENIED as not relevant to the claims and defenses of the litigation. Plaintiff

represented that the documentation establishing its ownership of the patent at issue and its right to

sue on the patent have been produced. Other information about the assets and structure of the

Plaintiff Trust are not relevant.

Case 3:06-cv-01572-BTM-CAB Document 81 Filed 04/09/07 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 06cv1572

Defendant’s request for Responses to its Third Set of Requests for Admission was

GRANTED. The parties stipulated to the service of an unlimited number of RFAs in this case. 

Based on that stipulation, each party has served well in excess of the 25 RFAs permitted by the

Local Rules of this Court. Plaintiff’s objection based on the limits imposed by the local rule was

therefore overruled.

Defendant’s request for further production of documents relating to executed license

agreements for the ‘184 patent was GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff was ordered to produce nonattorney-client privileged documents describing the factual support for the terms of the executed

license agreements, specifically any documentation reflecting formulas or analysis of how the

license rate was determined.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 9, 2007

CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01572-BTM-CAB Document 81 Filed 04/09/07 Page 2 of 2