Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01971/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01971-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 15:1126 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WORDTECH SYSTEMS, INC.

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1971 MCE EFB 

vs.

INTEGRATED NETWORK 

SOLUTIONS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

This case was before the court on October 25, 2006, for hearing on both parties’ 

motions to compel discovery and for a protective order. Defendants’ motions were brought by

Integrated Network Solutions Corp., Hamid Assadian and Nasser Khatemi (the “INSC

defendants”). No other defendants joined in those motions. Ki Yun Hwang and Richard Esty

Peterson appeared on behalf of plaintiff Wordtech Systems Inc. Daniel Ralph Richardson

appeared on behalf of the INSC defendants. Having reviewed the supporting papers and heard

the parties on these matters, the court issues the following order. 

BACKGROUND

This action is proceeding on the first amended complaint filed on January 28,

2005. The underlying action concerns plaintiff’s allegations that defendants infringed its patents.

Case 2:04-cv-01971-TLN-EFB Document 122 Filed 10/25/06 Page 1 of 6
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

2

The discovery disputes presently before the court began in the summer of 2005, and have not

been resolved despite the district judge’s generous accommodations extending the discovery

deadline three times. The district judge’s most recent order sets November 7, 2006, as the close

of discovery. 

Prior to the hearing on October 25, 2006, the parties filed what purports to be a

joint stipulation, but which is in fact two separately filed statements outlining each party’s

grievances with the other. Despite the parties’ failure to file a true joint stipulation as required

by E. D. Cal. L. R. 37-251, the court kept the matter on calendar in an effort to assist the parties

in meeting the looming discovery deadline. 

PROTECTIVE ORDER

The parties failed to submit a copy of the proposed protective order in accordance

with E. D. Cal. L. R. 5-137 and 83-143. The proposed order submitted by the parties contains

various defects, and was not submitted in word processing format as required by the local rules. 

At the hearing, the court ordered the parties to submit a proposed protective order in accordance

with those rules by the close of business on October 26, 2006. The court reiterates here that the

parties are to comply with that order. 

MOTIONS TO COMPEL

A. Plaintiff’s Motion

Plaintiff seeks to compel the INSC defendants’ responses to interrogatories and

requests for admissions. Plaintiff also seeks to compel those defendants’ production of

documents. According to plaintiff, the INSC defendants have provided inadequate and untimely

responses to all of these requests for discovery. Upon review of defendants’ responses, the court

finds that defendants’ objections are unfounded and unsupported by adequate explanation or

argument. On this basis, and due to the untimeliness of the objections, the court finds that the

INSC defendants have waived all objections to these discovery requests. Davis v. Fendler, 650

F.2d 1154, 1160 (9th Cir. 1981) (boilerplate, generalized objections are inadequate and

Case 2:04-cv-01971-TLN-EFB Document 122 Filed 10/25/06 Page 2 of 6
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

3

tantamount to not making any objection at all, and just like untimely service of responses to

interrogatories, result in a waiver of the objections). 

Furthermore, the INSC defendants have failed to provide a privilege log in

connection to their objections to discovery based on attorney-client privilege and/or other

privileges and protections. Such failure results in a waiver of those objections. Eureka

Financial Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 136 F.R.D. 179, 182-83 (E.D. Cal. 1991). 

Accordingly, the court finds that all objections have been waived and orders the INSC

defendants to produce complete responses to plaintiff’s discovery requests by the close of

business on November 1, 2006. 

Based on the parties’ representations at the hearing, if they are able to timely and

properly submit a proposed protective order for the court’s signature, such order should resolve

most disputes concerning the production of documents. Notwithstanding the issuance of that

protective order, the INSC defendants are ordered to produce responsive documents by the close

of business on November 1, 2006. 

B. INSC Defendants’ Motion

The INSC defendants seek to compel plaintiff’s responses to interrogatories and

to compel the production of documents. Plaintiff’s responses to the interrogatories consist of

boilerplate, form objections that obscure any substantive responses. Plaintiff’s responses, like

defendants’, were also untimely made without showing good cause for such delay. Davis v.

Fendler, 650 F.2d at 1160.

Furthermore, plaintiff, like the INSC defendants, has also failed to provide a

privilege log in connection to its objections based on attorney-client privilege and/or other

privileges and protections. Such failure results in a waiver of those objections. Eureka

Financial Corp., 136 F.R.D. at 182-83. Accordingly, the court finds that all objections have

been waived and orders plaintiff to produce complete responses to plaintiff’s discovery requests

by the close of business on November 1, 2006. Notwithstanding the issuance of the aforeCase 2:04-cv-01971-TLN-EFB Document 122 Filed 10/25/06 Page 3 of 6
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

4

mentioned protective order, plaintiff is also ordered to produce responsive documents by the

close of business on November 1, 2006. 

MOTIONS FOR SANCTIONS

In its motion to compel discovery, plaintiff also requests sanctions against

defendant, apparently in connection with the INSC defendants’ alleged spoilation of evidence. 

Despite this serious allegation, plaintiff fails to brief or address the issue in either the “joint

stipulation” or by separate briefing. In fact, the court notes that plaintiff simply refers to a

previously filed motion to compel that sought sanctions for the same alleged conduct. That

motion was dropped from the calendar as untimely filed. Based on the lack of adequate briefing

on this issue, the request for sanctions is denied. 

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the forgoing, IT IS ORDERED that: 

1. The parties shall submit a proposed protective order for the court’s signature,

pursuant to E. D. Cal. L. R. 5-137 and 83-143, by the close of business on October 26, 2006.

2. By the close of business on November 1, 2006, the INSC defendants shall

rewrite and submit to plaintiff their responses to plaintiff’s requests for admissions. All

objections and privileges are waived. The INSC defendants shall expressly admit or deny,

without objection, every single request for admission identified in the “joint stipulation.” If the

INSC defendants deny any request for admission, they shall state the basis for that denial. Any

request for admission not expressly denied will be deemed an admission of that fact. 

3. By the close of business on November 1, 2006, the INSC defendants shall

rewrite and submit to plaintiff their responses to plaintiff’s interrogatories. All objections and

privileges are waived. The INSC defendants shall expressly answer each interrogatory identified

in the “joint stipulation” to the best of their abilities and without objection. If any of the INSC

defendants fails to so respond to any interrogatory, each and every one of them shall be

precluded from introducing evidence on that issue at trial, or in support of or in opposition to any

Case 2:04-cv-01971-TLN-EFB Document 122 Filed 10/25/06 Page 4 of 6
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

5

dispositive motion including a motion for summary judgment or an injunction.

4. Notwithstanding the issuance of any protective order, by the close of business

on November 1, 2006, the INSC defendants shall produce all requested documents. Failure to

produce documents responsive to a request will preclude each and every INSC defendant from

introducing evidence on that issue at trial, or in support of or in opposition to any dispositive

motion including a motion for summary judgment or an injunction. If the INSC defendants deny

that certain requested documents exists, each and every one of them shall be precluded from

offering any such category of documents at trial or in opposition to any dispositive motion

including a motion for summary judgment or an injunction.

5. By the close of business on November 1, 2006, plaintiff shall rewrite and

submit to plaintiff its responses to the INSC defendants’ interrogatories identified in the “joint

stipulation.” All objections and privileges are waived. Plaintiff shall expressly answer the

interrogatories to the best of its ability and without objection. If plaintiff fails to so respond to

any interrogatory, plaintiff shall be precluded from introducing evidence on that issue at trial, or

in support of or in opposition to any dispositive motion including a motion for summary

judgment or an injunction.

6. Notwithstanding the issuance of any protective order, by the close of business

on November 1, 2006, plaintiff shall produce all requested documents. If plaintiff fails to

produce documents responsive to a request, plaintiff shall be precluded from introducing

evidence on that issue at trial, or in support of or in opposition to any dispositive motion

including a motion for summary judgment or an injunction. If plaintiff denies that certain

requested documents exists, plaintiff will be precluded from offering any such category of

documents at trial or in opposition to any dispositive motion including a motion for summary

judgment or an injunction.

////

////

Case 2:04-cv-01971-TLN-EFB Document 122 Filed 10/25/06 Page 5 of 6
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

6

7. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied. 

DATED: October 25, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-01971-TLN-EFB Document 122 Filed 10/25/06 Page 6 of 6