Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-00634/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-00634-12/pdf.json

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

---

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF

CALIFORNIA, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

MONSANTO COMPANY,

Defendant.

 /

No. C-04-0634 PJH (EDL)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR FOLLOW UP

DEPOSITIONS OF DR. BOGOSIAN AND

MS. MADERE

During the course of discovery, Defendant Monsanto Company objected to various discovery

requests and refused to answer certain deposition questions based on an overly-narrow construction

of the waiver doctrine. Plaintiff The Regents of the University of California filed a motion to

compel on this issue, and on July 14, 2005, the Court issued an Order defining the scope of the

waiver as it applied to this case. Citing this Order, Plaintiff requested that Defendant produce Dr.

Gregg Bogosian and Ms. Consuelo Madere for further testimony pertaining to communications with

Monsanto counsel regarding the scope, validity or infringement of the ‘941 Patent, topics as to

which the witnesses were instructed not to answer at their depositions. When Defendant refused and

efforts to meet and confer failed, Plaintiff filed this motion. The Court has reviewed the parties’

arguments, and now grants the motion. 

Defendant objects to producing Mr. Bogosian and Ms. Madere on two grounds. First,

Defendant argues that requiring that these deponents return for further depositions would be unduly

burdensome. Second, Defendant believes the further depositions are unnecessary in light of the fact

Case 4:04-cv-00634-PJH Document 319 Filed 08/02/05 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

that Monsanto already provided its current and former in-house counsel for depositions. According

to Defendant, “[t]he marginal benefit to UC of Dr. Bogosian’s and Ms. Madere’s testimony on the

few questions on which they were instructed does not outweigh the burden on these witnesses and

Monsanto.” Defendant’s August 1, 2005 Response. Defendant, however, ignores the fact that

Plaintiff filed a successful motion to compel because Defendant improperly instructed its witnesses

not to answer certain questions at deposition. Plaintiff wants these answers from these deponents,

and earned the right to them. While the Court is mindful of the burden that repeated depositions

may impose upon the parties, Defendant deliberately took that risk when it instructed the witnesses

not to answer. Preventing Plaintiff from deposing these two witnesses on topics which the Court

determined were relevant and appropriate for discovery would eviscerate the Court’s July 14, 2005

Order. 

Consequently, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion and orders Defendant to make Dr.

Bogosian and Ms. Madere available for an additional 1.5 hours of deposition each. Plaintiff may

examine the witnesses only about communications with counsel that relate to the scope, validity or

infringement of the ‘941 Patent to the extent that they: (1) precede the filing of the lawsuit; (2)

involve Opinion Counsel; (3) concern communications between in-house counsel and Monsanto

management about the Opinion Letters; or (4) concern in-house counsel’s opinions about the

subjects of the Opinion Letters. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 2, 2005 _________________________________

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:04-cv-00634-PJH Document 319 Filed 08/02/05 Page 2 of 2