Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01572/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01572-0/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 GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO COMPEL

v.

THE BLACK & DECKER CORPORATION, a

Maryland corporation,

Defendant.

On January 22, 2007, the Court held a telephonic discovery hearing on Defendant’s

motion to compel supplemental responses to Requests for Admission, Set One, Nos. 1-73. 

Defendant submitted moving papers directly to chambers on January 17, 2007. Plaintiff submitted

a response directly to chambers on January 18, 2007. Michael Kaler, Esq., and Melody Kramer,

Esq., appeared for Plaintiff. Raymond Niro, Jr., Esq., Allison Goddard, Esq., and Dina Hayes,

Esq., appeared for Defendant. Having considered the submissions of the parties and the arguments

of counsel, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

Plaintiff objected to a number of requests on the basis that it did not have personal

knowledge of the facts set forth in the requests and could not therefore respond. A party may not

refuse to admit or deny a request for admission based upon a lack of personal knowledge if the

information relevant to the request is reasonably available to him. Asea, Inc. v. Southern Pacific

Case 3:06-cv-01572-BTM-CAB Document 54 Filed 01/26/07 Page 1 of 3
 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

Transportation Co., 669 F.2d 1242, 1245 (9th Cir. 1982). An answering party must “make a

reasonable inquiry, a reasonable effort, to secure information that is readily obtainable from

persons and documents within the responding party’s relative control.” A. Farber & Partners, Inc.

v. Garber, 237 F.R.D. 250, 254 (C.D. Cal. 2006). That inquiry may include non-parties when

there is some identity of interest manifested, such as a present or prior relationship of mutual

concerns or active cooperation in the litigation.

With regard to Requests for Admission Nos. 14, 15, 20, 23, 24, 26, 29, 30, 32, 35, 36,

39, 42, 43 and 50, it appears that the information would be within the knowledge of Jens Ole

Sorensen, personally and as former president of Primtec. Although Mr. Sorensen is not a named

party in this litigation, he has regularly appeared as Plaintiff’s party representative, is actively

involved in the litigation and has an ongoing relationship with Plaintiff. A “reasonable inquiry”

extends to Mr. Sorensen’s personal knowledge due to that relationship and his active cooperation

and participation on behalf of Plaintiff in this litigation. Plaintiff is therefore ordered to inquire of

Mr. Sorensen and supplement its responses to Requests for Admission Nos. 14, 15, 20, 23, 24, 26,

29, 30, 32, 35, 36, 39, 42, 43 and 50.

With regard to Requests for Admission Nos. 52-65 and 67, Plaintiff admitted the

requests but only as to its personal knowledge. If information was reasonably available to Plaintiff

that would have resulted in a denial of the request, Plaintiff’s election not to make the reasonable

effort to inquire timely may result in the request being deemed admitted should Plaintiff later try to

introduce contrary information absent a showing of good cause.

With regard to Requests for Admission Nos. 66, 72 and 73, the Court finds the

responses vague and inconsistent and orders Plaintiff to serve supplemental responses clarifying its

position.

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:06-cv-01572-BTM-CAB Document 54 Filed 01/26/07 Page 2 of 3
 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

3 06cv1572

Defendant’s motion to compel supplemental responses to all other Requests for

Admission in Set One is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 26, 2007

CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01572-BTM-CAB Document 54 Filed 01/26/07 Page 3 of 3