Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01830/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01830-18/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

C-04-1830 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FUNAI ELECTRIC COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAEWOO ELECTRONICS

CORPORATION, ET AL.,

Defendants.

________________________________/

No. C 04-1830 CRB (JL)

DISCOVERY ORDER

Introduction

All discovery in this case has been referred by the district court (Hon. Charles R.

Breyer) as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Civil Local Rule 72. The Court received the

parties’ joint statements regarding Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery concerning

damages and successor liability and Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiff to pay half the

cost of the translation of the Asset Purchase Agreement and extant Composition

Agreement from Korean into English. The matters came on for hearing. Lorraine M. Casto,

David C. Bohrer, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, appeared for Plaintiff. Daniel M.

Press, Juan Chardiet, CHUNG & PRESS, P.C., appeared for Defendants. 

Case 3:04-cv-01830-JCS Document 261 Filed 09/18/06 Page 1 of 3
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

C-04-1830 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 2 of 3

Order

The Court considered the pleadings and arguments of counsel and hereby grants

Plaintiff’s motion at Docket Number 242 and denies Defendants’ motion at Docket Number

249. Defendants shall immediately respond in full to Plaintiff’s outstanding discovery

requests. Defendants’ request for Plaintiff to pay half the cost of the translation which

Defendants commissioned is hereby denied.

The Court notes that on March 1, 2006 Judge Breyer issued the claim construction

order and on June 9 denied Defendants’ motion to bifurcate and stay discovery. Discovery

should have resumed at that time, over three months ago. The Court previously permitted

Defendants not to respond to Plaintiff’s reasonable relevant discovery requests because

the parties were focused on claim construction. Now that the claim construction order has

been issued and even more so since the motion to bifurcate and stay discovery has been

denied, there is no excuse for further delay. On July 13, Judge Breyer approved the parties’

stipulation extending the deadline for supplementation of disclosures and responses under

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e) to March 30, 2007, so that the parties will have the opportunity to

resolve all outstanding discovery disputes and complete all necessary discovery prior to

providing the required supplementation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e).

With regard to the translation, the Court finds the translation by a law firm which

does significant patent work for Defendants to be inherently suspect. The need to have the

patent law firm do the translation in order to translate legal terminology or for confidentiality

does not appear to be justified, since the law firm itself used a number of non-legal

subcontractors to translate the documents. 

The Court is also troubled by the disputed translation of a Korean term as “assets”

when Funai contends and has expert testimony in support of its contention that the correct

translation is “business.” This is important particularly in this instance because sale of the

assets of a company does not transfer its liabilities where sale of a business does. Funai

has a default judgment against a defendant whom it contends is the predecessor in interest

Case 3:04-cv-01830-JCS Document 261 Filed 09/18/06 Page 2 of 3
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

C-04-1830 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 3 of 3

to the present defendant. This is significant to the character of the transaction and to

Funai’s successor liability claim.

For all the above reasons the Court finds that Funai should not be compelled to pay

half the cost of an inherently suspect translation and that therefore Defendants’ motion to

compel payment should be and is denied.

Funai suggests that the Court not only deny Defendants’ request to have Funai pay

half the $99,260 charge for translation of the Asset Purchase Agreement and the extant

part of the Composition Agreement from Korean into English but also proposes that the

Court order Defendants to pay Funai half the $2,000 cost of its translation of the APA.

The Court declines to do so and orders that the parties bear their own translation

expenses.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 18, 2006

__________________________________

JAMES LARSON

 Chief Magistrate Judge

G:\JLALL\CHAMBERS\CASES\CIV-REF\04-1830\ord-242-249.wpd

Case 3:04-cv-01830-JCS Document 261 Filed 09/18/06 Page 3 of 3