Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02754/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02754-19/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

USE TECHNO CORPORTATION AND

FUTOSHI MATSUYAMA,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

KENKO USA, INC., et.al.,

Defendants. /

No. C-06-02754 EDL

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

TO COMPEL AND DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

FOR FEES AND COSTS

On September 12, 2007, Defendants filed a motion to compel responses to written discovery

and on September 18, 2007, Defendants filed a motion for fees and costs pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §

285. The motions are fully briefed. Because these matters are appropriate for decision without oral

argument, the Court vacated the October 23, 2007 hearing. This Order denies Defendants’ motions

based on counsel’s failure to meet and confer. 

Motion to Compel

In their motion to compel, Defendants sought further responses to Requests for Admission

Nos. 91, 92 and 102-105, or for an order deeming those Requests admitted, to Interrogatories Nos. 4

and 6-8, and to Request for Production of Documents No. 27. There has been no showing, however,

that Defendants met and conferred in good faith prior to filing the motion to compel. 

Counsel are required to meet and confer, or attempt to meet and confer, in good faith prior to

filing a discovery motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(2)(B) (“The motion [to compel] must include a

certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or

party failing to make the discovery in an effort to secure the information or material without court

Case 3:06-cv-02754-EDL Document 183 Filed 10/18/07 Page 1 of 4
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

action.”); Civil L.R. 37-1(a) (“The Court will not entertain a request or a motion to resolve a

disclosure or discovery dispute unless, pursuant to FRCivP 37, counsel have previously conferred

for the purpose of attempting to resolve all disputes.”). Moreover, the meet and confer requirement

commands “direct dialogue and discussion.” Civil L.R. 1-5(n) (“‘Meet and confer’ or ‘confer’

means to communicate directly and discuss in good faith the issue(s) required under the particular

Rule or order. Unless these Local Rules otherwise provide or a Judge otherwise orders, such

communication may take place by telephone. The mere sending of a written, electronic or voicemail communication, however, does not satisfy a requirement to ‘meet and confer’ or ‘confer.’ 

Rather, this requirement can be satisfied only through direct dialogue and discussion -- either in a

face to face meeting or in a telephone conversation.”). 

Here, in the morning of September 12, 2007, Defendants’ counsel Surya Saxena and Kevin

Ueland telephoned Plaintiff’s counsel Lael Andara in an effort to meet and confer about Defendants’

motion to compel. Declaration of Surya Saxena in Support of Defs.’ Mot. to Compel ¶ 2. When

they did not reach Mr. Andara, they left him a voice-mail message. Id. Mr. Andara was out of the

office “in the morning or early afternoon” of September 12, 2007. Declaration of Lael Andara in

Opp’n to Defs.’ Mot. to Compel ¶ 2. When Mr. Andara arrived in his office later in the afternoon,

he received Mr. Saxena’s voice-mail message. Id. ¶ 3. According to the Notice of Electronic Filing

on the docket, Defendants filed their motion to compel only hours later, at 3:38 p.m., on September

12, 2007. 

Defendants’ conduct does not demonstrate a good faith attempt to meet and confer. The

docket for this case lists three other attorneys for Plaintiffs in this matter, yet it appears that

Defendants did not attempt to contact any of them in an effort to meet and confer when they

determined that Mr. Andara was not in his office to answer his phone. Nor does it appear that

Defendants contacted Mr. Andara’s assistant to determine his whereabouts, as they did in connection

with the meet and confer process for the motion for fees and costs at issue in this Order. See

Declaration of Surya Saxena in Reply to Pls.’ Opp’n to Defs.’ Mot. for Fees and Costs ¶ 2. There is

no requirement that Defendants go to extraordinary lengths to meet and confer; in this case,

however, where Defendants waited until the final day to file a motion to compel before attempting to

Case 3:06-cv-02754-EDL Document 183 Filed 10/18/07 Page 2 of 4
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

3

meet and confer, leaving one message for one of Plaintiffs’ attorneys before filing the motion several

hours later does not satisfy the basic meet and confer requirement. Accordingly, Defendants’

motion to compel is denied without prejudice. The parties shall engage in a meaningful meet and

confer about these discovery disputes and, if any of these disputes remain, Defendants may re-file

their motion to compel no later than November 6, 2007. 

Motion for Fees and Costs

Defendants argue that the Court should award them over $900,000.00 in fees and costs

because this case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 in that: (1) Plaintiffs engaged in inequitable

conduct; (2) the patentee withheld the special research necessary to practice the full scope of the

claims; (3) Plaintiffs persisted in asserting baseless infringement claims relating to the ‘760 patent;

and (4) the factual basis of a case or controversy regarding the ‘206 patent were unsupported. See

35 U.S.C. § 285 (“The court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the

prevailing party.”); Epcon Gas Sys. Inc. v. Bauer Compressors, Inc., 279 F.3d 1022, 1034 (Fed. Cir.

2002) (“[t]he prevailing party may prove the existence of an exceptional case by showing:

inequitable conduct before the Patent and Trademark Office; litigation misconduct; vexatious,

unjustified, and otherwise bad faith litigation; a frivolous suit or willful infringement.”) (citing

Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Invamed Inc., 213 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). 

Again, there has been no showing that Defendants engaged in meaningful meet and confer

before filing this motion. See Civil L.R. 54-6 (“Counsel for the respective parties must meet and

confer for the purpose of resolving all disputed issues relating to attorney’s fees before making a

motion for award of attorney’s fees.”); Civil L.R. 1-5(n). On September 17, 2007, Defendants’

counsel spoke by telephone with Plaintiffs’ counsel Amy Gruber, and informed her that Defendants

intended to seek fees in the amount of $696,000 and costs in the amount of $265,000. Declaration

of Surya Saxena in Reply to Pls.’ Opp’n to Defs.’ Mot. for Fees and Costs ¶¶ 2-3; Declaration of

Amy Gruber in Opp’n to Defs.’ Mot. for Fees and Costs ¶¶ 2-4. Ms. Gruber informed Mr. Saxena

that she could not stipulate to fees and costs, and requested that Mr. Saxena put the details of his

request in writing. Saxena Decl. ¶ 3; Gruber Decl. ¶ 4. Mr. Saxena sent an e-mail that is time and

date stamped at 2:31 p.m. on September 17, 2007. Gruber Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. A; Saxena Decl. ¶ 4. 

Case 3:06-cv-02754-EDL Document 183 Filed 10/18/07 Page 3 of 4
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

4

According to the Notice of Electronic Filing on the docket, approximately twenty-four hours later, at

3:10 p.m. on September 18, 2007, Defendants filed the motion for fees. Defendants’ rush to file the

motion for fees without providing sufficient time to engage in meaningful meet and confer efforts

does not satisfy Civil Local Rules 1-5(n) and 54-6. Accordingly, the parties shall meaningfully meet

and confer in an effort to resolve the fees and costs matters. 

Moreover, the motion for fees is premature. A motion for fees may be filed no later than

fourteen days after entry of judgment (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2)(B); Civil L.R. 54-6), but here,

there is no entry of judgment and the case remains open and active on the Court’s docket. 

Therefore, even if the Court were to consider the motion for fees in the absence of adequate meet

and confer, the Court can discern no reason from Defendants’ briefs why it should consider the fees

motion at this time. Although it may or may not be that this is an exceptional case warranting an

award of fees and costs, Defendants’ motion for fees and costs is denied without prejudice as

premature.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 18, 2007 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02754-EDL Document 183 Filed 10/18/07 Page 4 of 4