Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02319/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02319-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 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 09cv2319 BEN (NLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEN-PROBE INCORPORATED,

Plaintiff,

v.

BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY,

Defendant. 

BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY, 

Counterclaimant,

v.

GEN-PROBE INCORPORATED,

Counterdefendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 09cv2319 BEN (NLS)

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION

FOR DETERMINATION OF

DISCOVERY DISPUTE NO. 1

[Doc. No. 39]

The parties filed a joint motion asking the court to determine four issues arising out of plaintiff

Gen-Probe Incorporated’s (Gen-Probe) first set of interrogatories (ROGs) and first set of requests for

productions (RFPs). Defendant Becton-Dickinson (BD) agreed to supplement some of it ROG

responses and produce some previously disputed categories of documents. The following issues remain

in dispute: (1) Whether BD should be able to conduct discovery before responding to a contention ROG

regarding an affirmative defense; (2) Whether the “how” and “what” involved in BD’s learning about

Gen-Probe’s patents is protected by privilege; (3) Whether discovery related to a non-accused product is

relevant; and (4) Whether BD should provide the internal contact information of its customers.

Case 3:09-cv-02319-BEN-NLS Document 45 Filed 05/19/10 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

27

28

2 09cv2319 BEN (NLS)

1. ROG No. 1: Contention Interrogatory.

In ROG No. 1, Gen-Probe asks BD to state with particularity all facts BD relies on in support of

its tenth affirmative defense that asserts “waiver, laches, and/or estoppel,” and to identify all documents

that support this defense. BD has provided or will provide facts regarding delay and prejudice, which

only relate to its laches’ defense. Gen-Probe seeks to compel BD to provide now all facts relating to its

waiver and estoppel affirmative defenses. It argues that BD has not set forth any facts to show that it

has a “facially plausible” theory to support the waiver and estoppel defenses and that BD should not be

allowed to fish for discovery under the guise of a baseless defense. If no such facts support these

defenses, Gen-Probe asks that BD affirmatively state that no such facts exist, as a prelude to

withdrawing those defenses.

BD objects to further responding at this point to this contention interrogatory because it cannot

provide any further information without obtaining discovery from Gen-Probe. BD says it needs, for

example, information regarding when Gen-Probe first became aware of BD’s use of the accused method,

and that discovery is needed to determine the level of evidentiary prejudice that resulted from GenProbe’s delay in bringing this claim. Without Gen-Probe first producing information related to the ‘200

patent, BD says it cannot determine whether key documents from the early 1990s has been destroyed.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(2) says that a court may order that a contention

interrogatory “need not be answered until designated discovery is complete.” Several courts have found

contention interrogatories served toward the beginning of a litigation to “be of questionable value to the

goal of efficiently advancing the litigation.” In re Ebay Seller Antitrust Litig., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

102815, *6 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2008); see In re Convergent Techs. Sec. Litig., 108 F.R.D. 328, 338

(N.D. Cal. 1985) (placing burden of justification on party who propounds contention interrogatories that

track the allegations in an opponent’s pleading “before substantial documentary or testimonial discovery

has been completed”). For the propounding party to meet its burden, the party must show that

answers to its well-tailored questions will contribute meaningfully to

clarifying the issues in the case, narrowing the scope of the dispute, or

setting up early settlement discussions, or that such answers are likely to

expose a substantial basis for a motion under Rule 11 or Rule 56. A party

seeking early answers to contention interrogatories cannot meet its burden

of justification by vague or speculative statements about what might

happen if the interrogatories were answered. Rather, the propounding

party must present specific, plausible grounds for believing that securing

Case 3:09-cv-02319-BEN-NLS Document 45 Filed 05/19/10 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

27

28

3 09cv2319 BEN (NLS)

early answers to its contention questions will materially advance the goals

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Id. at 338-339.

This court finds that Gen-Probe did not sufficiently tailor its question and show that an early

response would promote any of the goals of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Along with the facts

that the parties have not yet completed substantial discovery, and because BD does not object to

responding further to this contention interrogatory as discovery progresses, the court sustains BD’s

objections and denies Gen-Probe’s request to compel BD to respond further to ROG no. 1 without the

benefit of further discovery. 

2. ROG No. 4: How BD Learned About Gen-Probe’s Patents.

Gen-Probe seeks facts regarding how BD first became aware of six of the patents asserted in this

lawsuit. BD disclosed that its Senior Intellectual Property Counsel, Allan Kiang, first learned of six of

the patents shortly after each was issued. But BD did not disclose other facts related to that first

knowledge, such as how it acquired the information and what actions, if any, it took. BD argues this

information is protected by the attorney-client privilege because the “how” and the “what” of how BD

learned about each patent involves information protected by the attorney-client or work product

privileges. It also argues this information is not relevant to any of Gen-Probe’s claims. Gen-Probe

replies that these are only facts and the privilege does not apply to them. 

“Confidential information essentially is information ‘of either particular significance or [that]

which can be readily identified as either attorney work product or within the scope of the attorney-client

privilege.’” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. EMC Corp., 330 F.Supp.2d 1087, 1094 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (citations

omitted). The attorney-client privilege extends to communications between client and attorney for the

purpose of obtaining legal advice; it does not extend to foundational questions that do not require the

disclosure of any legal advice sought or provided:

[The] protection of the privilege extends only to communications and not

to facts. A fact is one thing and a communication concerning that fact is an

entirely different thing. The client cannot be compelled to answer the

question, 'What did you say or write to the attorney?' but may not refuse to

disclose any relevant fact within his knowledge merely because he

incorporated a statement of such fact into his communication to his

attorney.

Case 3:09-cv-02319-BEN-NLS Document 45 Filed 05/19/10 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

27

28

1

Should BD claim privilege for any confidential communications or work product that

incorporate any of the non-privileged foundational facts, it need not produce a privilege log, as the

parties agreed to not produce a privilege log for this type of information. See Joint R.26(f) Report, Dkt.

No. 19, pp.8-9.

2

To the extent ROG no. 4 calls for facts surrounding a potential defense to willfulness based on

opinion of counsel, the timing of discovery of facts included in communications that may be contained

in documents related to opinion of counsel is governed by Patent Local Rule 3.8.

4 09cv2319 BEN (NLS)

Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 395-396 (1981) (citation omitted); see Methode Elecs., Inc.

v. Finisar Corp., 205 F.R.D. 552, 556 (N.D. Cal. 2001); see also Fox v. California Sierra Financial

Services, 120 F.R.D. 520 (N.D. Cal. 1988) (The fact of a privileged communication is not itself

privileged.). As for work product protection, that privilege applies only to materials “prepared in

anticipation of litigation[.]” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(b)(3)(A).

In its opposition, BD discloses some facts regarding how Mr. Kiang learned of the six patents

that had not previously been disclosed. This information, and any other responsive information that has

yet to be disclosed, is relevant to Gen-Probe’s claim of willful infringement and its claim that BD

induced others to infringe the method claims of the asserted patents. BD must now disclose the facts

disclosed in the joint motion, as well as any other non-privileged foundational facts, that go to the

“how” and the “what” involved in its learning of six of Gen-Probe’s patents, in a supplemental

interrogatory response verified by BD under oath.1

 The court, therefore, overrules BD’s objections, and

orders BD to provide a supplemental response including all non-privileged foundational facts.2

3. ROG No. 5: Discovery Related to BD’s ProbeTec ET System.

Gen-Probe seeks information on the identities of the persons most knowledgeable about various

aspects of BD’s development, manufacturing and sales of products accused of infringing the patents-insuit. BD has provided information regarding its Viper XTR, Viper AP and Viper ER instrument

systems. It has produced, however, only limited information on its ProbeTec ET system, and argues the

broad information sought is not relevant to that system. Gen-Probe argues that the ProbeTec ET system

is directly implicated by the asserted ‘200 patent (a.k.a. “Bleach patent”), and that BD has already

agreed to produce other relevant information relating to that instrument. BD objects that the design and

manufacturing of the system are irrelevant, and argues that it has already produced the information

related to the allegation that a narrow part of the ProbeTec ET system infringed the ‘200 patent. It says

Case 3:09-cv-02319-BEN-NLS Document 45 Filed 05/19/10 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

27

28

5 09cv2319 BEN (NLS)

the potential relevance is limited to BD’s references in product manuals to the use of bleach in

connection with the ProbeTec system. Gen-Probe counters the “necessity of the use of bleach, its

operation, and its effects, is all information relating to the use, operation and efficacy of the ProbeTec

ET system itself, reflected in the design, development, manufacture, regulatory approval, marketing and

sales of that system and associated assays.” Jt. Mtn. p.17.

Rule 26(b) provides that any party may obtain discovery on any matter relevant to a party’s

claim or defense. Further, “[r]elevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery

appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc.

26(b). Here, the court finds that all the categories of information Gen-Probe seeks regarding the

ProbeTec ET system are relevant to this action, overrules BD’s relevance objection and orders it to

respond to the entirety of ROG no. 5 with respect to its ProbeTec ET system.

4. ROG No. 6 and RFP No. 20: Internal Contact Information of BD’s Customers.

In these discovery requests, Gen-Probe seeks the internal contact information for BD’s

customers who bought its Viper XTR instruments. BD has agreed to provide the list of customers, but

not the principal contact’s name, telephone number and address. Gen-Probe argues this information is

relevant to its claim of indirect infringement on behalf of BD and because BD’s customers who use the

accused Viper XTR are the direct infringers. BD says it will provide the information if Gen-Probe

assures BD it will not unnecessarily harass or intimidate its customers. Also, BD says that before

contacting any customers, Gen-Probe should have (1) good cause; and (b) either BD’s approval or leave

of court.

The court overrules BD’s objection that the information requested, without further assurance

from Gen-Probe, is harassing and intimidating. First, providing Gen-Probe with the customer’s

principal contact information may in fact be less “harassing” than only providing the name of the

customer. By providing a direct contact, Gen-Probe can make a discrete inquiry with a single, direct

contact, as opposed to conducting its own investigation of the customer that might result in it having to

deal with multiple people. Also, Gen-Probe’s investigation for a company contact could very likely

result in Gen-Probe being put into contact with the name of the person responsible for dealing with BD,

which may, in fact, be the name of BD’s principal contact. Further, to the extent that BD has concerns

Case 3:09-cv-02319-BEN-NLS Document 45 Filed 05/19/10 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

27

28

6 09cv2319 BEN (NLS)

that discrete communications with its principal contact might be “harassing” or “intimidating,” BD can

designate the information as “Highly Confidential” under the protective order, so that any misuse of that

information can be addressed through the procedures and remedies available under the protective order. 

BD, therefore, shall respond to ROG no. 6 and produce non-cumulative documents relating to the same

in response to RFP no. 20.

ORDER.

For good cause shown, the court GRANTS the parties’ joint motion for determination of

discovery dispute no. 1. BD must provide supplemental responses to Gen-Probe as specified in this

order no later than May 28, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 19, 2010

Hon. Nita L. Stormes

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:09-cv-02319-BEN-NLS Document 45 Filed 05/19/10 Page 6 of 6