Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02322/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02322-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:501 Copyright 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH FACULTY, NO. CIV.S-05-2322 GEB DAD

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

NBTY, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

This matter came before the court on November 3, 2006, for

hearing on plaintiff Therapeutic Research Faculty’s motion to compel

further answers to interrogatories and production of documents from

defendants NBTY, Inc. (“NBTY”) and Rexall Sundown, Inc. (“Rexall”). 

Seth Berlin appeared on behalf of plaintiff. Gabriel Green appeared

on behalf of defendants. Having considered all written materials

submitted in connection with the motion, and after hearing oral

argument, for the reasons and to the extent discussed more fully on

the record during the hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

/////

Case 2:05-cv-02322-GEB-DAD Document 66 Filed 11/06/06 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

2

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted in part and

denied in part.

2. As to Interrogatories 4 and 8 to defendants NBTY and

Rexall each, the motion is granted in part. Defendants shall

supplement their answers to identify each individual assigned to each

work station identified in the web logs previously provided by

defendants. Defendants shall also inquire of each of those

individuals, as well as the approximately two dozen employees working

for Florence U. Okaro, whether he or she logged on to plaintiff’s

database using a password and shall provide the information obtained

to plaintiff.

3. As to Request Nos. 1 and 18 to NBTY and Request Nos. 1

and 16 to Rexall, the motion is denied. 

4. As to Request Nos. 20-24 to NBTY and Request Nos. 18-22

to Rexall, the motion is denied.

5. As to Request No. 3 to defendants NBTY and Rexall each,

the motion is denied.

6. As to Interrogatory No. 12 to defendants NBTY and

Rexall as well as Request No. 15 to NBTY and Request No. 13 to

Rexall, the motion is granted in part. Defendants shall supplement

their answers to account for all claims, investigations, or legal

actions against it alleging any of the causes of action set forth in

the Second Amended Complaint for the period 2002 to the present.

7. As to Request No. 6 to NBTY and Rexall each, the motion

is denied. In relevant part, Request No. 6 seeks “All documents ...

related in any manner to the ... disposition of any and all specialty

Case 2:05-cv-02322-GEB-DAD Document 66 Filed 11/06/06 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

 The court took the instant motion under submission with 1

respect to Request No. 6. The other aspects of this order reflect

the court’s rulings from the bench at the hearing on the motion.

3

publications ....” Plaintiff maintains the request is designed to

discover information regarding defendants use (and, according to

plaintiff, abuse) of publications similar to the database at issue in

this case. However, the request is unreasonably broad in that it

contains no limitation with respect to time and potentially

encompasses a vast number of documents by its terms. Moreover, the

request appears to be based on nothing more than plaintiff’s

unsupported speculation that defendants may possibly have used other

specialty publications in some unidentified improper manner. For

these reasons, the motion is denied as to Request No. 6.1

8. Defendants shall comply with the terms of this order

within two weeks.

9. The parties’ requests for sanctions are denied.

DATED: November 6, 2006.

DAD:th

Ddad1\orders.civil\therapeutic.oah.110306

Case 2:05-cv-02322-GEB-DAD Document 66 Filed 11/06/06 Page 3 of 3