Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-01604/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-01604-5/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

TRIMBLE NAVIGATION LIMITED, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

RHS, INC. ET AL.,

Defendants.

______________________________________/

No. C-03-1604 PJH (EDL)

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

COMPEL ANSWERS TO

INTERROGATORIES

On December 1, 2006, Plaintiff Trimble Navigation Limited filed a motion to compel

Defendants Satloc LLC, CSI Wireless Inc. and RHS, Inc. to provide answers to Plaintiff’s

Interrogatories Nos. 2 through 9. Defendants filed an opposition on December 19, 2006, and

Plaintiff filed a reply on December 22, 2006. The Court finds the matter suitable for decision

without oral argument, and rules as follows:

The contention interrogatories at issue are premature at this early stage of discovery, and need

not be answered until after substantial documentary or testimonial discovery has been completed. 

See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 33(c). Plaintiff has not met its burden to show that compelling answers to its

interrogatories would contribute materially to the efficiency of case development before substantial

discovery has been completed. In re Convergent Techs. Secs. Litig., 108 F.R.D. 328, 338 (N.D.

Case 4:03-cv-01604-PJH Document 131 Filed 12/27/06 Page 1 of 2
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

Cal., 1985). The Court does not reach the issue of whether certain issues raised in the

interrogatories are no longer relevant to the action. The parties are advised, however, that

allegations made to the Court about defenses must be unequivocally disavowed, e.g., in a

declaration, to render discovery directed at those defenses irrelevant.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to compel answers to Interrogatories Nos. 2-9 is

DENIED without prejudice.

The hearing on the motion to compel set for January 9, 2007 is hereby VACATED.

This Order disposes of Docket No. 121. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 27, 2006 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:03-cv-01604-PJH Document 131 Filed 12/27/06 Page 2 of 2