Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03526/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03526-20/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

ACCO BRANDS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

PC GUARDIAN ANTI-THEFT PRODUCTS,

INC., et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 04-03526 SI

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY

Defendants PC Guardian Anti-Theft Products and Fellowes have filed a letter brief regarding

a dispute over plaintiff Acco Brands’ responses to defendants’ requests for admission and an

interrogatory related to those requests for admission. Defendants argue that although plaintiff replied

to every request for admission at issue, it prefaced its responses with improper objections. Defendants

also argue that although plaintiff responded to Interrogatory No. 21 – which asked plaintiff to state the

factual and legal basis for every request for admission that it denied – plaintiff failed to reference a

single request for admission and hence made it difficult, if not impossible, to determine the reasons

plaintiff chose to deny any given request for admission. Plaintiff responds that defendants’ request for

relief should be denied because, regardless of plaintiff’s objections, plaintiff did admit or deny each

request for admission. In addition, plaintiff argues that it responded to Interrogatory No. 21, and that

defendants actually object to plaintiff’s denials and the reasons for the denials themselves.

The Court agrees with plaintiff that as long as plaintiff fully admitted or denied each request for

admission, defendant cannot complain about plaintiff’s prefatory objections. That said, plaintiff should

be aware that it is the usual practice of the Court to give defendants the option of reading such

Case 3:04-cv-03526-SI Document 144 Filed 03/24/08 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

objections to the jury. As to defendants’ objection to plaintiff’s response to Interrogatory No. 21, the

Court agrees with defendants that plaintiff must provide greater clarity by identifying the requests for

admission by number. The Court denies all of defendants’ other objections, such as objections to the

substantive content of plaintiff’s response to Interrogatory No. 21.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

Dated: March 24, 2008 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-03526-SI Document 144 Filed 03/24/08 Page 2 of 2