Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-04853/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-04853-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:44 Trademark Infringement

---

1

Case No. 5:14-cv-04853-PSG

ORDER RE: NOVADAQ’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE 

IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION

NOVADAQ TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

 

Plaintiff,

v.

KARL STORZ GMBH & CO. KG, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 5:14-cv-04853-PSG

ORDER RE: NOVADAQ’S MOTION 

FOR LEAVE TO FILE 

SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE IN 

SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR 

SANCTIONS

(Re: Docket No. 205)

Plaintiff Novadaq Technologies, Inc. moves for leave to file supplemental evidence in 

support of its motion for sanctions because Defendants Karl Storz GmbH & Co. KG et al. filed 

spreadsheets in its expert reports that were not produced during fact discovery.1 Karl Storz 

opposes, contending that the spreadsheets were created for the expert reports and so did not need to 

be produced, and that Novadaq did not meet and confer pursuant to L.R. 7-11(a).

2 Karl Storz’s 

arguments largely go to the merits, which Karl Storz has an opportunity to address at oral hearing 

 

1

See Docket No. 205.

2

See Docket No. 206 at 2, 5.

Case 5:14-cv-04853-PSG Document 209 Filed 08/10/15 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No. 5:14-cv-04853-PSG

ORDER RE: NOVADAQ’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE 

IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

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

on August 18, 2015. While the court agrees with Karl Storz that Novadaq should have attempted 

to meet and confer, the court has discretion to grant or deny a motion that lacks compliance under 

the local rules.3 Novadaq’s motion therefore is GRANTED.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 10, 2015 

 _________________________________

 PAUL S. GREWAL

 United States Magistrate Judge

 

3 Cf. Tri-Valley CAREs v. U.S. Dept. of Energy, 671 F.3d 1113, 1131 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Denial of a 

motion as the result of a failure to comply with local rules is well within a district court's 

discretion.”).

Case 5:14-cv-04853-PSG Document 209 Filed 08/10/15 Page 2 of 2