Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-01806/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-01806-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHARPER IMAGE

CORPORATION, et al.,

 Plaintiff(s).

 v.

SHANGHAI NEO.TEC

ELECTRON CO., LTD.,

 Defendant.

____________________________/

No. C 05-1806 CW (WDB)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

AND QUASHING NOTICE OF

DEPOSITION OF MARTIN TASWIN

Having considered the parties’ substantial written submissions, being apprised of

the pertinent legal authorities, and acknowledging the character of the issues presented,

the court has concluded that no interest would be served by oral argument on defendant’s

motion. An earlier disposition of the issues raised is in everyone’s interest and it would

offend Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to require the parties to incur the

expenses that having their lawyers appear for oral argument would entail. Therefore, the

HEARING that was scheduled for January 11, 2006, is hereby VACATED. 

Defendant has persuaded the court that good cause exists to support entry of the

following ORDERS: 

1. The depositions of defendant and its representatives that have been noticed by

plaintiff shall be taken in Shanghai, not in San Francisco. 

2. Given the scope of this action as currently shaped by the pleadings, plaintiff

may not conduct discovery (by deposition or otherwise) into “defendant’s knowledge of

Case 4:05-cv-01806-CW Document 56 Filed 01/05/06 Page 1 of 2
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

the Ionic Breeze trademark.” No such discovery is reasonably necessary to fairly litigate

the design patent issues that remain in this case. 

3. Plaintiff may not conduct discovery in this case that explores matters related to

personal jurisdiction – and must limit the discovery it conducts under topics 10, 13, 14,

20, 31, 32, and 34 of its Rule 30(b)(6) notice to the one product that remains accused in

this litigation, the XJ-202.

4. Plaintiff has not established that Martin Taswin is a managing agent of

defendant – so plaintiff’s attempt to compel Mr. Taswin to appear for a deposition simply

by serving a notice on defense counsel is legally insufficient. Defendant need not

attempt to produce Mr. Taswin for deposition in response to any such notice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 Dated: January 5, 2006 /s/ Wayne D. Brazil 

WAYNE D. BRAZIL

United States Magistrate Judge

Copies to:

All parties,

WDB, Stats, CW

Case 4:05-cv-01806-CW Document 56 Filed 01/05/06 Page 2 of 2