Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04360/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04360-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

CROSSBOW TECHNOLOGY, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 YH TECHNOLOGY ET AL,

Defendant. /

No. C-03-04360 SI (EDL)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO COMPEL

On February 1, 2007, Defendant filed a motion to compel Plaintiff to produce technical

documents and other documents related to the validity of the patent-in-suit. Plaintiff opposed the

motion on February 12, 2007, and Defendant replied on February 20, 2007. The Court has reviewed

the papers and finds this matter appropriate for a decision without oral argument. Accordingly, the

Court hereby DENIES Defendant’s motion without prejudice for failure to comply with Civil Local

Rule 37-1. 

A party moving to compel disclosure must include with its motion a certification that the

movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the nondisclosing party in an effort

to secure the disclosure without court action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2)(A). Under the Civil Local

Rules, “meet and confer” or “confer” means “to communicate directly and discuss in good faith the

issue(s) required under the particular Rule or order.” See Civ. L.R. 1-5(n). Further, the Court “will

not entertain a request or a motion to resolve a disclosure or discovery dispute unless, pursuant to

FRCivP 37, counsel have previously conferred for the purpose of attempting to resolve all disputed

issues.” Civ. L.R. 37-1(a). 

//

Case 3:03-cv-04360-SI Document 178 Filed 03/26/07 Page 1 of 3
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

Here, there has been no meet and confer, and both parties are at fault for this lapse. Plaintiff

waited two full months to respond to Defendant’s November 8, 2006 meet and confer letter, finally

responding on January 8, 2007. Defendant prematurely filed his motion to compel on February 1,

2007, without first meeting and conferring with Plaintiff, in lieu of directly addressing Plaintiff’s

responses to Defendant’s contentions that he is entitled to the requested discovery. Accordingly, the

Court hereby DENIES the motion without prejudice and ORDERS the parties to promptly engage in

meet and confer, in good faith and with direct dialogue and discussion, pursuant to the Civil Local

Rules. 

In order to guide the parties’ discussions, the Court notes that Plaintiff is correct that, in

general, information that post-dates a patent application is not relevant to best mode and enablement. 

Regarding the deposition transcript dispute, Rule 32(a)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

applies to introduction of evidence, not discovery of deposition transcripts, and does not require or

encourage filing of the entire transcript. Nonetheless, if Defendant contends that limited portions of

a few depositions are highly relevant, Defendant should identify these portions during the parties

meet and confer, and Plaintiff is encouraged to provide a reasonable number of excerpts. Regarding

Plaintiff’s legitimate confidentiality concerns about material which is entitled to “attorneys’ eyes

only” protection, Plaintiff must be mindful of Judge Illston’s decision that “whatever discovery must

be produced will be produced to [Defendant] because there are no lawyers” and that Plaintiff has not

been granted leave to withhold discovery simply because Defendant has no attorney to receive

“attorneys’ eyes only” discovery. See September 29, 2006 CMC Transcript, at 15:20-16:10. 

Plaintiff must devise a way to provide Defendant with discoverable information so that Defendant

may properly defend against Plaintiff’s suit.

After meeting and conferring, if the parties still cannot resolve or narrow their disputes,

Defendant may refile his motion, complete with a certification detailing the steps taken to meet and

confer directly with Plaintiff. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2); Civ. L.R. 37-1(a). In addition,

Defendant’s motion must set forth each request in full (or as narrowed by the parties’ subsequent

agreements), followed immediately by the objections and/or responses thereto, and must detail for

each request the basis for the party’s contention that it is entitled to the requested discovery and

Case 3:03-cv-04360-SI Document 178 Filed 03/26/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

must show how the proportionality and other requirements of Rule 26(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure are satisfied. See Civ. L. R. 37-2.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 26, 2007 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:03-cv-04360-SI Document 178 Filed 03/26/07 Page 3 of 3