Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03824/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03824-6/pdf.json

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

1

*E-FILED 8/18/06*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

AUREFLAM CORPORATION, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

PHO HOA HIEP, INC., ET AL.,

Defendants. /

NO. C 04-03824 JW (RS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

TO COMPEL AND DENYING

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

I. INTRODUCTION

This is a trademark infringement action in which plaintiff Aureflam Corp. challenges

defendants’ use of the mark “Pho Hoa” in the operation of several Vietnamese restaurants. 

Aureflam moves to compel defendants to produce additional documents and seeks sanctions. The

motions were fully briefed and were heard on August 16, 2006. For the reasons set forth below, the

motion to compel will be granted and the motion for sanctions will be denied.

 II. BACKGROUND

Aureflam served the disputed document requests on June 10, 2005. Defendants served a

timely written response and produced some documents at that time. During the months that

followed, the parties engaged in protracted meet and confer communications, and defendants

continued to produce additional documents from time to time. Defendants represent that they have

always been willing to cooperate and to continue providing documents and expressed surprised that

these motions were filed. From Aureflam’s point of view, these motions became necessary in light

Case 5:04-cv-03824-JW Document 87 Filed 08/18/06 Page 1 of 4
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

1

 Notably, defendants’ opposition represented they were “now in possession” of certain

documents that would be produced, but they still had not produced them as of the date of the

hearing, three weeks later.

2

of defendants’ ongoing delays and their failure to honor promises made in the meet and confer

process as to when documents would be forthcoming.1

III. DISCUSSION

A. Motion to Compel.

Defendants suggest that the motion to compel be denied on grounds that it could have been

avoided through further meet and confer efforts and because they are now completing the production

of documents. The record shows, however, that defendants were standing on objections and refusing

to produce documents in certain categories until after the motion was filed (e.g. Request Nos. 5, 7,

and 16). Furthermore, even though defendants had abandoned all objections by the time of the

hearing, they conceded that the production was still incomplete. Accordingly, the motion to compel

will be granted in whole. Defendants shall produce any remaining responsive documents in their

possession, custody or control within twenty days of the date of this order.

The record also reflects instances where defendants located documents after initially advising

Aureflam that none existed, and one instance where a plainly responsive document was

“overlooked” (i.e. the lease for one of the handful of restaurant locations that are the subject of this

action). Under these circumstances, defendants will be required to provide to Aureflam a

declaration from an authorized corporate representative certifying that diligent efforts have been

made to locate all responsive documents and that all such documents located have been produced. 

The declaration shall also be served within twenty days of the date of this order.

B. Motion for Sanctions

The discovery rules and the meet and confer requirements are designed to produce a system

that minimizes the need for court involvement in the process. Parties are expected to comply with

their production obligations in a timely manner not for fear of sanctions, but because it is their legal

obligation to do so. Guidance from the Court may be needed where reasonable people could

disagree over the appropriateness of particular discovery or the applicability of a privilege, but

Case 5:04-cv-03824-JW Document 87 Filed 08/18/06 Page 2 of 4
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

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL AND DENYING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 

C 04-03824 

3

counsel should be aware of, and fulfil, their obligation to provide timely responses without a specific

court order.

Here, defendants failed to act with sufficient diligence until after the motion was filed, and

even then appear not to have produced at least some of the remaining documents as promptly as

would have been possible. Nevertheless, in light of the fact that at least some of the delays appear

to have resulted from the departure of the associate who was originally handling the matter, and in

light of counsel’s apparent subjective belief that the meet and confer process was ongoing with no

firm deadlines, the motion for sanctions will be denied. Counsel is cautioned that the rules provide

specific timelines for responding to discovery and that delays of this nature are not acceptable

regardless of whether the propounding party sets “firm deadlines” during meet and confer

discussions. 

IV. CONCLUSION

The motion to compel is granted and the motion for sanctions is denied, as specified above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 18, 2006 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:04-cv-03824-JW Document 87 Filed 08/18/06 Page 3 of 4
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

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL AND DENYING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 

C 04-03824 

4

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS ORDER HAS BEEN GIVEN TO:

John C. Gorman jgorman@gormanmiller.com

Craig Alan Hansen chansen@gormanmiller.com

Tiep D. Nguyen tdn15@yahoo.com,

L. Jay Pedersen jpedersen@bledsoelaw.com

Deborah F. Sirias Sirias@lbbslaw.com, Migas@lbbslaw.com

Duy Thai duy@duythai.com,

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not

registered for e-filing under the Court's CM/ECF program. 

Dated: 8/18/06 Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

By: /s/ BAK 

Case 5:04-cv-03824-JW Document 87 Filed 08/18/06 Page 4 of 4