Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05368/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05368-19/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BEILSTEIN-INSTITUT ZUR FORDERUNG

DER CHEMISCHEN WISSENSCHAFTEN, et

al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

 MDL INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC.,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 04-05368 SI

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION

OF DOCUMENTS AND FOR

SANCTIONS

On November 7, 2006, defendant MDL Information Systems, Inc. (“MDL”) submitted a letter

brief requesting the Court’s assistance in resolving a discovery dispute. MDL seeks an order compelling

plaintiffs Beilstein-Institut Zur Forderung Der Chemischen Wissenschaften and Beilstein GmbH

(“Beilstein”) to produce all documents evidencing registration of their copyrights, including the

certificates of registration, any correspondence with the Copyright Office, any amended submissions or

applications, and any specimens submitted. In the same letter, MDL also seeks sanctions against

Beilstein for knowingly making material misrepresentations in the third amended complaint. 

MDL’s motion to compel production of documents appears to be moot. According to Beilstein,

after MDL filed its letter, Beilstein supplied MDL with the requested documents, including Certificates

of Registration for the Beilstein Database, the Production Software, and the Excerp Rules for

Abstraction. See also Kemner Decl., Ex. C (November 9, 2006 letter from Andrew M. Gold, counsel

for MDL, stating “[Y]ou did not produce all such documents until yesterday.”). The Court therefore

denies MDL’s motion as moot.

The Court also denies MDL’s request for sanctions, because MDL does not premise its request

Case 3:04-cv-05368-SI Document 260 Filed 12/19/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

upon Beilstein’s conduct during the course of discovery; rather, MDL’s sanction request is premised

upon Beilstein’s alleged failure to characterize its copyright registration status properly in its third

amended complaint. Accordingly, sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 are not

appropriate. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(2)(A) (“If a party fails to make a disclosure required by Rule 26(a),

any other party may move to compel disclosure and for appropriate sanctions.”); cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)

(by presenting a pleading to the court, the attorney represents, based upon a reasonable inquiry, that the

allegations have factual support); Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c) (if “the court determines that subdivision (b) has

been violated, the court may . . . impose an appropriate sanction.”). If MDL wishes to pursue sanctions

under Rule 11, it must bring a separate, noticed motion.

The Court hereby DENIES MDL’s request for production of documents and DENIES MDL’s

request for sanctions. (Docket No. 183).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 19, 2006 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-05368-SI Document 260 Filed 12/19/06 Page 2 of 2