Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01359/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01359-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent 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

C-07-1359 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Baxter Healthcare Corporation, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Fresenius Medical Care Holding, Inc.,

Defendants.

________________________________/

No. C 07-1359 PJH (JL)

ORDER DENYING 

FURTHER DEPOSITION

(Docket # 116)

All discovery in this case has been referred by the district court (Hon. Phyllis J.

Hamilton) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b) and Civil Local Rule 72. The parties met and

conferred, but were unable to resolve this discovery dispute. Plaintiff moves for leave to

continue the deposition of Dr. Martin Roberts, an 87-year-old non-party witness, who was

deposed for five hours on August 13, 2007. Defendant opposes the motion. This Court

finds this matter suitable for decision without oral argument as provided by Civil Local Rule

7-1(b). The Court considered the parties’ Joint Statement, filed October 29, and hereby

denies the motion. 

Dr. Martin Roberts is an expert in the field of peritoneal dialysis, the area of the

patented device at issue in this lawsuit, and a consulting expert for Defendants. During the

course of his deposition, he denied that he had done any consulting work for Plaintiff, which

he recanted afterwards, by submitting an erratum in which he admitted consulting for

Case 4:07-cv-01359-PJH Document 118 Filed 11/07/07 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

C-07-1359 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 2 of 3

Baxter between 1999-2002, work he described as informal reporting services provided to

Baxter employees, nearly two decades after his work on the prior art peritoneal dialysis

system. Plaintiffs now want to question him in person on the subject of his work and

communications with Baxter and the documents produced after his deposition. Defendants

offer to permit further deposition by written questions, but Plaintiffs reject that option.

Plaintiffs’ main contention that Defendants allegedly violated Civil Local Rule 30-1 by

noticing Dr. Roberts’ deposition without first meeting and conferring with Plaintiffs’ counsel.

Defendants notified Plaintiffs on July 30, 2007, of the deposition to proceed on August 13,

2007.

Plaintiffs admittedly failed to calendar the deposition, although they allege that

Defendants failed to confer with them as to the date. They admit that they were served with

notice on July 30, but complain that defense counsel only called them minutes before the

deposition was due to start. (Joint Statement at 1) Plaintiffs contend they had “no idea” the

deposition was proceeding on the noticed date. This is inconsistent with their admission

that Defendants served notice on July 30, two weeks prior to the date of the deposition. 

Defendants claim they accommodated Plaintiffs as best they could in that they (1)

postponed the deposition for four hours to enable Plaintiffs’ counsel to appear; (2) provided

a telephonic and LiveNote connection for Plaintiffs; (3) identified every exhibit that would be

used in the deposition in advance so that Plaintiffs could prepare an effective crossexamination; (4) sent Plaintiffs color scans of the few exhibits Dr. Roberts created during

his direct examination so that he could be cross-examined on them; (5) offered Dr. Roberts

for a second day so that Plaintiffs could either send a lawyer from Baxter’s counsel’s Los

Angeles office or fly someone out and finish the questioning in person; and (6) allowed the

deposition to run until after 6 p.m. (Dr. Roberts arrived for his deposition at 8:00 a.m.),

when Plaintiffs chose to forego a second deposition day. (Joint Statement at 4). Total

deposition duration was from approximately 1:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. 

Plaintiffs’ claim that they did not know Dr. Roberts was a consultant for Baxter is not

credible given his appearance on their initial disclosures. Plaintiffs had more than enough

Case 4:07-cv-01359-PJH Document 118 Filed 11/07/07 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

C-07-1359 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 3 of 3

notice, by their own admission, to contact defense counsel if the deposition arrangements

were inconvenient. The procedural misfeasance of Defendants with respect to Civil Local

Rule 30-1 is mitigated by their accommodations to Plaintiffs and on balance does not

outweigh Plaintiffs’ own failure to act and the potential inconvenience of a repeat deposition

to an elderly witness. The Court finds that Plaintiffs fail to justify a “second bite of the

apple.” The motion to compel further deposition is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: November 6, 2007

______________/s/__________________

 JAMES LARSON

 Chief Magistrate Judge

G:\JLALL\CHAMBERS\CASES\CIV-REF\07-1359\order-deny-depo.wpd

Case 4:07-cv-01359-PJH Document 118 Filed 11/07/07 Page 3 of 3