Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-05878/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-05878-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 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 1 The instant lawsuits are also related to Unither Pharma, et al. v. The Daily

Wellness Company (C02-05284 JW) and Unither Pharma, et al. v. Advanced Nutritional

Biosystems, Inc. (C03-00415 JW). However, Herbalife’s motion for protective order

concerns only the above-captioned actions to which Herbalife is a party.

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

UNITHER PHARMA, INC., THE BOARD OF

TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD

JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, and NEW YORK

MEDICAL COLLEGE,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

Defendants. /

HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UNITHER PHARMA, INC., THE BOARD OF

TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD

JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, and NEW YORK

MEDICAL COLLEGE,

Defendants. /

No. C03-05090 JW (HRL)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART HERBALIFE’S

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

[Re: Docket No. 86]

No. C03-05878 JW (HRL)

[Re: Docket No. 77]

These are two related patent actions1

 which involve five patents. Unither Pharma, Inc.

says that it is the exclusive licensee of the patents-in-suit, that Stanford University is an

*E-FILED ON 5/24/06*

Case 5:03-cv-05878-JW Document 95 Filed 05/24/06 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

2 The court will refer to Unither Pharma, Inc. and its co-parties collectively as

“Unither Pharma.”

3 Unither Pharma served its original Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6) deposition notice on

April 29, 2004, seeking testimony on 25 different topics. (See Rabinowitz Decl., Ex. 1). 

Unither Pharma served its supplemental Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6) deposition notices on April

25, 2006. These notices contained the same topics as those in the original April 29, 2004

notices, except that the topics were divided between the supplemental notices for testimony

over two separate days. (See Rabinowitz Decl., Exs. 2 and 3). In their briefing, the parties

refer to the disputed topics as they were numbered in Unither Pharma’s original April 29,

2004 deposition notice. For convenience, this court will do the same.

2

assignee of four of the patents-in-suit, and that New York Medical College is the assignee on

the remaining patent-in-suit.2

 Herbalife International, Inc. (“Herbalife”) says that it develops

and distributes health-oriented products. Unither Pharma claims that Herbalife infringes the

asserted patents by making and selling products under the following trade names: Niteworks,

Prelox Blue, Woman’s Advantage and Optimum Performance.

On May 23, 2006, this court heard Herbalife’s motion for protective order as to Topic

Nos. 22, 24 and 25 listed in Unither Pharma’s Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6) notice for Herbalife’s

deposition.3

 Unither Pharma opposed the motion. Upon consideration of the papers filed by the

parties, as well as the arguments of counsel, this court issues the following order:

1. Herbalife’s motion as to Topic No. 24 (“The collection and production of

documents in response to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production of Documents and Things in Case

Nos. CV 03-05090 JW and CV 03-05878 JW”) and Topic No. 25 (“The identity, location,

custody, and control of all documents that concern topics 1 through 24 listed in the Notice of

Deposition of Herbalife International, Inc. pursuant to F.R.C.P. 30(b)(6) . ..”) is DENIED as

MOOT. At the motion hearing, the parties advised that they have resolved their dispute as to

these topics.

2. The only remaining dispute concerns Topic No. 22, which seeks testimony about

“[a]ll communications between Herbalife and any third party concerning the Accused Products

and/or patents-in-suit.” During the motion hearing, Unither Pharma agreed to narrow this topic;

and, at the parties’ request, the court went into recess, during which time the parties met-andconferred over Unither Pharma’s proposed limitation. Following their conference, the parties

Case 5:03-cv-05878-JW Document 95 Filed 05/24/06 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

3

advised that they were unable to resolve their differences. Thus, the court now GRANTS IN

PART and DENIES IN PART Herbalife’s motion as to this topic as follows:

As noted at the hearing, this court is unpersuaded that Herbalife should be entirely

excused from its obligation to produce any witness(es) to testify about Topic No. 22 insofar as it

focuses on communications about the “Accused Products” and the “patents-in-suit” – matters

which are indisputably relevant in this litigation. Nevertheless, in oral argument, Unither

Pharma clarified that it seeks testimony pertaining to Herbalife’s communications about the

properties, uses, purposes or efficacies of the Accused Products or the patents-in-suit. Thus, as

drafted, Topic No. 22 is overbroad in that it would require Herbalife to prepare witness(es) to

testify about matters beyond these areas specified by Unither Pharma.

Accordingly, Topic No. 22 shall be limited to “all communications between Herbalife

and any third party concerning the properties, uses, purposes or efficacies of the Accused

Products or about the patents-in-suit.” Herbalife apparently does not dispute the relevance of

Topic No. 22 (as narrowed), but objects to preparing for its deposition on “all communications”

because it may be required to locate former employees. It requests that the court limit its

Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6) obligations to its current employees. The court declines to do so. Here,

Unither Pharma indicated that two of the Accused Products are no longer being sold. Although

Herbalife may no longer employ person(s) knowledgeable about the designated matter, it is still

obliged to make a good faith effort to prepare its designee(s) to testify at deposition based upon

information that is reasonably available to it. See United States v. Taylor, 166 F.R.D. 356, 361

(M.D.N.C. 1996) (“where a corporation indicates that it no longer employs individuals who

have memory of a distant event . . . [t]hese problems do not relieve a corporation from preparing

its Rule 30(b)(6) designee to the extent matters are reasonably available, whether from

documents, past employees, or other sources.”).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

May 24, 2006

Case 5:03-cv-05878-JW Document 95 Filed 05/24/06 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

4

5:03-cv-5090 Notice will be electronically mailed to: 

Richard H. An rhan@jonesday.com 

Daniel J. Bergeson dbergeson@be-law.com, abarnes@be-law.com 

Karen I. Boyd boyd@fr.com, lopez@fr.com 

Juanita R. Brooks brooks@fr.com, njohnson@fr.com 

James W. Dabney dabnejam@ffhsj.com, 

Dina Grinshpun grinshpun@fr.com, 

Hway-Ling Hsu hhsu@be-law.com, gsimmons@be-law.com 

Stephen S. Rabinowitz rabinst@ffhsj.com, dabnejam@ffhsj.com; palmeda@ffhsj.com;

distran@ffhsj.com; nymanattdept@ffhsj.com; millesc@ffhsj.com; eisenra@ffhsj.com 

Stephen Dane Rockwell srockwell@be-law.com 

Limin Zheng zheng@fr.com, horsley@fr.com 

5:03-cv-5878 Notice will be electronically mailed to: 

Richard H. An rhan@jonesday.com 

Daniel J. Bergeson dbergeson@be-law.com, abarnes@be-law.com 

Karen I. Boyd boyd@fr.com, lopez@fr.com 

Juanita R. Brooks brooks@fr.com, njohnson@fr.com 

James W. Dabney dabnejam@ffhsj.com, 

Dina Grinshpun grinshpun@fr.com, 

Hway-Ling Hsu hhsu@be-law.com, gsimmons@be-law.com 

Stephen S. Rabinowitz rabinst@ffhsj.com, dabnejam@ffhsj.com; palmeda@ffhsj.com;

distran@ffhsj.com; nymanattdept@ffhsj.com; millesc@ffhsj.com; eisenra@ffhsj.com 

Limin Zheng zheng@fr.com, horsley@fr.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.

Case 5:03-cv-05878-JW Document 95 Filed 05/24/06 Page 4 of 4