Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-01066/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-01066-35/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ABBOTT CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS,

INC., et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-06-1066 PHJ (EMC)

ORDER DENYING THIRD PARTIES’

MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER

(Docket No. 290)

Nonparty witnesses David Fischell, Robert Fischell, and Tim Fischell have asked for a

telephone conference with the Court to resolve a dispute with Plaintiffs regarding the Fischells’

depositions. The Court has received letters from both the Fischells as well as Plaintiffs’ regarding

the dispute. In essence, the Fischells ask the Court to issue a protective order barring Plaintiffs from

subjecting them to separate depositions in this case and in a related case in the Eastern District of

Texas.

The Court has reviewed both letters and deems a telephone conference unnecessary. As

Plaintiffs point out, this Court has no authority to limit discovery in the Texas case. As to discovery

in this case, the Fischells have not demonstrated that there is good cause to bar their depositions

from going forward or to delay their depositions pending the decision of the Texas district court

regarding Cordis’s motion to transfer. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) (providing that “[a] court may, for

good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression,

or undue burden or expense”). Given the scheduling of the case at bar and the length of its

pendency before this Court, there is no substantial reason to delay the depositions herein.

Case 4:06-cv-01066-PJH Document 303 Filed 01/22/08 Page 1 of 2
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

To be sure, should Plaintiffs decline to coordinate unified depositions, they risk facing an

argument of undue burden if and when the depositions are noticed in Judge Ward’s case. But that

would be a matter for Judge Ward to decide.

Accordingly, the Fischells’ motion for a protective order is hereby DENIED.

This order disposes of Docket No. 290.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 22, 2008

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:06-cv-01066-PJH Document 303 Filed 01/22/08 Page 2 of 2