Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-05669/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-05669-44/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

1

 This action has given rise to substantial discovery motion practice as well as other motions. 

Because the background of the case has been discussed in many prior orders, it will not be repeated

here, and the discussion of the present issues will otherwise be abbreviated. The Court notes and

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF

CALIFORNIA, 

Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant,

 v.

MICRO THERAPEUTICS, INC., et al,

Defendants/Counterclaimants and Third

 Party Plaintiffs,

 v.

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, et al.

 Third Party Defendants.

 /

NO. C 03 05669 JW (RS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

TO COMPEL

Plaintiff the Regents of the University of California (“UC”) moves to compel defendants

(collectively “MTI”) to produce attorney billing records reflecting the attorney fees MTI has

incurred in the defense of this action. UC asserts, and MTI does not contest, that MTI has identified

those fees as the sole basis of MTI’s damages under its antitrust counterclaims. The Court finds this

matter suitable for disposition without oral argument, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1 (b).1

*E-FILED 8/9/07*

Case 5:03-cv-05669-JW Document 841 Filed 08/09/07 Page 1 of 5
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

appreciates that the parties have made efforts to resolve at least two recent issues without Court

involvement. See Docket Nos. 840 and 828.

2

 The Court does not suggest there is any evidence in the record of overcharging by any

counsel. The absence of such evidence, however, does not undercut UC’s right to discovery.

2

MTI objects to the requested relief on the following four grounds: 1. MTI contends that the

request “impermissibly intrudes” on privileged information. Although, as UC has argued, billing

records are not generally privileged, UC has plainly stated that it does not object to MTI redacting

from the billing records any privileged information that may be contained therein. Accordingly,

without reaching UC’s further assertion that MTI has waived any privilege claims by putting its fees

“at issue,” the Court concludes that production of the records, with such redactions as may be

necessary to protect any information as to which a good-faith claim of privilege may be asserted, is

appropriate.

2. MTI contends that its damages encompass all fees actually incurred in the defense of this

action and that therefore the “reasonableness” of those fees is not at issue. While “reasonableness”

of its fees may not be the precise question, inquiry into whether the fees were incurred as a

proximate result of the alleged wrongdoing remains appropriate. To provide an extreme example, if

MTI’s lawyers charged MTI $100,000 for preparing a pleading that took only an hour to draft, UC

would have every right to argue that the fees “actually incurred” by MTI were the result of its

lawyers’ overreaching, rather than a consequence of any conduct by UC.2

 Thus, while the

“reasonableness” of the fees incurred by MTI may not be directly at issue, the question of whether

the fees were incurred as a proximate result of the alleged wrongdoing is largely indistinguishable

from such an inquiry.

Additionally, as UC points out, MTI presumably has incurred fees in this action that arose

from its prosecution of various counterclaims, some of which apparently have been abandoned. 

Without reaching the question of whether MTI ultimately may recover any such fees as damages, for

purposes of discovery, UC is entitled to explore what issues were being pursued when the fees were

generated.

3. MTI complains that UC refuses to agree to a reciprocal disclosure of its attorney billing

Case 5:03-cv-05669-JW Document 841 Filed 08/09/07 Page 2 of 5
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

 UC’s fees could become relevant post-trial, should it prevail on its infringement claims,

obtain a finding that the case was “exceptional,” and then bring a motion for attorney fees based on

that finding. Whatever rights MTI might then have or not have to inspect the billing records of UC’s

counsel are not pertinent to this dispute.

4

 It appears that MTI may have recently filed a motion seeking such bifurcation.

ORDER 

C 03 05669 JW (RS) 

3

records. The simplest answer is that MTI has pointed to no discovery request it made seeking such

records. More fundamentally, though, UC’s fees are not equally relevant, as UC has not claimed its

fees as damages.3

 MTI argues that the amount of fees expended by UC has some bearing on the

reasonableness of MTI’s fees. In this instance, however, there is a meaningful distinction between

“reasonableness” and “proximate cause.” Even assuming that the fees generated by UC’s counsel in

prosecuting this action might serve as some sort of yardstick as to the “reasonableness” of the

defense fees, they would have virtually no bearing on whether the defense fees were incurred as a

proximate result of the allegedly wrongful conduct. Thus, even assuming MTI could point to some

discovery request that sought disclosure of UC’s incurred fees, there would be little if any basis to

compel production of those documents at this point in the litigation.

4. Finally, MTI suggests that it should not be compelled to produce billing records until and

unless it prevails on its antitrust claims at trial. In the absence of any order bifurcating the trial

issues, this argument is not compelling.4

 Even were the trial to be bifurcated, MTI has not shown

that it would be reasonable to postpone completion of the discovery process until some time between

the phases of the trial. 

Accordingly, good cause appearing, it is hereby ordered that within 20 days of the date of

this order, MTI shall produce the attorney billing records supporting its damage claim, redacted if

necessary as outlined above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 9, 2007 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:03-cv-05669-JW Document 841 Filed 08/09/07 Page 3 of 5
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 

C 03 05669 JW (RS) 

4

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

David L. Anstaett david.anstaett@hellerehrman.com

Gabrielle E. Bina gbina@hewm.com

Wendy Lynn Bjerknes Wbjerknes@fenwick.com

Henry Zuzueta Carbajal , III hcarbajal@fenwick.com, ssanford@fenwick.com

Carolyn Chang cchang@fenwick.com, vschmitt@fenwick.com

Chien-Ju Alice Chuang achuang@fenwick.com, dyoungman@fenwick.com

Charles G. Curtis , Jr ccurtis@hewm.com

J. Anthony Downs jdowns@goodwinprocter.com

Julie Lynn Fieber jfieber@flk.com

Rita A. Hao rita.hao@ucop.edu

David J. Harth dharth@hewm.com, pdean@hewm.com, tanders@hewm.com,

tgresl@hewm.com

David Edwin Jones dejones@hewm.com

Michael Francis Kelleher mkelleher@flk.com

Amanda Marie Kessel akessel@goodwinprocter.com

Lissa Rose Koop Lissa.Koop@Hellerehrman.com

Charlene Marie Morrow cmorrow@fenwick.com

Autumn Noelle Nero autumn.nero@hellerehrman.com, djmorgan@hellerhman.com

Lynn Harold Pasahow lpasahow@fenwick.com, tchow@fenwick.com

Nicole Elise Perroton nperroton@goodwinprocter.com, lthomas@goodwinprocter.com

Michael Kenneth Plimack mplimack@hewm.com

Patrick Eugene Premo ppremo@fenwick.com, mguidoux@fenwick.com

Colin G. Sandercock csandercock@proskauer.com, cherron@proskauer.com

Roland Schwillinski rschwillinski@goodwinprocter.com

Michael Jeffrey Shuster mshuster@fenwick.com, tthomas@fenwick.com

John S. Skilton jskilton@hewm.com

Allison H Stiles astiles@goodwinprocter.com

Case 5:03-cv-05669-JW Document 841 Filed 08/09/07 Page 4 of 5
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 

C 03 05669 JW (RS) 

5

Michael G. Strapp mstrapp@goodwinprocter.com

Patrick Shaun Thompson pthompson@goodwinprocter.com

Michelle M. Umberger mumberger@hewm.com, zseyferth@hewm.com

Sarah C. Walkenhorst swalkenhorst@hewm.com

Paul F. Ware , Jr pware@goodwinprocter.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: 8/9/07 Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

By: /s/ BAK 

Case 5:03-cv-05669-JW Document 841 Filed 08/09/07 Page 5 of 5