Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02301/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02301-8/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Amtran Technology Co., LTD.
Defendant
Hitachi, Ltd.
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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-05-2301 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HITACHI, LTD, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

AMTRAN TECHNOLOGY CO, LTD,

Defendants.

________________________________/

No. C 05-2301 CRB (JL)

ORDER TO COMPEL HITACHI TO

PRODUCE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS

AND FULLY RESPOND TO

INTERROGATORY NO. 2 

(DOCKET # 69)

Introduction

All discovery in this case has been referred by the district court (Hon. Charles R.

Breyer) as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Civil Local Rule 72. The discovery issues at

dispute here were argued in a joint statement submitted under seal to the Court. There

was not a hearing, and the Court issues this order based on the submitted papers,

pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b).

Background

Hitachi, a Japanese corporation, is the owner of three United States patents for

devices that allow a computer to communicate with an external computer or video source. 

Hitachi alleges that AmTRAN, a Taiwanese corporation, has infringed and is currently

infringing on those patents. Hitachi has an agreement with Inpro II Licensing Sarl, a

Case 3:05-cv-02301-CRB Document 73 Filed 07/18/06 Page 1 of 6
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-05-2301 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 2 of 6

European firm, to negotiate certain licensing agreements on Hitachi’s behalf. Inpro acted

as Hitachi’s agent in negotiations for license agreements concerning the patents at issue in

this litigation with corporations including AmTRAN.

Hitachi filed its complaint against AmTRAN in June 2005. The case was assigned in

Judge Breyer. A claim construction hearing for this case is scheduled for November 16,

2006. The discovery cut off date for claim construction is August 16, 2006.

Initially, Hitachi filed a motion to compel production of documents and responses to

interrogatories but withdrew the motion one month later. The parties later submitted a joint

statement regarding specific discovery disputes, with portions redacted. The unredacted

version of the statement was submitted under seal to this Court. The parties met and

conferred five times between December 2005 and May 2006, but were unable to resolve

these discovery issues. The Court finds the parties met and conferred as required by Civil

Local Rule 37 and Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 37.

Legal Arguments

The parties raise three related issues in their joint statement: 1) AmTRAN seeks all

documents held by Inpro that concern the patents-in-suit; 2) AmTRAN seeks more

complete responses to its Interrogatory No. 2, which seeks Hitachi’s and Inpro’s

communications with third parties regarding the patents-in-suit; 3) Hitachi seeks responses

to its Rule 34 requests Nos. 5 and 43, which seek certain communications between

AmTRAN and Inpro regarding the patents-in-suit.

1. Requests for Documents

Any litigant may request documents or tangible things under Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 34 that

are within the scope of Rule 26(b) and are within the “possession, custody or control of the

party upon whom the request is served.” Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 34. The party seeking production

of documents bears the burden of showing that the other party has control over them. 

Norman v. Young, 422 F.2d 470, 472-473 (10th Cir. 1970). Federal courts have interpreted

“control” broadly. Florentia Contracting Corp. v. RTC, 1993 WL 127187, * 3 (S.D.N.Y.). A

principal-agent relationship can establish the requisite control. McKesson Corp. v. Islamic

Case 3:05-cv-02301-CRB Document 73 Filed 07/18/06 Page 2 of 6
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-05-2301 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 3 of 6

Republic of Iran, 185 F.R.D. 70, 78 (D.D.C. 1999). More important than proof of a

principal-agent relationship, however, is the showing of control. Id. “Control” can also be

defined as the “legal right to obtain documents on demand.” United States v. Int’l. Union of

Petroleum & Industrial Workers, 870 F.2d 1450, 1452 (9th Cir. 1989). For example, a

subsidiary will be required to produce documents wholly owned by the parent company. Id.

 The third party’s financial interest in the litigation might further require its cooperation in the

discovery process. Golden Trade, S.r.L. v. Lee Apparell Co., 143 F.R.D. 514, 525

(S.D.N.Y. 1992).

Actual physical possession is not relevant, the question is whether the party has the

“right, authority or practical ability to obtain the documents from a non-party to the action.” 

Synopsys, Inc. v. Ricoh Co. Ltd., 2006 WL 1867529 *2 (N.D.Cal. 2006) (citing Bank of New

York v. Meridien Biao Bank Tanzania, 171 F.R.D. 135, 146 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (internal

quotation marks omitted). One factor courts have used in making that determination is

whether the an agent-principal relationship is connected to the issue being litigated. 8A

Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, Richard L. Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedure,

§ 2210 (2d. ed. 1987). Inpro acted as Hitachi’s agent on the patents at issue in this suit.

There is no dispute that Inpro is an agent of Hitachi. AmTRAN argues that the

principal-agent relationship between Hitachi and Inpro establishes the necessary control. 

Jnt.Stmt. 2:13-17. The agency agreement between Hitachi and Inpro requires that Inpro

“report regularly” on the status of license negotiations and “carry out all reasonable

instructions of Hitachi in relation thereto.” Jnt.Stmt. 2:13-16. Hitachi argues in opposition

that the agency agreement does not create such control; it describes Inpro as an

“independent contractor,” and because the sought after documents are in the possession of

Inpro, Hitachi cannot obtain them. Jnt.Stmt. 4:17-22. Hitachi asserts it has requested that

Inpro respond to AmTRAN’s request but Inpro has refused to do so. Jnt.Stmt. 4:13-15. 

Therefore, Hitachi contends, AmTRAN’s only recourse is to seek discovery from Inpro

through procedures under the Hague Convention. Jnt.Stmt. 2:7-8.

Case 3:05-cv-02301-CRB Document 73 Filed 07/18/06 Page 3 of 6
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-05-2301 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 4 of 6

Although Hitachi argues that nothing in its agreement with Inpro created a

partnership between the companies, Inpro has actively participated in this litigation. For

example, it was present at a mediation session in March 2006. Jnt.Stmt. 4:1-4. Inpro

acted as Hitachi’s agent on the patents at issue in this suit. It is a financially interested

party in the litigation, a factor the court in Golden Trade held should lead to the third-party’s

cooperation. Jnt.Stmt. 1:8-9. The discovery cut off date for the claims construction hearing

is fast-approaching. It would cause unnecessary burden and delay to require AmTRAN to

seek discovery through the Hague Convention. It is convincing that Hitachi has sufficient

authority through its agency agreement to demand that Inpro produce the documents

AmTRAN has requested. The Court hereby orders that Hitachi produce the requested

documents

2. Interrogatory No. 2

AmTRAN is also seeking an order to compel Hitachi to respond more completely to

AmTRAN’s Interrogatory No. 2. Hitachi has agreed to provide information on

communications between itself and third parties in relation to the patents-at-suit. Jnt.Stmt.

2:25-28. It has refused to provide similar communications between Inpro and third parties,

arguing it is not in possession of that information. Jnt.Stmt. 3:1-2, 4:8-10.

A party answering interrogatories must furnish “such information as is available to

the party.” Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 33 (a). Courts have an established rule that a corporation must

furnish information available from the corporation itself or from entities under its control. In

re ATM Fee Antitrust Litigation, 233 F.R.D. 542, 545 (N.D.Cal. 2005) (quoting Brunswick

Corp. v. Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd., 96 F.R.D. 684, 686 (D.C.Wis. 1983). Information readily

obtainable from a third-party is discoverable through an interrogatory, but those seeking

information “peculiarly within the knowledge of individuals, and not chargeable to [the

requested party]” may be struck down. Ballard v. Allegheny Airlines, Inc. 54 F.R.D. 67, 69

(E.D.Pa. 1973).

The information sought by AmTRAN involves Inpro’s representations and

admissions to third parties about the patents-in-suit. Inpro was acting as Hitachi’s agent in

Case 3:05-cv-02301-CRB Document 73 Filed 07/18/06 Page 4 of 6
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-05-2301 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 5 of 6

license agreement negotiations regarding these patents. It was required to carry out

Hitachi’s instructions and submit regular reports. The requested communications are the

same as those on which Inpro would logically report to Hitachi. Through its participation in

the mediation session and its financial interest in the outcome of the suit, Inpro has already

been actively involved in the suit. It is reasonable that Hitachi has the ability to request the

information sought in Interrogatory No. 2 from Inpro under the terms of the agency

agreement. The Court hereby orders that Hitachi respond in full to Interrogatory No. 2.

3. AmTRAN’s communications with Inpro

Lastly, Hitachi is seeking the Court’s assistance in forcing AmTRAN to produce

documents relating to communications between Inpro and AmTRAN about the patents-insuit. AmTRAN contends the May 16, 2006 joint statement is the first time Hitachi raised

this issue. Jnt.Stmt 3 n.2. Hitachi contends the issue has been discussed during several

meet and confer sessions, and AmTRAN refuses to produce these documents because

Hitachi has access to them through Inpro. Jnt.Stmt. 4:26-5:3.

A party may respond to an interrogatory by clearly identifying the place in documents

in the requesting party’s possession where the answer can be found. Concept Industries,

Inc. v. Carpet Factory, Inc. 59 F.R.D. 546, 550 (E.D.Wis. 1973). However, a refusal to

respond to interrogatories on the belief that the requesting party already possesses the

documents is insufficient. Walt Disney Co. v. DeFabiis, 168 F.R.D. 281, 284 (C.D.Cal.

1996). Even if we assume that Hitachi possesses documentation of the communications

between AmTRAN and Inpro, AmTRAN must specifically identify what in those documents

responds to Hitachi’s interrogatories. 

The information Hitachi seeks is certainly available to AmTRAN, as required by Rule

33. AmTRAN’s responses are insufficient and its arguments weak in light of the extensive

requests it has made of Hitachi. The Court hereby orders AmTRAN to respond in full to

this interrogatory, as discussed above.

Case 3:05-cv-02301-CRB Document 73 Filed 07/18/06 Page 5 of 6
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-05-2301 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 6 of 6

All responses shall be due within 10 days of the e-filing of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 18, 2006

__________________________________

 JAMES LARSON

 Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-02301-CRB Document 73 Filed 07/18/06 Page 6 of 6