Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-00634/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-00634-18/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Monsanto Company
Counter-claimant
The Regents of the University of California
Counter-defendant

Document Text:

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

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING THE REGENTS’ MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

C04 00634 PJH (EDL) 1

pa-1002961

GERALD P. DODSON (CA SBN 139602)

ERIK J. OLSON (CA SBN 175815)

ERICA D. WILSON (CA SBN 161386)

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

755 Page Mill Road

Palo Alto, CA 94304-1018

Telephone: (650) 813-5600

Facsimile: (650) 494-0792

E-mail: GDodson@mofo.com

JAMES E. HOLST (CA SBN 34654)

P. MARTIN SIMPSON, JR. (CA SBN 122867)

NANCY Y. CHU (CA SBN 181159)

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

1111 Franklin Street, 8th Floor

Oakland, CA 94607-5200

Telephone: (510) 987-9800

Attorneys for Plaintiff

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF 

CALIFORNIA, a California Public Corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

MONSANTO COMPANY, a Delaware

Corporation,

Defendant.

Case No. C04 00634 PJH (EDL)

DISCOVERY MATTER

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

IN PART (1) THE REGENTS OF 

THE UNIVERSITY OF 

CALIFORNIA’S MOTION TO 

COMPEL RESPONSES TO 

INTERROGATORIES AND 

REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION

AND (2) THE REGENTS’ MOTION

TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF 

BUSINESS AND FINANCIAL 

DISCOVERY

Date: August 16, 2005

Time: 9:00 a.m.

Before: Honorable Elizabeth D. Laporte

Location: Courtroom E, 15th Floor

Case 4:04-cv-00634-PJH Document 368 Filed 08/22/05 Page 1 of 4
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

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING THE REGENTS’ MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

C04 00634 PJH (EDL) 2

pa-1002961

This matter comes before the Court on: (1) Plaintiff The Regents of the University of 

California’s (“The Regents”) Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories and Requests for 

Admission and (2) The Regents’ Motion to Compel Production of Business and Financial 

Discovery.

Having considered the arguments and evidence submitted and for good cause appearing:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that The Regents Motion to Compel Defendant Monsanto 

Company (“Monsanto”) to produce responses to Interrogatories and Requests for Admission is 

GRANTED.

In particular, within twenty-one days of this order:

(a) Monsanto shall provide The Regents with complete responses to Interrogatories 

16-26;

(b) Monsanto must provide clear amended answers to The Regents’ requests for 

admission. Those answers must unambiguously state whether Monsanto is 

admitting the fact identified by the request or denying the fact identified by the 

request. Monsanto’s attorney-client privilege, lacking sufficient information to 

respond to the request (except with respect to request for admission number 21),

legal conclusion, expert testimony, unintelligible, and vagueness objections are 

overruled. A denial shall fairly meet the substance of the requested admission, and 

when good faith requires that Monsanto qualify an answer or deny only a part of 

the matter of which an admission is requested, Monsanto shall specify so much of 

it as is true and qualify or deny the remainder.

IT IS ALSO HEREBY ORDERED that The Regents’ Motion to Compel Production of 

Business and Financial Discovery is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Before

September 30, 2005, Monsanto is ordered to:

Produce a witness on Topic 11 of The Regents’ Rule 30(b)(6) Notice of Deposition of 

Monsanto Company;

Produce Dr. Gregg Bogosian and Consuelo Madere for deposition. Dr. Bogosian and Ms. 

Madere may be deposed on 1) topics from the Court’s August 2, 2005 Order Granting 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Follow Up Depositions of Dr. Bogosian and Ms. Madere; 2) 

Monsanto’s actual, anticipated, or contemplated sales or marketing of the four nonPOSILAC® products that were the subject of The Regents’ Motion to Compel Production of

Business And Financial Discovery (“Four products addressed in The Regents’ motion”); 3) 

Case 4:04-cv-00634-PJH Document 368 Filed 08/22/05 Page 2 of 4
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

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING THE REGENTS’ MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

C04 00634 PJH (EDL) 3

pa-1002961

Monsanto’s investigation, development, and spending regarding possible noninfringing 

alternative products and manufacturing methods; and/or 4) Monsanto’s licenses that are

produced pursuant to this Order. The Bogosian and Madere depositions are not to exceed 3 

hours each.

In addition, Monsanto SHALL PRODUCE within twenty-one days of this order:

1. For the time period between October of 2003 and February of 2004, documents

discussing, summarizing, or referring to any relationship between sales of

POSILAC® and sales of any of the four products addressed in The Regents’ 

motion, and documents sufficient to show sales of the four products addressed in 

The Regents’ motion to buyers of POSILAC®;

2. For the time period between October of 2003 and February of 2004, documents

discussing, summarizing, or referring to any actual or potential effect on sales of 

the four products addressed by The Regents’ motion due to any relationship to the

purchase, marketing or use of POSILAC® or any other bovine growth hormone 

(“bGH”) product;

3. For the time period between October of 2003 and February of 2004, documents

discussing, summarizing, or referring to any actual, planned, or projected 

marketing or sale of the four products addressed in The Regents’ motion in 

conjunction with the marketing or sale of POSILAC®, including but not limited to 

the “test program” described from page 155, line 25 to page 156, line 8 of the 

Goodman deposition;

4. Unredacted copies of documents that were previously produced and that relate to 

the four products addressed in The Regents’ motion;

5. License agreements for the use of other patents, if any, that Monsanto contends are 

comparable to the patent-in-suit for purposes of calculating a reasonably royalty 

pursuant to Georgia Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood Corp., 318 F. Supp. 

1116, 1120 (S.D.N.Y. 1970);

6. Monsanto will produce (a) all non-POSILAC licenses from its Animal Agriculture

division; and (b) a copy of the representative form agreements between Monsanto 

and seed dealers or growers relating to Monsanto's genetically engineered corn, 

soy, and cotton (including Bollgard, Ingard, MaisGard, YieldGard, and 

ROUNDUP Ready technology or germ plasm) for the period 1998 to 2004 

(including but not limited to representative Monsanto Technology Agreements, 

License Incentive Agreements, YieldGard License and Seek Services Agreements, 

and ROUNDUP Ready License and Seed Services Agreements). Monsanto does 

not concede the relevance of the agreements from its crop and seed business to this 

litigation;

7. A full and adequate response to interrogatory 18: “IDENTIFY (by licensor, 

licensee, date of license, patents covered, royalty rate, royalty base, and any other 

payments due) all licenses for or agreements regarding the use of other patents that 

YOU contend are comparable to the PATENT-IN-SUIT for purposes of 

calculating a reasonable royalty pursuant to Georgia Pacific Corp. v. United States

Plywood Corp, 318 F. Supp. 1116, 1120 (S.D.N.Y. 1970);”

Case 4:04-cv-00634-PJH Document 368 Filed 08/22/05 Page 3 of 4
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

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING THE REGENTS’ MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

C04 00634 PJH (EDL) 4

pa-1002961

8. Documents responsive to The Regents’ Requests for Production Nos. 227-228;

9. Documents sufficient to show the amount of money spent by Monsanto on the 

development or approval of any variant of bGH or bGH product other than 

POSILAC®, as recited in The Regents’ Request for Production No. 237;

10. A full and adequate response to interrogatory 24: “State the USAN name and the 

amino acid sequence of each BGH molecule other than sometribove that YOU are 

currently developing for potential submission to the FDA and IDENTIFY the 

target animal safety, target animal efficacy, toxicology, human safety, or statistical 

studies that are currently ongoing for each;” and

11. A full and adequate response to interrogatory 25: “State the USAN name and the 

amino acid sequence of each molecule YOU contend is or would be an available 

non-infringing substitute for POSILAC® in the event that POSILAC® sales are

enjoined due to THIS LITIGATION.”

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _____________, 2005

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

August 22 U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte

Case 4:04-cv-00634-PJH Document 368 Filed 08/22/05 Page 4 of 4