Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-00634/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-00634-29/pdf.json

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

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF

CALIFORNIA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MONSANTO COMPANY,

Defendant.

 /

No. C-04-00634 PJH (EDL)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

MONSANTO’S MOTION TO COMPEL

On September 27, 2005, Monsanto’s Motion to Compel came on for hearing before the Court. 

Based on the submissions of the parties and the arguments of counsel, and for good cause appearing, the

Court GRANTS in part Monsanto’s Motion to Compel.

No later than November 18, 2005, Regents is ORDERED to:

• Produce a witness prepared to testify regarding Topic 2 of Monsanto’s Rule 30(b)(6)

Notice of Deposition to Regents. By October 14, 2005, Monsanto shall provide Regents

with a list of up to forty documents related to Topic 2 about which the designated

witness(es) must be prepared and may be questioned. The documents may concern and

the witness(es) may be questioned about: (a) the prosecution history of the patent-in-suit

with respect to disclosures to the USPTO; (b) statements made to or by the USPTO; (c)

declarations submitted to the USPTO; and (d) phone or in person interview with the

USPTO.

• Produce 30(b)(6) designee Dr. John Shih for additional testimony not to exceed one hour

regarding UC’s previously undisclosed license agreements.

Case 4:04-cv-00634-PJH Document 690 Filed 10/12/05 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

• Provide a full and complete response to Monsanto’s Interrogatory No. 8, rewritten so that

it asks whether Regents or any of the inventors “had knowledge or awareness of any

differences or potential differences in the patent-in-suit prior to its issuance . . . the dates on

which those individuals became aware of such differences or potential differences . . . .”

• Provide full and complete responses to Monsanto’s Interrogatory No. 40. 

• Produce three sample documents of Monsanto’s choosing from the sealed ‘877 Patent

litigation docket items detailed in Monsanto’s Motion. If any of Monsanto’s selected

docket items relate to the scope, interpretation or disclosure of claim 4 of the ‘877 Patent,

then UC shall produce all remaining ‘877 Patent litigation docket items listed in Monsanto’s

Motion.

• Produce the prior deposition testimony of Jeffrey Ihnen taken in Regents’ litigation with

Genentech.

During the hearing on Monsanto’s Motion to Compel, Regents for the first time argued that Judge

Hamilton’s denial of Monsanto’s Motion to Amend foreclosed discovery on collateral agreements to the

settlement of the interference proceedings with Yeda. Unless it became convinced that Judge Hamilton had

absolutely foreclosed this avenue of discovery, the Court noted that it was inclined to allow Monsanto to

pursue the issue. Nonetheless, the Court reluctantly invited the parties to file very limited letter briefs

explaining their positions. Regents did not avail itself of the option, while Monsanto argues to the contrary

in its letter brief. The Court therefore will allow Monsanto to depose a 30(b)(6) witness regarding the

settlement of the interference with Yeda in addition to the option of serving a contention interrogatory

regarding collateral agreements to the settlement with Yeda. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 12, 2005 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:04-cv-00634-PJH Document 690 Filed 10/12/05 Page 2 of 2