Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03653/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03653-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lifescan, Inc.
Counter-defendant
Roche Diagnostics Corporation
Counter-claimant

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 1

 The letter briefs are found at Docket Nos. 81 and 95.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LIFESCAN, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS CORPORATION,

Defendant. /

No. C 04-3653 SI

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY

The parties have submitted a discovery dispute to the Court for resolution.1 The parties dispute

the propriety of Roche’s requests for admissions, which ask Lifescan to apply its proposed claim

construction positions to diagrams depicting test strips made by Roche. Lifescan contends that the

RFAs are improper because they do not seek admissions as to undisputed facts, but rather seek

discovery and legal conclusions. Lifescan further contends that even if the RFAs were somehow

permissible, they are premature because the Court has not yet construed the claims. Roche responds

that the RFAs are not premature in light of the invalidity and infringement patent disclosures required

in this District. Roche also argues that it is entitled to substantive answers to the RFAs because Lifescan

conducted essentially the same type of discovery through a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition.

The Court agrees with Lifescan that Roche’s RFAs are improper. “Requests for admission do

not serve the same purpose as other discovery because requests for admission are not designed to elicit

or discover facts but rather to eliminate issues not really in dispute between parties.” Moore’s Federal

Practice 3d § 36.02[2] (2007). Here, Roche’s RFAs go to the heart of the parties’ dispute about claim

Case 3:04-cv-03653-SI Document 105 Filed 07/03/07 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

construction, infringement and invalidity. To the extent Roche wished to discover the facts supporting

Lifescan’s claims, Roche should have utilized interrogatories or depositions. In addition, “requests

directed towards applying the claims of the patent or requiring application of the claims prior to any

Markman ruling are not the application of law to facts relevant to the case, but in reality are requests

for legal conclusions and therefore, improper.” Tulip Computers Int’l v. Dell Computer Corp., 210

F.R.D. 100, 108 (D. Del. 2002). 

Roche also asserts that Lifescan has refused to collect and produce responsive documents from

various third parties. However, Lifescan states that it has fully complied with its obligations, and

Lifescan has filed copies of the parties’ meet and confer letters in which Lifescan confirmed that it has

produced all responsive documents. Based upon this record, Roche has not shown that Lifescan has not

complied with its discovery obligations. If appropriate, Roche may renew its motion upon a showing

that Lifescan has withheld particular documents.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 3, 2007 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-03653-SI Document 105 Filed 07/03/07 Page 2 of 2