Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04752/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04752-8/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
Counter-claimant
The Coast Distribution System, Inc.
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

THE COAST DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM,

INC.,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 06-04752 JSW

ORDER RE DISCOVERY

DISPUTE AND ORDER OF

REFERENCE FOR SUPERVISION

OF DISCOVERY

This matter comes before the Court upon the joint letter brief submitted by the parties

dated February 1, 2007, regarding a discovery dispute. The essence of this dispute is whether

the Court should postpone discovery in this action. Defendant The Coast Distribution System,

Inc. (“Coast”) asks that the Court postpone discovery until this Court has resolved its motion to

stay, in which it seeks to stay this entire action in favor of proceedings currently pending before

the International Trade Commission (“the ITC proceeding”). The ITC proceeding was initiated

by Plaintiff American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (“Honda”) against Coast’s supplier Wuxi Kipor

Power Co., Ltd. (“Kipor”), and involves two of the five patents at issue in this suit and may

involve some of the same accused products. Coast argues that much of the discovery

propounded now may become irrelevant if the action is stayed in favor of the ITC proceeding.

Coast’s counsel also represents Kipor in the ITC proceeding. 

Honda urges the Court to allow discovery to proceed, and argues that Coast is not a

party to the ITC proceeding and, thus, has not been burdened by discovery propounded to Kipor

in that proceeding. 

Case 3:06-cv-04752-JSW Document 54 Filed 02/05/07 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

The Court has considered the parties arguments and DENIES Coast’s request to

postpone discovery until it has resolved the motion to stay. If either party believes the other

party is abusing the discovery process, or is serving duplicative discovery, they have remedies

available to them in the interim. Nothing in this Order should be construed as setting forth the

Court’s views on the merits of the pending motion to stay.

By this Order and pursuant to Local Rule 72-1, the Court refers this matter to a

randomly assigned Magistrate Judge to supervise discovery and to resolve all future discovery

disputes.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 5, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: Wings Hom

Case 3:06-cv-04752-JSW Document 54 Filed 02/05/07 Page 2 of 2