Synthes (USA) v. Spinal Kinetics Inc., No. 5:2009cv01201 - Document 166 (N.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant's Motion to Compel Depositions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 3/2/2011. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/2/2011)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Synthes (USA) v. Spinal Kinetics Inc. Doc. 166 1 2 *E-FILED 03-02-2011* 3 4 5 6 NOT FOR CITATION 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN JOSE DIVISION 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 7 12 SYNTHES USA, LLC (f/k/a SYNTHES (U.S.A.)); SYNTHES USA SALES, LLC; and SYNTHES, INC., 13 14 15 Plaintiffs, No. C09-01201 RMW (HRL) ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS v. SPINAL KINETICS, INC., 16 Defendant. / 17 18 Defendant Spinal Kinetics, Inc. (Spinal Kinetics) moves to depose certain individuals 19 and to re-depose others. The requested depositions essentially fall into three categories: (1) 20 second depositions of Baumgartner and Burri, the named inventors of the patent-in-suit; (2) an 21 “apex” deposition of plaintiffs’ Chief Executive Officer, Michael Orsinger; and (3) depositions 22 of two individuals residing in Switzerland: (i) Synthes’ Swiss patent prosecution counsel, Dr. 23 Peter Kaiser; and (ii) Robert Mathys; Jr., former head of the RMS Foundation. Plaintiffs 24 Synthes USA, LLC (f/k/a Synthes (U.S.A.)); Synthes USA Sales LLC; and Synthes, Inc. 25 (collectively, Synthes) oppose the motion. Upon consideration of the moving and responding 26 papers, as well as the arguments of counsel, this court grants the motion in part and denies it in 27 part. 28 Dockets.Justia.com 1 A. 2 Baumgartner and Burri Depositions Absent a stipulation, a party must obtain leave of court to take another deposition of a 3 witness who has already been deposed in the case. FED. R. CIV. P. 30(a)(2)(A)(ii). A court 4 must grant leave unless it finds that (a) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or 5 duplicative or can be obtained from a source that is more convenient, less burdensome or less 6 expensive, (b) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information 7 through discovery; or (c) the burden or expense of the discovery sought outweighs its likely 8 benefit, considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, the 9 importance of the issues at stake, and the importance of the discovery in resolving those issues. FED.R.CIV.P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i)-(iii). 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 Defendant’s assertions as to the breadth and scope of purportedly “new” information 12 and material discovered after the inventors’ first depositions are exaggerated. Moreover, Spinal 13 Kinetics has failed to convince that the proportionality and other requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 14 26(b)(2) are satisfied. Defendant’s motion as to second depositions of Baumgartner and Burri is 15 denied. 16 B. 17 Deposition of Michael Orsinger “Virtually every court that has addressed deposition notices directed at an official at the 18 highest level or ‘apex’ of corporate management has observed that such discovery creates a 19 tremendous potential for abuse or harassment.” Celerity, Inc. v. Ultra Clean Holding, Inc., No. 20 C05-04374MMC (JL), 2007 WL 205067 *3 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 25, 2007). “Where a high-level 21 decision maker ‘removed from the daily subjects of the litigation’ has no unique personal 22 knowledge of the facts at issue, a deposition of the official is improper.” Id. (quoting Baine v. 23 General Motors Corp., 141 F.R.D. 332, 334 (M.D. Ala. 1991)). “This is especially so where 24 the information sought in the deposition can be obtained through less intrusive discovery 25 methods (such as interrogatories) or from depositions of lower-level employees with more 26 direct knowledge of the facts at issue.” Id. Here, Spinal Kinetics offers nothing but its 27 supposition that Orsinger has unique and non-repetitive relevant knowledge that cannot be 28 obtained from other sources. Defendant’s motion to compel his deposition therefore is denied. 2 1 The denial is without prejudice to defendant to show that other discovery methods, including 2 the depositions of plaintiffs’ designated Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) witnesses, are inadequate. 3 However, defendant is advised that on any such future application, it must present more than an 4 invitation for this court to rule upon generalities rather than a solid, detailed showing. 5 C. Depositions of Witnesses Residing in Switzerland 6 1. Dr. Peter Kaiser 7 Spinal Kinetics wishes to depose Synthes’ Swiss patent prosecution counsel, Dr. Peter 8 Kaiser of Lusuardi, AG. Dr. Kaiser reportedly was involved in the preparation of the PCT 9 application, i.e., the priority application that subsequently issued as the ‘270 patent in the United States. Generally, this court considers whether the requested deposition will present an 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 inappropriate burden or hardship and whether any relevant, non-privileged information sought 12 outweighs any burden imposed. See generally Shelton v. Am. Motors Corp., 805 F.2d 1323, 13 1327 (8th Cir. 1986). Plaintiffs argue that Kaiser’s deposition can only be allowed where an 14 inequitable conduct claim is asserted (and none is asserted here). They further contend that 15 Kaiser is an inappropriate candidate for deposition. But, despite their stated concerns about the 16 relevance or propriety of depositions of their patent counsel, plaintiffs previously made efforts 17 to arrange for the deposition of Dr. Lusuardi, their other Swiss patent counsel at Lusuardi, AG, 18 who reportedly had primary responsibility for the PCT application. Here, plaintiffs argue that 19 Spinal Kinetics botched Dr. Lusuardi’s deposition (for lack of a qualified translator) and now 20 seeks to depose Dr. Kaiser as an improper “do-over.” Nevertheless on balance, and having 21 weighed competing legitimate interests and possible prejudice, this court agrees that defendant 22 should have an opportunity to depose Dr. Kaiser—provided that defendant can do so within the 23 time remaining for fact discovery, as discussed more fully below. Accordingly, defendant’s 24 motion with respect to Dr. Kaiser’s deposition is granted. Defendant shall forthwith submit the 25 26 27 28 3 1 necessary paperwork and shipping materials it says are necessary to obtain Dr. Kaiser’s 2 deposition in Switzerland.1 3 2. Robert Mathys, Jr. 4 Robert Mathys, Jr. reportedly is the former head (now retired) of the RMS Foundation, Spinal Kinetics believes he has knowledge and information relevant to the research, 7 development, and presentation of the technology described in the ‘270 patent, as well as 8 information pertaining to Spinal Kinetics’ “printed publication” defense under 35 U.S.C. § 9 102(b). Plaintiffs do not control this witness. They believe that Mathys’ deposition is unlikely 10 to yield any relevant information (or, at least, none that would outweigh the associated burden). 11 For the Northern District of California an entity established by the Mathys family to undertake basic research and product testing. 6 United States District Court 5 Plaintiffs also contend that Spinal Kinetics has already taken the five depositions re the thesis 12 presentation allowed by Judge Whyte. Nevertheless, on balance, and having weighed 13 competing legitimate interests and possible prejudice, this court agrees that Spinal Kinetics 14 should have an opportunity to learn what Mathys may know—again, provided that defendant 15 can complete his deposition within the time remaining for fact discovery. Accordingly, 16 defendant’s motion as to Robert Mathys, Jr. is granted Defendant shall forthwith submit the 17 necessary paperwork and shipping materials it says are necessary to obtain his deposition in 18 Switzerland. 19 Finally, a word about timing concerns alluded to above. Plaintiffs point out that Spinal 20 Kinetics has known that it wanted Dr. Kaiser’s and Robert Mathys, Jr.’s depositions since at 21 least August 2010. (Docket No. 92, Second Joint Case Management Statement at 9-11). 22 Because Spinal Kinetics previously has conducted several depositions abroad in this matter, it 23 presumably knew that securing the Kaiser and Mathys depositions could take up to several 24 months. Yet, for whatever reason, defendant waited until January of this year, some two 25 months shy of fact discovery cutoff, to seek leave to take them. Thus, this court grants 26 defendant’s motion to conduct the Kaiser and Mathys depositions on condition that the 27 Although Spinal Kinetics indicates that it has submitted to the court all necessary paperwork and shipping materials for obtaining the requested depositions in Switzerland, this court has received no such documentation. 1 28 4 1 depositions should be completed within the time remaining for fact discovery. Moreover, 2 Spinal Kinetics should not be permitted to use the Kaiser and Mathys depositions as a lever to 3 now request that discovery be extended or the trial postponed. 4 5 SO ORDERED. Dated: March 2, 2011 6 HOWARD R. LLOYD 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 1 5:09-cv-01201-RMW Notice has been electronically mailed to: 2 Allan William Jansen lfulmer@orrick.com ajansen@orrick.com, ajansen@orrick.com, kjohnson@orrick.com, 3 Andre De La Cruz adelacruz@orrick.com, jdavis@orrick.com 4 Ehab Monsef Samuel esamuel@orrick.com 5 James W. Geriak jgeriak@orrick.com, lfulmer@orrick.com, ymeneses@orrick.com 6 Jeffrey Martin Olson jolson@sidley.com, aprado@sidley.com, ngregg@sidley.com 7 Kurt Timothy Mulville kmulville@orrick.com, jdavis@orrick.com 8 Matthew Spencer Jorgenson mjorgenson@sidley.com 9 Monte M.F. Cooper mcooper@orrick.com, adalton@orrick.com, mortiz@orrick.com Paul Howard Meier pmeier@sidley.com 11 Robert W. Dickerson For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 rdickerson@orrick.com 12 Robert William Dickerson DickersonR@dicksteinshapiro.com, sfischer@orrick.com 13 Samuel N. Tiu stiu@sidley.com 14 15 Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
