Karl Storz Endoscopy-America, Inc. v. Stryker Corporation et al

Filing 330

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley denying 322 KSEA's Motion to Compel Interrogatory Responses and For Sanctions. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/13/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 KARL STORZ ENDOSCOPY-AMERICA, INC., 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Plaintiff, v. STRYKER CORPORATION, et al., Case No.14-cv-00876-RS (JSC) ORDER RE: KSEA’S MOTION TO COMPEL INTERROGATORY RESPONSES AND FOR SANCTIONS Re: Dkt. No. 322 Defendants. 12 13 KSEA moves to compel Stryker to respond further to interrogatory nos. 5 and 6 and also 14 moves for sanctions. After reviewing the parties’ submissions, including the excerpts of the 15 deposition of Mr. Robinson, KSEA’s motion is DENIED. First, Mr. Robinson had relevant 16 information which is demonstrated by the answers given at the day-long deposition; it was not a 17 waste of KSEA’s time. Second, If KSEA wanted specific answers to each question asked it 18 should have served a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice. Stryker then would have been obligated to 19 prepare witnesses to answer questions about previously identified topics. That was not done here. 20 As an aside, the Court notes that Stryker’s counsel complained on the deposition record 21 that KSEA’s counsel was asking “bad questions all day.” If Stryker’s counsel had a concern that 22 the witness could not understand the questions, the proper response is to raise that concern in a 23 polite, professional way. To retort that counsel has been asking “bad questions all day” is neither. 24 Finally, the motion to seal Exhibit G is DENIED. Stryker seeks to seal information that is 25 not remotely sealable under Civil Local Rule 79-5(b). For example, the publicly-known features 26 of a product are not sealable. That someone has been at every sale meeting is not confidential. 27 Stryker has not shown why identifying its legacy product is a trade secret. The testimony 28 regarding whether the deponent was the most knowledgeable is not sealable and, more 1 2 importantly, was publicly discussed by Stryker in its letter brief. And so on. This Order disposes of Docket Nos. 322, 323, 324. 3 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 13, 2017 6 7 JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?