Angioscore, Inc. v. Trireme Medical, Inc. et al

Filing 154

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEF OF JANUARY 13, 2014. Plaintiff's brief filed Noon on Friday 1/24/2014; Defendant's brief filed by Noon on Wednesday, 1/29/2014. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 1/21/2014. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/21/2014)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7
8

ANGIOSCORE, INC.,
Plaintiff,

9
10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11
12

Case No.: 12-CV-3393 YGR
ORDER RE: DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEF OF
JANUARY 13, 2014

vs.
TRIREME MEDICAL, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

13

On January 13, 2014, Plaintiff AngioScore Inc. and Defendants TriReme Medical, LLC and

14

Dr. Eitan Konstantino jointly submitted to the Court a discovery letter brief. (Dkt. No. 152.) In the

15

letter brief, Plaintiff asks the Court: (1) to strike several of Defendants' objections to the production

16

of purportedly relevant documents and to compel the full and complete production of documents

17

responsive to Plaintiff's Request for Production No. 54 ("RFP No. 54"); and (2) to compel the

18

continuing deposition of Elton Satusky, outside corporate counsel for Defendants. Both requests are

19

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

20

With respect to RFP No. 54, Plaintiff has made an insufficient showing that the documents

21

requested are "relevant" or "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence."

22

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Plaintiff characterizes the information requested as pertaining to the

23

corporate structure of TriReme and associated Singaporean defendants Quattro Vascular PTE Ltd.

24

and QT Vascular Ltd. and seeking to illuminate "the practical and legal relationship among the

25

entities" for purposes of "obtain[ing] complete documentation of the development of the accused

26

devices and the entities involved in its manufacture and sale . . . ." (Letter Brief at 1, 1.) Even

27

taking that description at face value, Plaintiff does not articulate how information pertaining to the

28

practical or legal relationship among the entities could lead to discovery of admissible evidence of

1

the development of the accused devices or otherwise bear on the issues in this patent infringement

2

case.1 Based upon this showing. Plaintiff's request does not make logical or transparent sense.
With respect to the request to compel a continued deposition of Mr. Satusky, the contours of

3
4

the relief requested are unclear. Plaintiff articulates neither the specific issues on which it seeks to

5

depose Mr. Satusky further, nor the length of time needed for the continued deposition. Without

6

knowing what relief Plaintiff seeks, the Court is not inclined to grant Plaintiff's request. The Court

7

also finds Plaintiff's showing of evasiveness, though colorable, not entirely persuasive.
The Court is cognizant that it is an unenviable task to demonstrate evasiveness in a

8
9

deposition without citing to the deposition transcript itself. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff

Northern District of California

to file a brief of no more than five pages in length, in the form set forth in Civil Local Rule 7-4,

11

United States District Court

10

which sets forth Plaintiff's bases for concluding that Satusky was evasive. Plaintiff's brief shall

12

include a transcript of the Satusky deposition, authenticated by affidavit or declaration, with the cited

13

portions highlighted. Plaintiff's brief is due no later than noon Pacific time on Friday, January 24,

14

2014.
No later than noon Pacific time on Wednesday, January 29, 2014, Defendants may submit a

15
16

responsive brief of no more than five pages in length. No reply is authorized and no hearing is

17

ordered.

18

This Order terminates Docket No. 152.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

Dated: January 21, 2014

22

__________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The Court acknowledges that Plaintiff is concerned about Defendants playing a so-called "shell
game" with multiple corporate entities, some of them created after the inception of this litigation.
(Letter Brief at 1; see also Dkt. No. 90 at 1, 3; Dkt. No. 121.) As explained at the motion hearing of
November 8, 2013, the Court also perceives that Plaintiff may seek to make a veil-piercing argument
in order to seek to hold the Singaporean entities liable for the acts of TriReme. (Dkt. No. 126 at
86:17-22.) What the Court has yet to hear from Plaintiff is its explanation why the documents
sought may lead to relevant, admissible evidence bearing on an issue in this case.
2