Novadaq Technologies v. Karl Storz GmbH & Co. K.G. et al

Filing 279

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RULING OF NO PRECLUSION by Judge Paul S. Grewal re 273 , 274 (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/21/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

NOVADAQ TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

8

Plaintiff,
v.

9

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
RULING OF NO PRECLUSION
(Re: Docket Nos. 273, 274)

10

KARL STORZ GMBH & CO. K.G., et al.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 14-cv-04853-PSG

Defendants.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

After the close of fact discovery in this trademark infringement case, Plaintiff Novadaq
Technologies, Inc. discovered that a Novadaq clinical sales specialist, Heather Arnold, allegedly
encountered an instance of actual confusion at the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center in
Houston, Texas.1 The court already has denied Novadaq leave to file a declaration from Arnold in
support of its opposition to summary judgment motions by Defendants Karl Storz GmbH & Co.,
K.G. and Karl Storz Endoscopy-America, Inc.2 Novadaq now asks the court to rule that it should
not be precluded from offering Arnold’s testimony at trial.3 Karl Storz objects, citing the
untimeliness of the disclosure and the prejudice that Karl Storz would suffer from the admission.4
Karl Storz argues that the late disclosure hampers its ability to depose Arnold and obtain discovery
from the DeBakey Medical Center employees who Arnold claims were confused, especially given

22
23
24

1

See Docket No. 274 at 1-2.

25

2

See Docket No. 263.

26

3

See Docket No. 274.

27

4

See Docket No. 273.

28

1
Case No.14-cv-04853-PSG
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RULING OF NO PRECLUSION

1

the impending deadlines for pretrial filings and the trial date in early January.5 In light of this

2

prejudice to Karl Storz, the court DENIES Novadaq’s request for a ruling of no preclusion.

3

SO ORDERED.

4

Dated: October 21, 2015
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

5
6
7
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

5

See id. at 4.

2
Case No.14-cv-04853-PSG
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RULING OF NO PRECLUSION