Karl Storz Endoscopy-America, Inc. v. Stryker Corporation, 14-cv-00876-RS (JSC). (2016)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20160511924
Visitors: 3
Filed: May 10, 2016
Latest Update: May 10, 2016
Summary: ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTES Re: Dkt. Nos. 191, 192, 194, 195 JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY , Magistrate Judge . The Court is in receipt of two individual discovery dispute letter briefs filed by Plaintiff Karl Storz Endoscopy-America ("KSEA") as well as the responses filed by Defendants Stryker Corporation and Stryker Communications, Inc. (together, "Stryker"). (Dkt. Nos. 191, 192, 194, 195.) Also pending before the Court are Stryker's motions to retain confidentiality designations and for leav
Summary: ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTES Re: Dkt. Nos. 191, 192, 194, 195 JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY , Magistrate Judge . The Court is in receipt of two individual discovery dispute letter briefs filed by Plaintiff Karl Storz Endoscopy-America ("KSEA") as well as the responses filed by Defendants Stryker Corporation and Stryker Communications, Inc. (together, "Stryker"). (Dkt. Nos. 191, 192, 194, 195.) Also pending before the Court are Stryker's motions to retain confidentiality designations and for leave..
More
ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTES
Re: Dkt. Nos. 191, 192, 194, 195
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY, Magistrate Judge.
The Court is in receipt of two individual discovery dispute letter briefs filed by Plaintiff Karl Storz Endoscopy-America ("KSEA") as well as the responses filed by Defendants Stryker Corporation and Stryker Communications, Inc. (together, "Stryker"). (Dkt. Nos. 191, 192, 194, 195.) Also pending before the Court are Stryker's motions to retain confidentiality designations and for leave to amend invalidity contentions, which are set for oral argument on May 12, 2016. (Dkt. No. 165, 168.) The Court declines to adjudicate the new discovery disputes at this time and ORDERS the parties to come prepared to meet and confer in the Court's jury room about the issues raised in the new discovery dispute letters following the May 12 motions hearing. Counsel should plan on meeting and conferring for the entire day, if necessary. Defendants should be prepared to give dates as to when documents will be produced, and exactly what documents will be produced and what documents are being withheld as privileged, not relevant or that do not exist. The same responses are required for the interrogatories—Defendants must provide dates certain for any supplementation. If an impasse remains toward the end of the day, the Court will meet with the parties regarding their discovery disputes at that time.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
