Opinion
Case No. C06-06946 MHP (EDL).
March 5, 2008
JAMES A. OLIFF ( Admitted Pro Hac Vice), JOHN W. O'MEARA ( Admitted Pro Hac Vice), WILLIAM J. UTERMOHLEN ( Admitted Pro Hac Vice), OLIFF BERRIDGE, PLC, Alexandria, Virginia.
SUSAN VAN KEULEN, CA Bar No. 136060, CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, CA Bar No. 235517, THELEN REID BROWN RAYSMAN STEINER, LLP, San Jose, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counterdefendant Seiko Epson Corporation and Counterdefendants Epson Research and Development, Inc. and Epson America, Inc.
[ PROPOSED ] ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART PLAINTIFF SEIKO EPSON CORPORATION'S MOTION TO COMPEL CORETRONIC'S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORIES
UPON CONSIDERATION of Plaintiff Seiko Epson Corporation's Motion to Compel Coretronic's Response to Interrogatories (the "Motion to Compel"), with respect to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 15, 16 and 17 of Plaintiff Seiko Epson Corporation's First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Coretronic Corporation ("Coretronic"), and the parties' memoranda, declarations, exhibits and arguments relating thereto, and based on the rulings of the Court at the hearing of February 26, 2008, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion to Compel is granted, in part, as follows:
1. in response to Interrogatory No. 15, Coretronic shall supplement its response by identifying, by brand and model number, all projector models designed and/or manufactured by Coretronic from January 1, 2004 to the present that have been sold under a brand name other than Coretronic or Optoma;
2. in response to Interrogatory Nos. 16 and 17, Coretronic shall:
a. identify, under oath, all series or families of which any of the defined Coretronic Projectors (excluding those not accused of infringement) are a member, such identification to include a listing of the other members of the series or families and an explanation, by the person most knowledgeable of such issues, of any contention Coretronic may have as to why the identified series and families are not relevant to issues in this case; and
b. identify, under oath, any projectors designed and/or manufactured by Coretronic from January 1, 2004 to the present that have the same configuration, with respect to ventilation or the mounting of the lamp reflector to the lamp housing, as the defined Coretronic Projectors (excluding those not accused of infringement), such identification to be made in good faith and supported by a declaration evidencing a complete investigation of that issue, including but not limited to direct consultation with Coretronic's projector design engineers;
3. in response to Interrogatory No. 1, Coretronic shall identify, under oath, any model designations or other names under which projectors have been sold having the same configurations, with respect to ventilation or mounting of the lamp reflector to the lamp housing, as the defined Coretronic Projectors (excluding those not accused of infringement); and
4. all supplemental responses and the supporting declarations shall be provided to Seiko Epson Corporation by Coretronic within 21 days of this order.
The supplemental responses and declarations required by this Order are provided in response to discovery requests. No response under this Order is deemed an admission of infringement or a legal conclusion.