Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
IMMERSION CORP. v. SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT AMERICA
September 20, 2005.
IMMERSION CORPORATION, Plaintiff(s),
SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT AMERICA, INC., et al., Defendant(s).
The opinion of the court was delivered by: WAYNE BRAZIL, Magistrate Judge
ORDER FOLLOWING SEPTEMBER 20, 2005, TELEPHONIC DISCOVERY
This morning, the morning of September 20, 2005, the Court
acquiesced to defense counsel's request to conduct an impromptu
telephonic discovery conference in the above-referenced case to
discuss issues that have arisen during the taking of Rule 60(b)
depositions. For reasons articulated more thoroughly on the
record, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. The Court is not inclined to enter an order prohibiting
deponents and their counsel from discussing matters of substance
during deposition breaks (unless an unanswered question is
2. The Court hereby SUBSTITUTES Sony's in-house counsel Mr.
James Leong for Ms. Anne-Marie Dinius under the protective order.
Defense counsel must use his best efforts to provide plaintiff's
counsel with a copy of Mr. Leong's resume by the close of
business today, September 20, 2005. 3. Defense counsel is permitted to take Mr. Smollen's
deposition this week. The deposition must be taken at a time and
place convenient to Mr. Smollen.*fn1
4. The information provided by counsel, some of it disputed
with vigor, was not sufficient to enable the court to determine
whether it would be appropriate to condition defense counsel's
right to take Mr. Smollen's deposition on defendant reimbursing
Mr. Smollen for travel expenses and/or lost work time. If counsel
for plaintiff elects to pursue this matter, they must submit for
the court's review a copy of the transcript of the deposition of
Mr. Viega that was taken on September 19, 2005. If it appears to
the court, after reviewing the transcript, that defense counsel
wasted substantial time during that deposition, e.g., by asking
forseeably unproductive questions or by repeated visits to the
same subjects, the court will afford defense counsel an
opportunity to defend the manner in which he used the time
consumed by Mr. Viega's deposition. If, after considering defense
counsel's submission, the court concludes that the way defense
counsel used the time consumed by the Viega deposition was a
substantial factor in causing Mr. Smollen's deposition to be
postponed, the court will permit plaintiff's counsel and/or Mr.
Smollen to submit a claim for reimbursement of reasonable
5. The Court will NOT conduct any additional impromptu
telephonic discovery conferences in connection with the remaining
Rule 60(b) depositions. Counsel wishing to bring any such
discovery disputes to the Court's attention must do so by way of
a written motion that complies with the Civil Local Rules.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw ...
Buy This Entire Record For