The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia U.S. Magistrate Judge
ORDER FOLLOWING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
On December 17, 2007, the Court convened a Case Management Conference in the above entitled action. Appearing were Phil Petti, Esq. and Amanda Lowrey, Esq. on behalf of plaintiff and Kok Cheong Soo, appearing pro se. There remain discovery problems which interfere with scheduling final dates.
These relate specifically to the following:
1. Supplemental responses to interrogatories and document requests that are dependent upon the production of records from defendants two companies, BZ Global SDN.BGD and BZ Global (HK) Ltd;
2. Interrogatories and documents requests seeking evidence behind the contentions of non infringement and invalidity, respectively.
It has also become clear that Mr. Soo has come into additional information that supports his claims and defenses. It will therefore be timely to order the parties to supplement their initial disclo- sures. Finally, Mr. Soo has not signed off on the protective order agreement which will allow him access to confidential information plaintiff is prepared to provide. Another copy will be faxed to him for signature and return to Plaintiff's cousel.
To help construct a meaningful order for supplementation and compliance with the prior order compelling responses by defendant, plaintiff's counsel will submit a letter to the Court and Mr. Soo identifying the interrogatory and document request numbers, respectively, that relate to the issues stated above. From there, the Court will set a series of dates for Mr. Soo to supplement his prior responses, with the information from the BZ Global companies, which he has ownership and control over, as well as the contention discovery. The Court will also set a date for the supplementation of initial disclosures and a further Case Management Conference where final dates and deadlines will be established.
To avoid further confusion, the Court has advised Mr. Soo that he must obtain the records from the BZ Global companies, over which he has ownership and control, and produce them in response to the interrogatories and document requests that are pending supplementation. With regard to the contention discovery, and the specific issue of non-infringement, Mr. Soo must define the elements of the claims of plaintiff's patent that his chairs do not infringe. With regard to invalidity, Mr. Soo must produce information responsive to the interrogatories and document requests, that support his claim that plaintiff's patent is invalid. The essence of Mr. Soo's position is that he is the inventor, therefore, all information and documents that support Mr. Soo's contention that he is the inventor must be produced.
Mr. Soo has been warned that any failure to comply with the Order that will issue shortly, will result in a recommendation to Judge Hayes that the Answer and Counter-claims be stricken and judgment entered for the plaintiff accordingly. The discovery disputes in this case have delayed scheduling final dates far too long, and Mr. Soo needs to accept the realty that the Federal Rules call for full disclosure of information either through the disclosure process or discovery.
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw ...