*1 Case 4:05-cv-01806-CW Document 56 Filed 01/05/06 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SHARPER IMAGE CORPORATION, et al., No. C 05-1806 CW (WDB)
Plaintiff(s). ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND QUASHING NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF MARTIN TASWIN v.
SHANGHAI NEO.TEC ELECTRON CO., LTD.,
Defendant. ____________________________/
Having considered the parties’ substantial written submissions, being apprised of the pertinent legal authorities, and acknowledging the character of the issues presented, the court has concluded that no interest would be served by oral argument on defendant’s motion. An earlier disposition of the issues raised is in everyone’s interest and it would offend Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to require the parties to incur the expenses that having their lawyers appear for oral argument would entail. Therefore, the HEARING that was scheduled for January 11, 2006, is hereby VACATED.
Defendant has persuaded the court that good cause exists to support entry of the following ORDERS:
1. The depositions of defendant and its representatives that have been noticed by plaintiff shall be taken in Shanghai, not in San Francisco.
2. Given the scope of this action as currently shaped by the pleadings, plaintiff may not conduct discovery (by deposition or otherwise) into “defendant’s knowledge of
Case 4:05-cv-01806-CW Document 56 Filed 01/05/06 Page 2 of 2 the Ionic Breeze trademark.” No such discovery is reasonably necessary to fairly litigate the design patent issues that remain in this case.
3. Plaintiff may not conduct discovery in this case that explores matters related to personal jurisdiction – and must limit the discovery it conducts under topics 10, 13, 14, 20, 31, 32, and 34 of its Rule 30(b)(6) notice to the one product that remains accused in this litigation, the XJ-202.
4. Plaintiff has not established that Martin Taswin is a managing agent of defendant – so plaintiff’s attempt to compel Mr. Taswin to appear for a deposition simply by serving a notice on defense counsel is legally insufficient. Defendant need not attempt to produce Mr. Taswin for deposition in response to any such notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 5, 2006 /s/ Wayne D. Brazil WAYNE D. BRAZIL United States Magistrate Judge Copies to:
All parties, WDB, Stats, CW