The Defendants didn't provide the documents DM was requesting with regard to claim 4 (and maybe claim 6 and 7) of the '737 patent. DM then sent all Defendants a request for depositions in lieu of the technical documents but none agreed...some saying this is the first they've heard of this request. Nokia, Panasonic and Canon thought the deposition request was beyond the scope of discovery but the Court disagreed.

The Court ordered the Defendants to have [technical] personnel of their companies available for deposition by DM. Looks like DM is flying overseas...how's the weather in the Far East this time of year?

----------------

THE COURT: No, I’m prepared to rule on this, I don’t need to hear anymore on this. We’re going to go with these depositions as indicated. I do find that these particular topics are appropriate on claim construction, you can go under those areas. Let’s clear the dates for those peoples’ depositions. I’ll order counsel to meet and confer tomorrow to do that to get that done.

The defendants are on notice as to who they need to designate in order to answer topics that are listed within the deposition notices. I’ve already been informed and no one disagrees that the deposition notices, as far as the topics are concerned, are the same for the various defendants that have been issued by the plaintiff under Rule 7 30(b)(6). So we’re going to set those and go forward with those. I’ll order counsel to meet and confer as to a location where they can take place to try to minimize the cost to the parties. I’ve already told counsel to use numeric deposition exhibits, that’s already been ordered, so make sure you follow that, and we’re going to go forward and move the case forward and take these depositions and figure out the claims in this case, that’s the order of the Court on that issue.

THE COURT: -- it should be with all counsel, Mr. Yungwirth, and I know you’re out of state right now, but that -– by Local Rule that’s everyone. So make sure that you contact all counsel, coordinate a date certain. Obviously, counsel are going to have to be flexible with their schedules, because we’ve got multiple lawyers on the case and most of the firms have multiple lawyers on the case I believe from the last sessions we’ve had, so make yourselves available that way.

If for some reason the parties can’t come up with a date certain, I will set them and you’ll all have to show up on a date certain. I’d prefer not to do that, but, quite frankly, with a case of this nature with this many parties involved and lawyers, the majority who can do it, that’s when it’s going to get set. Because we’re not -- otherwise, we’ll be here forever to get depositions done, and it’s not unusual to have multiple depositions done in cases of this nature in different locations at the same time involving more than one lawyer from each firm representing a specific party, it’s not unusual, it happens.

So if you don’t think I’ll set those, you’re mistaken, because I will, and you’ll have to come and –- well, if you don’t come, that’s your decision, but I’ll set it, so make sure you take care of that. All right, what else do you have to bring up on behalf of the plaintiff, Mr. Yungwirth?

MR. YUNGWIRTH: That is it, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. KASDAN: Your Honor, may I seek a clarification with respect to Panasonic?

THE COURT: Yes, sir.

MR. KASDAN: Given the specificity of the topics that are in the deposition notice, it’s very likely and, in fact, I’m almost positive that the witnesses that will have that type of information are all in Japan.

THE COURT: Right.

MR. KASDAN: Are you suggesting that these depositions go forward in Japan?

THE COURT: Yes, I am.

MR. KASDAN: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Any other clarification?

THE COURT: Obviously, you’re going to have to have a certified interpreter and so forth, I understand that, but it’s not unusual to have depositions overseas, we’ve done it
before. Follow the Hague Convention and take care of it that way. All right.