Free Objections - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv—00343-JJF Document 313-2 Filed 11/16/2006 Page1 of 3
Westlaw
Not Reported in F.Supp. Page l
Not Reported in F.Supp., 1997 WL. 873548 (Dtibel.)
(Cite as: 1997 WL 873548 (D.DcI.})
C iicderal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(ai. (D l..70).
Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
11.. DlSCLlSSIOl¤l
Rule Bora) permits a party to serve another party
United Siiiiw Disiiiciccuii D Daiiiwam with written requests for admission ofthe truth of
George E FULHORST diiiia ZSai._T_NBt iiéiii matters relevant to the pending action. Fed.R.Civ.P.
i Piuiifiiiff ’ ’ 36(ai. Admissions sought under Rule 36 serve "tirst
V ’ to facilitate proof with respect to issues that cannot be
UNHED .iEi.,i_iNOLOGiES AUTOMOTIVE mc eliminated from the case, and secondly, to narrow the
' Dciimdmii ’ " issues by eliminating those that can be" l‘cd.R.Civ.P.
No CW A %_5Zi,.7_J_ii»i Q6 (Advisory Committees Note to l970
` ° ' ` Amendment); see CZ`r1crr—Co/rr Boi!/irrg Co. la (fTor:n—
NOV ir] 1997 Co/rz (Yo. 123 l*.R.D. 97. 102 {D.Del.l988i (Rule 36
Arthur G.Connoi1y. lr., Esquire, oi`Connolly, Bove, Qudmlsswns Eixpgdltc mal by "?°‘"°"Ymg mngc sf
LOdgc& Hui; Wiimingmn Dciawam Ofcmmscii issues), With these purposes in mind, the Court
Gm iw _ iii i lick Esquire Ji Smkcy & Luck L L P considers Requests E8 and 19 separately below.
E E '- ·*.-...e ‘ s · · ·v
Houston, Texas; James M. McGraw, Esquire, and . .
James L. Reed, ir., Esquire of Looper, Reed, Mark & Request fer Admission Ne lg
McGraw, l-louston, Texas; Timothv N. Trop, Esquire _ _ _ _
or rss at Rrsiitrsssr, nnr”‘—‘!, rtra$`."rr"`rr"`sr.rtys rst igjgjjgrrtr Ream in Ad¤=e5=¤¤ N0- *8 reds as
mmmlfi A "car finder" ("car locator") feature in a radio
Donald F Pmsmis if Esquire mid Kiiiim L tiequencsy controlled vehicle entry system is
Pasmic ES Him Oi? ioimiis Nicimiii Aishi different from a "panic alarm" feature, even when
.i.mmBli’ Wigmiiigiun Dakiwiimi Oi COURSE], the system structure and software associated with
~i·rmaty r. r-arial, esque, an rum P. gi*qi~t°<=é·=·—·rg=·i<*=i<*¤=r=*¤·‘=i;·;-_ iii, i ii _ i
Greenspoon, Esquire of Niro, Scavone, Haller & _{ " ’ X; a )l ami cm} rr S_m li
Nim Chicago iiiimig Limiii D- ijiiiumi Esquire response to this request that the words associated,
md ’ OTH ’Tciicib:i;m ` Uniimi "car finder" and "system structure and soltware" are
Technologies Automotive, Inc., Dearborn, Michigan vague and render the rlrsurrt amblgu°uS‘ (Bl 71*
Aimmcys {Oi. Dcfeiidaiiii Ex. B at 8). Defendant asserts that these terms are
clear on their face and require no further explanation.
rvremonnuout/r opinion lm 7* ‘“ ll
FARNAN (thief] The Court agrees with Plaintiff that the term
*"‘*—’ ’ ' ` "associated" is vague. Requests for admission should
i iNiRODU(s.i.iON be phrased so that they can he admitted or denied
*1 Pmscmiy beilcrc me Ccuiii is Dai-emimii iliiiiigci with minimal explanation. United Corr? Cr1rrrprrr:ie.s
. - · ¤. Petrie/I Conxrrrrcriorr Corr: rmi- 839 F.?,d 958. 967
Technologies Motion To Compel Discovery
_ · · - T ,`.. "’[’ ,[.. r
(D.l.7t}). Plaintiff brought the Complaint in this 7(qi,u?fE;g $1*52 ""_;{i;i:’i7 lin;] rl if
matter on November 27, 1996 alleging infringement "° , m' ) , ° G
or urnien series ruierrr ue. 4,522,17s retire urs Pali? *5 *”'°‘ ‘"*“"1“"‘°‘l *0 ‘"°5l’°“" ‘° “ ‘""’°1”"’S‘ that
],iiciii...] which was issued im ii rwimiess Aiiiim contains vague or ambiguous statements. jirrbirr in
System in Conjunction with at Least One Vehicle .*'
(DLI). Defendant has submitted its Motion To fuggslc 33°rii°?9;; (wigs
Compei Discovery in response tothe Courts Order of G G"? mcucedl ‘ ` I ],( ,, C l' )‘ lc
Sepiamimr 22, 199.] (DNS), which proposed ii Court ts not convinced ihat Plaintiff could respond to
pr-scam at- rearing mrrr rrismry mm-S. 1`<<=¤rr=5EN¤· F8 we ·¤=·;*m¤l <;=> (Oi 7] qi 1) in iis Mciiim Defendant Seeks im ambiguity of the term associated as used in this
site eemperrrng punters respond is Require for iggttrgg dilrjrlrtsrlr- d=§=ii€>¤¤¤t sjrsludcs the
Admission Numbers 18 and l9 made pursuant to mm me no respon 0 Us r€qu€S`
© 2006 'Fhomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

Case 1:04-cv—OO343-JJF Document 313-2 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 2 of 3
Not Reported in F..Supp. Page 2
Not Reported in F.Supp., 1997 WL- 873548 (D.Del.)
(Cite ns: I997 WL 873548 {I)J)cl.))
iaw related to facts of case. ld However, the court
Request for Admission No. E9 found zz request for the admission that jurisdiction
was conferred by a certain statute to be an
Dei’endant's Request for Admission No 19 reads: inappropriate conclusion oflaw. ld
*2 The "panic alarm" components manufactured
and sold by UTA for installation in a vehicle by ain Defendant also cites .rlrm'iorex.·
automotive OEM {which SAF-T-NET accuses of (fw:nnnnicrnions Nerimrli Im. in U.S.
infringing claims of thc 'l78 patent! would not 2·'b!cco.•n Inc., C.A.No.9·l~2395-GT\’. l995
iniiinge claims 3-5 of the 'i78 patent if such Wi. 6257¢l4,at"‘6tD.i<21n.i995). However,
components were used a part of :·. "car finder" ("car the text of the requests at issue in that case
locator") feature in a vcliicle installation having are not provided in the opinion, and
identical structure and software. therefore, the opinion does not directly nid
(Di. 71, Ex. B at 8-9). i’!aintiff`denies this request this analysis.
on the grounds that it is liypotlieticai and improperly
calls for legal opinion. (1])..1. 7l, Ex. B at 8-9). ln Given the nature of the instant case, the Court has
response, Defendant contends that the request is also considered patent cases involving Rule 36. For
based on facts relevant to tile case, and that it calls exznnple, in Golden Valley Microwave Foods, Inc. ir
for tlie application of Eaw to iixcts, rather than E1 iegal Weaver Popcorn Compmqy, Inc, the United States
conclusion (Di. 7i at 4). District Court for the Northern District of Indiana
considered the propriety of a request to admit the
Aititough requests for admission may relate to validity of certain patent claims. I3O F.R.D. 02.. 96
statements or opinions oft fact or the application of {N.D.lnd.l99U). The court stated that "whether an
iaw to fact, requests that seek legal conclusions are patent is valid calls fora legal conclusion although its
not appropriate under Rule 36 7.lumes Wm.. Moore answer may depend upon factual inquiries," Id
et al., Moorcfs Federal Pmctice § § 36.l0[7}, (citations ornittcd). Based on this reasoning, the
36,IO{8] (3d ed.!997); we giolr/cu Polluv Micrmsuve court determiricri that the def`encin¤t's request that the
[·"or.=c(s, Inc. v, l·l»b¢Jvcr }’r}pcor.•r C`o.·rzpc:rzv, Inc., IEE plaintiff admit the validity Of` Ei patont claim was
F.R.lL`J. 92. 96 tN.9.§nd.l990l(improper to seek legal inappropriate because it sought a "bnid legal
conclusion through Rule 36}; Wi.’!i::m.v 1-. /».".·it·gei-. 61 conclusion? ld
li.R.D. l42. 144 {S.[).N.Y.l9733 ("pure requests for
admissions of iz1w" are prohibited under Rule 36). *3 ln another patent case, Nason Telesign Corp v
Further, llulc 36 "does not nuthorize requests for GTE hgfommrion Susrcrirs, Inc., the defendant
admissions of law unrelated to the facts ofthe case" requested plaintiffs admission that various elements
§ed.ll.Civ.P. 36 (Advisory Committee Note to 1970 disclosed in :1 related potent satisfied quoted language
Amendment), in the plaintiffs patent. 30 Fed. R. Scr·v.2r,! EZSG.
E28? gN.D.lli.l980). The United States District
The Court has considered several cases to inform its Court for the Northern District of lliinois held that
decision as to whether Request No. 19 should be the request need not be answered, as it improperly
characterized as at request fora conclusion oflaw or a sought "to obtain an admission of the ultimate legal
request for the application of law to ihct. For conclusion inthe case rather than admissions 'oi fact
example, in First Oprions of Chicago, Inc v. or of the application of law to facto" Id (quoting
Wallcmreirr, a case relied upon by ileliencinnt, the Fcci.R.Civ.l’.36ta3) (emphasis in original),
United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania considered a Rule 36 request that The Court agrees with tiic reasoning set fortii in
Defendant admit he owed fiduciary duties to certain Golden Valley and Naxon, and concludes that
individuals. C./\. No. 92-5770. 1996 Wis 729816. at Request No. 19 improperly seeks the admission of a
*3 (§El.D.Pa=..E996[. The court viewed this request as legal conclusion. in Requcstblo 19, Defendant asks
an application of law to facts relevant to the casc, and Plaintiff to assume that the allegedly infringing
therefore ordered thc defendant to answer. Id device is used in a certain manner, and then asks
(citations omitted). [`l*l\ii§ Similnry, in Ramom v Plaintiff` to admit that thc device, if used in such :1
United States, one of the disputed requests asked manner, infringes on Plaintiffs patent. Determining
Defendant to admit that certain actions by particular wiicther ini‘ringement has occured involves, in the
individuals created privity of contract. § Cl.Ct. 646, first instance, claim construction, which is E1 iegal
647-48 tCZl.C‘t.l985;. ine Uniteo States Ciainis conclusion drawn by ai court. Mm/rnmn v. l·l»'e.t·.ri·icn
Court found this to be an acceptaoic conclusion of l'n.cnn:::cn.¢.s lac., Sl'? U.S. 370. Elo S.C`t. i384.
© 2006 Tliomsonlwest. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

Case 1:04-cv—00343-JJF Document 313-2 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 3 of 3
Not Reported in F.Supp. Page 3
Not Reported in F.Supp., 1997 WL 873548 (D.Del.)
(Cite ns: 1997 WL 873548 (D.DeI.))
i393. 134 L.Ed.2ci 577 U996;. By asking Plaintiff
to admit to infringement in the context of the
hypothetical use of its device, Defendant is
iinproperiy asking Plaintiff to drew rz legai
conclusion, which is not permitted by Rule 36,
Therefore, Piaintiff will not be required to compiy
with this request.
Iii CONCI..USiON
For tire reasons discussed, the Court wiil deny
DCf€I’\d{1Tii'S Motion To Conipel Discovery (D.I.70).
An appropriate Order wili be entered.
Not Reported in F.Supp., l997 WL 873548 (D.Del..)
END OF DOCUMENT
@9 2006 Thomson/West. No Ciaim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 313-2

Filed 11/16/2006

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 313-2

Filed 11/16/2006

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 313-2

Filed 11/16/2006

Page 3 of 3