Masimo Corporation v. Sotera Wireless

District Court, S.D. California·Decided November 19, 2020·No. 3:19-cv-01100·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MASIMO CORPORATION, Case No.: 19cv1100-BAS (NLS)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF LETTER ROGATORY 14 SOTERA WIRELESS; HON HAI

PRECISION INDUSTRY CO., LTD., 15 [ECF No. 87] Defendants. 16

17 Before the Court is Plaintiff Masimo Corporation’s motion for the Court to issue a 18 letter rogatory to the judicial authority of Taiwan. ECF No. 87. Masimo seeks the letter 19 to aid in obtaining deposition testimony from Francis Chen, who resides in Taipei, 20 Taiwan, and was previously the CEO of Defendant Sotera Wireless and held other 21 positions at Defendant Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd. Id. 22 “A letter rogatory is a formal written request sent by a court to a foreign court 23 asking that the testimony of a witness residing within that foreign court’s jurisdiction be 24 taken pursuant to the direction of that foreign court and transmitted to the requesting 25 court for use in a pending action.” Asis Internet Services v. Optin Global, Inc., 2007 WL 26 1880369, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 29, 2007) (citing Marroquin-Manriquez v. I.N.S., 699 27 F.2d 129 (3rd Cir. 1983). The courts have inherent authority to issue letters rogatory. 28 1 See United States v. Staples, 256 F.2d 290, 292 (9th Cir. 1958); Barnes and Noble, Inc. v. 2 LSI Corp., 2012 WL 1808849, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 17, 2012); 3 Whether to issue such a letter is a matter of discretion for the court. See Asis 4 Internet Services, 2007 WL 1880369, at *3. A court’s decision whether to issue a letter 5 rogatory “requires an application of Rule 28(b) in light of the scope of discovery 6 provided for by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Id. Under Rule 28(b), a court will 7 generally not weigh the evidence sought from the discovery request, nor will it attempt to 8 predict whether that evidence will actually be obtained. Barnes and Noble, 2012 WL 19- 9 8849, at *2. The court should apply the general discovery principles set out in Rule 26. 10 Id. “Courts routinely issue letters rogatory where the movant makes a reasonable 11 showing that the evidence sought may be material, or may lead to the discovery of 12 material evidence.” Viasat, Inc. v. Space Sys./loral, Inc., No. 12-CV-0260-H (WVG), 13 2013 WL 12061801, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2013). A party opposing the issuance of 14 letters rogatory must show good cause for a court to deny the application. Id. 15 Here, the request to obtain testimony from Mr. Chen is not opposed by Defendants. 16 However, because Mr. Chen is no longer their employee, they cannot produce him for 17 deposition. ECF No. 87-1 at 5. Plaintiff states that its counsel has attempted to 18 independently request Mr. Chen voluntarily provide testimony, but has not been 19 successful. Id.; ECF No. 87-2 at ¶ 3. Mr. Chen had a long history with both Defendant 20 companies and will likely have testimony relevant to this lawsuit. Plaintiff only requests 21 four topics for deposition: (1) the functionality and design of the accused ViSi® Mobile 22 Monitoring System; (2) the sales and marketing of the accused ViSi® Mobile Monitoring 23 System; (3) the general business operations and organization of Sotera Wireless, Inc.; and 24 (4) the relationship between Hon Hai Precision Industry Co. Ltd. and Sotera Wireless, 25 Inc. including investments and support. Thus, on balance, the Court finds there is good 26 cause to grant Plaintiff’s request to issue the letter rogatory. 27 Accordingly, Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Issuance of Requests for 28 International Judicial Assistance (Letters Rogatory) is GRANTED. The Court will issue 1 || the letter of request attached as Exhibit 1 to this order. The Clerk of the Court is directed 2 || to apply the seal of the Court to Exhibit | and issue the letter rogatory. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 ||Dated: November 19, 2020 5 Mite. Lemme 6 Hon. Nita L. Stormes United States Magistrate Judge

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

11 EXHIBIT 1 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1

13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15 ) MASIMO CORPORATION, a Case No. 3:19-cv-01100-BAS-NLS 16 ) California corporation, )

17 ) REQUEST FOR ) Plaintiff, INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL 18 ) ASSISTANCE ) v. (LETTER ROGATORY) 19 )

) SOTERA WIRELESS, INC., a 20 ) California corporation, )

21 ) HON HAI PRECISION INDUSTRY ) CO., LTD., a Taiwan corporation, 22 ) ) Defendants. 23 )

27 1 TO THE APPROPRIATE JUDICIAL AUTHORITY OF TAIWAN: 2 The United States District Court for the Southern District of California, 3 United States of America, presents its greetings and compliments to the 4 Appropriate Judicial Authority of Taiwan, and respectfully requests international 5 assistance to obtain evidence to be used in a civil proceeding before this Court in 6 the above-captioned matter. 7 I. REQUEST 8 This Court respectfully requests the judicial assistance described herein as 9 necessary in the interests of justice. This Court requests assistance to obtain oral 10 testimony of Francis Chen. It has been represented to this Court that Mr. Chen 11 can presently be served at the following address: 12 Francis Chen 13 6F., No. 2, Ln. 80, Sanmin Rd., Songshan Dist., Taipei City 105, Taiwan 14 (R.O.C.) 15 The Court requests that the Appropriate Judicial Authority of Taiwan 16 compel Mr. Chen to provide testimony as to the topics set forth in Exhibit A to 17 this Request. With respect to the methods and procedures to be followed in 18 connection with the requested deposition, the Court respectfully requests that, to 19 the extent possible under Taiwan law: (a) an appropriate judicial officer of Taiwan 20 direct that Mr. Chen be duly sworn in accordance with the applicable laws and 21 procedures of Taiwan; (b) the examination be conducted orally; (c) the parties’ 22 legal representatives, their interpreters, and a stenographer be permitted to be 23 present during the examination; and (d) the stenographer be permitted to record 24 verbatim the examination, and a full transcript of the examination be made at the 25 time of the examination and translated as necessary through a qualified 26 interpreter. 27 The Court understands that the information requested may be of a 1 confidentiality of any responses to questions. A copy of the protective order is 2 attached hereto as Exhibit B. 3 II. FACTS OF THE CASE 4 The case pending before this Court is an action for patent infringement. 5 Plaintiff Masimo Corporation (“Masimo”) filed this case in June 2019 against 6 Defendants Sotera Wireless, Inc. (“Sotera”) and Hon Hai Precision Industry Co. 7 Ltd. (“Hon Hai” or “Foxconn”). Masimo seeks a judgment that Defendants 8 infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 9,788,735; 9,795,300; 9,872,623; 10,213,108; and 9 10,255,994; and U.S. Reissue Patent Nos. RE47,218; RE47,244; RE47,249; and 10 RE47,353. Masimo’s infringement allegation involves Defendants’ manufacture, 11 use, sale, offer for sale, and/or importation into the United States of the ViSi® 12 Mobile Monitoring System, which is a platform for patient vital signs monitoring, 13 including pulse oximetry, pulse rate, and respiration rate. Masimo seeks an award 14 of damages from Defendants to compensate for the alleged infringement, and 15 other relief. 16 Mr. Chen has been employed as Chief Executive Officer of Defendant 17 Sotera from June 2017 until well into 2020. Before joining Sotera, Mr. Chen held 18 high-level positions at Defendant Hon Hai. Hon Hai and its founder appointed 19 Mr.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Masimo Corporation v. Sotera Wireless, (S.D. Cal. 2020).

Masimo Corporation v. Sotera Wireless (Masimo Corporation v. Sotera Wireless) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related