ICU MEDICAL, INC., Plaintiff, v. B.BRAUN MEDICAL, INC., Defendant No. C 01-3202 CRB(MEJ) United States District Court, N.D. California May 13, 2003 Counsel Christopher B. Hockett, Bingham McCutchen LLP, San Francisco, CA, Mary T. Huser, Adrienne L. Taclas, Mary A. Fuller, Susan Vastano Vaughan, Bingham McCutchen LLP, East Palo Alto, CA, S. Christian Platt, Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff. Tony L. Richardson, Kirkland & Ellis, Los Angeles, CA, Daniel F. Attridge, Edward C. Donovan, Gregory Corbett, John Thomas Battaglia, Kirkland & Ellis, Washington, DC, for Defendants. James, Maria-Elena, United States Magistrate Judge ORDER DENYING ICU'S REQUEST TO COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL ULTRASITE DEVICES WITH CLEAR HOUSINGS. ORDER DENYING ICU'S REQUEST TO COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF BACK-UP DOCUMENTATION FOR BRAUN'S MARCH 7, 2003 PRESENTATION *1 The Court is in receipt of ICU's letter dated May 6, 2003 and Braun's letter dated May 7, 2003 regarding the production of Ultrasite devices and production of back-up documentation relating to Braun's March 7, 2003 presentation. In its letter, ICU seeks a court order requiring Braun to provide it with additional samples of Ultrasite devices with clear housings so that it may conduct testing on those devices in its own offices. ICU also seeks back-up documentation for the computer animation Braun used at the March 7, 2003 hearing. Additionally, the Court spoke with counsel for both ICU and Braun on May 12, 2003. While Braun informed the Court that an inspection of the devices did occur on March 8, 2003 at Braun's office thus rendering the issue moot, counsel for ICU still requested at least 4 additional samples for testing despite the fact that an inspection had already occurred and their Opposition to Braun's Motion for Summary Judgment had already been drafted. Based upon the letters submitted, the Court finds that the inspection which occurred on March 8, 2003 in Braun's counsel's office provided ICU sufficient opportunity to examine the devices. It does not appear that Professor Kumar's examination consisted of disassembling or testing any of the devices. Thus, ICU has had the same opportunity to inspect the devices as Professor Kumar. ICU has failed to make an adequate showing as to why a full and complete examination of the devices was not possible in Braun's counsel's office or why testing beyond inspection and observation is necessary. Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES ICU's request to compel Braun to produce additional samples of the Ultrasite devices. With regard to the back-up documentation related to Braun's March 7, 2003 Powerpoint presentation, it appears that no computer generated animation was used by Braun. ICU already has a copy of Braun's Powerpoint presentation and since ICU is in possession of its own Ultrasite valve with clear housing, ICU is free to make its own video of the valve. Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES ICU's request to compel Braun to produce back-up documentation for Braun's March 7, 2003 presentation. IT IS SO ORDERED.