*1 Before the Court is the parties' Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute No. 6. ECF No. 221. Upon consideration and for the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs' motion to compel further discovery as detailed below.

I. BACKGROUND

This is an action for patent infringement where Plaintiffs accuse Defendant Beckman of infringing several of their patents. The asserted patents all relate to chemical structures of fluorescent polymer dyes that are used in flow cytometry. The dyes allow scientists to label and detect biological materials of interest in a sample, including small populations of difficult to detect proteins and cells. ECF No. 1 at ¶ 2. The accused products are Beckman's polymer dye products, its SuperNova Fluorescent Polymer Dyes. Id. at ¶ 4.

II. DISCUSSION

At issue in the present motion are the adequacy of deposition testimony and various responses to discovery propounded by Plaintiffs in the case. The Court will address each separately below.

First, Plaintiffs seek to compel a further deposition of Beckman's scientist, Sergei Gulnik. ECF No. 221 at 1-4. Plaintiffs deposed Dr. Gulnik on September 15, 2022. Id. at 1. The next day, Beckman produced [Redacted] Id.

Plaintiffs seek a further deposition so that they may question Dr. Gulnik on this [Redacted]. Id. at 1-2.

Beckman counters that Plaintiffs had sufficient time to cover this topic with Dr. Gulnik, having deposed him for 6 hours and 59 minutes on the record and asked him many questions regarding [Redacted]. Id. at 2. Thus, Beckman argues that there is no good cause to reopen the deposition on the basis of this one document, because such deposition would be cumulative of the testimony already elicited. Id.

The Court does not find sufficient good cause to reopen the deposition based on a single late-produced document in light of the extent of the deposition testimony already taken. According, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' request for a further deposition of Dr. Gulnik.

Second, Plaintiffs seek to compel a further deposition from Beckman's 30(b)(6) deponent, Dr. Arunkumar Easwaran, on topics 14, 31, and 35. ECF No. 221 at 4-8.

Topic No. 14 requests testimony on “[t]he water solubility and maximum solubility of each SuperNova Dye and each SuperNova Conjugate.” Id. at 4. On this topic, Beckman agreed to provide testimony on its testing of the water solubility of the SuperNova v428, SuperNova v605, SuperNova v786, [Redacted], and the results of that testing. Id. at 5. Plaintiffs argue that, during his deposition, Dr. Easwaran was not adequately prepared to testify as to all these dyes. Id. Dr. Easwaran testified [Redacted] dye. Id. Thus, Plaintiffs request a further deposition where Dr. Easwaran would be prepared for and testify on the other dyes. Beckman counters that [Redacted] because the other tandem dyes use the same polymer “core” as the SuperNova v428. Id. at 6. Further, Beckman states that Plaintiffs have received “an enormous quantity of technical information” regarding these other dyes. Id.

*2 On this issue, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion to compel. The Court will not order Dr. Easwaran to sit for another deposition on this topic. However, Beckman is ORDERED to do a further search on any water solubility documents regarding the SuperNova v605, SuperNova v786, [Redacted]. If no further responsive documents are discovered, Beckman shall provide a declaration, signed by a representative with knowledge from the company: (1) that there are no further documents; and (2) a stipulation to the effect that the water solubility of the other dyes may be extrapolated from the information [Redacted]. This further search and/or declaration must be completed within 14 days of this order.

Topic No. 31 requests testimony on “[t]he dates and circumstances concerning your first awareness of each of the Elected Asserted Patents.” Id. at 7. Plaintiffs argue that Dr. Easwaran was not adequately prepared to testify about the ’303 patent and that Beckman has [Redacted]. Id. Beckman counters that Plaintiffs seek redundant testimony here because Plaintiff already propounded Interrogatory No. 9, which requested that Beckman “describe in detail ... when and how Beckman became aware of each Asserted Patent.” Id. at 8. Beckman answered this interrogatory [Redacted], and it does not appear that Plaintiffs objected to the adequacy of that response.

On this issue, the Court finds that an additional deposition on this topic is not warranted and proportional to the needs of the case, particularly in light of the interrogatory response and information already provided. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' motion to compel as to this topic is DENIED.

Topic No. 35 requests testimony on “[t]he facts concerning [Beckman's] intention to infringe each Elected Asserted Patent, or alleged lack thereof.” Id. at 8. Beckman designated Dr. Easwaran to testify on Beckman's intention not to infringe on the Elected Asserted Patents. Id. However, Plaintiffs argue that Dr. Easwaran [Redacted]. Id. at 8-9. Beckman argues that these are two different questions and that their corporate representative is not obligated to be prepared to testify regarding any “possible line of inquiry that can be tangentially connected to a 30(b)(6) topic.” Id. at 9.

The Court agrees that the information that Plaintiffs seek with regarding to the commercial launch decisions is not squarely coextensive with the question regarding intention not to infringe the asserted patents. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' motion to compel as to this topic is DENIED.

Finally, Plaintiffs also seek a further deposition of Dr. Easwaran so that they can question him regarding Beckman's certificates of analysis (1) [Redacted] (2) for its tandem dyes, which were produced on November 22, 2022. Id. at 10. Plaintiffs contend that these certificates are related to Topic No. 9, which requested testimony on “[t]he research, development, and testing of each SuperNova Dye, including identification of documents evidencing such research, development or testing.” Id. at 11. Beckman designated Dr. Easwaran on this topic to testify about “the research and development of SuperNova v428, SuperNova v605, SuperNova v786, [Redacted]” and documents regarding the same. Id. Beckman argues that Plaintiffs are again seeking cumulative testimony, because it produced other certificates of analysis prior to the deposition that Plaintiffs already questioned Dr. Easwaran about. Id. Beckman states that the later-produced certificates only [Redacted]. Id.

The Court finds that these later-produced certificates of analysis do not warrant a further deposition. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' motion to compel as to this topic is DENIED.

*3 Third, Plaintiffs seek to compel Beckman to produce further documents in response to two of its Requests for Production, which the Court will address in tum below.

Request for Production No. 2 seeks “documents concerning the research and development of each SuperNova dye.” Id. at 12. Inresponse to this request, Beckman agreed to produce SuperNova product development documents, including [Redacted] Id. During Dr. Easwaran's deposition, he Referenced [Redacted] that were not produced and Plaintiffs now seek production of these documents.

The main dispute here centers on whether these documents relate [Redacted]

[Redacted]. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to compel as to this issue, and ORDERS that Beckman produce [Redacted] referenced in Dr. Easwaran's deposition cited above within 14 days of this order.

Request for Production No. 41 seeks “documents concerning any search, study, investigation, review or opinion made by or on behalf of Beckman concerning the infringement or non-infringement or scope of any of the claims of each Asserted Patent, including pending claims prior to issuance.” ECF No. 221 at 13. Beckman agreed to produce non-privileged, responsive documents. Id. Plaintiffs argue that during Dr. Easwaran's deposition, he referenced [Redacted], but these were not produced. Id. Plaintiffs move to compel Beckman to produce these now. Beckman counters that Dr. Easwaran's testimony [Redacted]

The Court has reviewed the deposition testimony and finds that Beckman accurately summarized his testimony. There does appear to be conflicting testimony regarding [Redacted]:

[Redacted]. Thus, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion to compel on this issue. Within 14 days of this order, Beckman shall conduct a limited search for only this [Redacted] described in Dr. Easwaran's deposition testimony above, and produce it if it is located. If it is not located, Beckman shall notify Plaintiffs that it could not be located, along with a brief description of the reasonable search it performed in its attempt to located it.

Fourth, Plaintiffs seek to compel a supplement on Beckman's response to Interrogatory No. 17, which seeks sales information regarding SuperNova conjugate products. ECF No. 221 at 15. Specifically, Plaintiffs argue that the response is deficient in two respects.

First, Plaintiffs argue that the response does not contain adequate disclosure about the custom conjugate sales. Id. at 15. The accused conjugates [Redacted]. Id. However, as for the custom dyes, Plaintiffs argue that the spreadsheets do not identify this information, nor did Beckman's 30(b)(6) designee, Brice Ezzouaouy, when he was questioned about this during his deposition. Id. at 15-16. Plaintiffs move to compel Beckman to supplement its response to make this information clear as to its custom conjugates. In response, Beckman argues that identification of the dye and conjugate is not information requested by the interrogatory, and that this information can be found in other produced documents. Id. at 19.

*4 On this first issue, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that the sales documents should contain enough information such that Plaintiffs can identify which products are associated with which sales numbers. [Redacted]. Even if this information may be cobbled together from other produced spreadsheets, Plaintiffs are entitled to a verified interrogatory response on this matter. Thus, the Court GRANTS the motion to compel on this issue, and ORDERS Beckman to supplement its response to Interrogatory No. 17 to include this information for the custom conjugate products within 14 days of this order.

Second, Plaintiffs argue that the response contains a column titled “[Redacted]” which was not explained in the document, nor by Mr. Ezzouaouy during this deposition. Id. at 17. Plaintiffs state that Beckman recently explained this column in a meet-and-confer but did not put it into the interrogatory response. Id. at 18. Since this information is known to Beckman, the Court GRANTS the request on this issue, and ORDERS Beckman to supplement its response to include an explanation of the meaning of this column within 14 days of this order.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs' motion to compel is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as detailed above.