filed its answer to Masimo’s counterclaims and a motion to strike certain of Masimo’santitrust affirmative defenses. On August 8, 2009, Masimo filed a motion to bifurcateand stay discovery of Philips’ antitrust counterclaims. The court heard arguments fromthe parties on that motion on September 24, 2009. On January 22, 2010, Philips filed amotion to compel. The court granted Masimo’s motion to bifurcate and stay discoveryof Philips’ antitrust counterclaims on March 11, 2010, and, on March 19, 2010,dismissed as moot Philips motion to strike Masimo’s 1st, 24th, 25th, 26th, and 27thaffirmative defenses to Philips’ antitrust counterclaims. This is the court’s decision onPhilips’ January 22, 2010 motion to compel discovery.
Philips moves the court for an order compelling Masimo to “immediately providefull and complete answers to Philips’ interrogatories Nos. 4, 5, 10, and 11 andDocument Request Nos. 1-5, 11, 82, 89-92, 96-120, 127, 134, 149-157, 159-166, 168,and 169.”
First, Philips asserts that Masimo has improperly evaded its discoveryobligations relating to facts underlying Philips’ antitrust counterclaims. Second, Philipscontends that Masimo has refused to comply with discovery requests that implicate bothpatent and antitrust issues. Third, Philips requests that the court set a schedule for astaged, simultaneous exchange of patent contentions.
A. DISCOVERY IMPLICATING ONLY ANTITRUST ISSUES
Because the court has decided to bifurcate and stay discovery on Philips’antitrust counterclaims, Philips’ motion to compel discovery relating only to such
D.I. 47 at 1.