Free Order on Motion to Compel - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:06-cv-00132-JJF Document 31 Filed 11/O3/2006 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OP DELAWARE
SYED IQBAL RAZA, M.D., :
Plaintiff, E
v. E Civil Action No. 06—I32—JJF
SIEMENS MEDICAL SOLUTION USA, ;
INC., SIEMENS MEDICAL SOLUTIONS ;
HEALTH SERVICES CORP., and :
SIEMENS AG, ;
Defendants. E
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Syed Iqbal Raza,
M.D.’s (“Dr. Raza") Motion To Compel Defendant Siemens AG’s
Compliance With The Court's July I3, 2006 Memorandum Order
Regarding Jurisdictional(D.I. 29).
I. BACKGROUND
On July I3, 2006, in response to Defendant Siemens AG’s
Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (D.I. I5) on the grounds
of insufficiency of service of process and lack of personal
jurisdiction, the Court noted that Plaintiff, a Pakistani
national, set forth a prima facie showing of personal
jurisdiction over Defendant. Because of this showing, and
because of Plaintiff’s contention that Siemens AG had previously
rejected Plaintiff’s attempted jurisdictional discovery, the
Court ordered limited jurisdictional discovery before deciding
Siemens AG’s Motion.
On September I3, 2006, Plaintiff filed the current Motion,

Case 1:06-cv-00132-JJF Document 31 Filed 11/O3/2006 Page 2 of 3
contending that Siemens AG has failed to cooperate in the limited
discovery permitted by the Court’s July I3 Order.
II. Discussion
Plaintiff’s contention that the Court’s jurisdiction over
Siemens AG is proper is supported by allegations that (1) there
is an agency relationship between Siemens AG and its Delaware-
incorporated subsidiaries, (2) Siemens products have been
distributed within the stream of commerce, including the state of
Delaware, and (3) Siemens AG has previously litigated in this
forum. In its July 13, 2006 Order, the Court ordered limited
jurisdictional discovery to allow Dr. Raza to develop these
asserted allegations.
The Court finds Siemens AG’s responses to Dr. Raza’s
jurisdictional discovery requests to be sufficient except as to
Siemens AG’s indirect ownership of Delaware—incorporated
subsidiaries. Therefore, the Court will DEQ} Plaintiff’s Motion
To Compel Defendant Siemens AG’s Compliance With The Court’s July
13, 2006 Memorandum Order Regarding Jurisdictional Discovery
(D.I. 29) except as to Plaintiff’s requests regarding Siemens
AG’s ownership, direct or indirect, of Delaware—incorporated
subsidiaries.
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that;
I. Plaintiff’s Motion To Compel Defendant Siemens AG’s
2

Case 1:06-cv-00132-JJF Document 31 Filed 11/O3/2006 Page 3 0f 3
Compliance With The Court’s July I3, 2006 Memorandum Order
Regarding Jurisdictional Discovery (D.I. 29) is DENIED except as
to Plaintiff’s requests regarding Siemens AG’s ownership, direct
or indirect, of Delaware—incorporated subsidiaries.
2. Defendant Siemens AG must provide Plaintiff with
discovery responsive to Siemens AG’s ownership, direct or
indirect, of Delaware—incorporated subsidiaries.
3. Discovery shall be completed by December l, 2006.
7 lr D
November J , 2006 l~‘viq,tJ*w` -¢?¢»- R
I ED A DISTRICT UDGE
3