Volterra Semiconductor Corporation v. Primarion, Inc. et al

Filing 1766

Order by Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero Re: 1734 & 1746 Discovery Letter Brief.(jcslc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/8/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11
12

VOLTERRA SEMICONDUCTOR
CORP.,

13
14

Plaintiff,

Case No.: C-08-5129 JCS
ORDER RE: JOINT LETTERS ON
DISCOVERY DISPUTES [Dkt. Nos.
1734 & 1746]

v.

15
16
17

PRIMARION, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

18
19
20

On April 5, 2012, the parties filed a Joint Letter Brief regarding Plaintiff’s refusal to

21

produce deposition witnesses. On April 12, 2012, the parties filed a second Joint Letter Brief

22

regarding Defendants’ supplemental response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 7 and Plaintiff’s

23

supplemental response to Defendants’ Interrogatories Nos. 1, 4, 5, 7, and 10.

24

On April 27, 2012, a hearing was held. Subsequently, the parties filed a Stipulation

25

and Proposed Order Re: Further Supplementation of Interrogatory Responses (“Stipulation”).

26

Dkt. No. 1762. This Order is meant to conform to the Stipulation. For reasons stated on the

27

record at the hearing, and good cause shown,

28

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1

1. Plaintiff shall produce David B. Lidsky, Anthony J. Stratakos, and Andrew J.

2

Burnstein for deposition. The depositions, however, shall be limited to the subject of the

3

capabilities of the competitors’ products, and the comparison of those capabilities to the

4

capabilities of the Volterra products. The depositions shall not include matters taken up at the

5

liability phase or topics regarding the comparison of Plaintiff’s products to each other.

6

2. Regarding Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 7, the Court does not have enough

7

information to determine whether there was a waiver of attorney-client work product.

8

Accordingly, Defendants shall 1) identify all persons who made any decision, or participated

9

in any decision, to continue to produce the infringing products; 2) identify all persons who

Northern District of California

Defendants will have testify at trial on the decision to continue to produce the infringing

11
United States District Court

10

products; and 3) all those persons identified in 2) shall give all reasons why the decision to

12

continue to produce the infringing products was made. If one of the reasons given is a belief

13

that the accused products did not infringe or that the patents in suit were invalid, the

14

interrogatory answer shall list all reasons why such a belief was held by that witness. If any

15

part of the basis for the belief is information or advice provided by lawyers, attorney-client

16

privilege and work product may have been waived.

17

3. Also regarding Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 7, Defendants are not required to

18

identify every argument it made in the liability phase of the case as to non-infringement,

19

invalidity, and enforceability. However, with respect to Defendants’ argument that any

20

infringement was not willful because there were reasonable arguments available as to

21

infringement or invalidity, Defendants shall be limited at trial to those specific invalidity

22

and non-infringement arguments in their interrogatory responses, their summary judgment

23

papers on liability, raised at trial and at the reexamination.

24
25
26

4. Except as limited above, Defendants shall give full and complete answers to
Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 7.
5. Plaintiff shall give a full and complete answer to Defendants’ Interrogatory No. 4.

27

This answer shall include an identification of the following: all manufacturers of each

28

product, and each entity that takes possession of the product along the way in the supply

2

1

chain; all foundries for each product; all contracting facilities for each product that package,

2

assembles and/or test the products; all customers; all subcontractors and/or manufacturers’

3

intermediaries to whom each product is shipped; all logistics companies to whom each

4

product is shipped along the way in the supply chain.

5
6
7
8
9

6. Plaintiff shall give a full and complete answer to Defendants’ Interrogatory No. 10
and produce documents responsive to Request Nos. 51-63.
7. All interrogatory responses and document productions shall be completed by May
14, 2012.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

Dated: May 8, 2012
_________________________________

12
13

JOSEPH C. SPERO

14

United States Magistrate Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3