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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?