PNY Technologies, Inc. v. Sandisk Corporation

Filing 259

ORDER re 256 Joint Discovery Letter Brief filed by Sandisk Corporation, 257 Discovery Letter Brief filed by PNY Technologies, Inc. Discovery Hearing set for 7/2/2014 09:00 AM in Courtroom F, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley.. Signed by Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 6/26/2014. (tlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/26/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

PNY TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Case No. 11-cv-04689-WHO (JSC)

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER RE: JOINT DISCOVERY
LETTERS

9
10

SANDISK CORPORATION,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 256, 257

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Now pending before the Court is SanDisk’s motion, via joint discovery letter, to compel

14

Plaintiff PNY Technologies, Inc. (“PNY”) to supplement its responses to certain interrogatories

15

and to supplement its Rule 26 initial disclosures with regard to the identification of witnesses.

16

(Dkt. No. 256.) Also pending is PNY’s joint discovery letter seeking to compel SanDisk to state

17

when it will produce documents it has agreed to produce. (Dkt. No. 257.) After carefully

18

reviewing the letters and attached exhibits, the Court concludes that oral argument at this point is

19

unnecessary. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).

20

A.

SanDisk’s Request

21

With respect to SanDisk’s interrogatory numbers 3, 12, 20, and 24, there is nothing

22

inappropriate about SanDisk using interrogatories to discover the basis for PNY’s very specific

23

allegations in its Third Amended Complaint. PNY’s response that SanDisk could discover the

24

information by other means is immaterial. PNY does not cite, and the Court is not aware, of any

25

law that requires a party to utilize depositions rather than interrogatories to discover information

26

such as the names of percipient witnesses.

27
28

SanDisk’s interrogatories ask for the “complete basis” of certain factual contentions in the
TAC. In response, PNY has made certain allegations; for example, alleging that the effect of

1

SanDisk’s uniform license “is that aggregators must pay an 8% penalty if they buy MLC flash

2

memory chips not licensed from SanDisk—which in effect means not buying from Micron.”

3

(Dkt. No 256 at 2.) This response, however, is not the “complete basis” because it does not tell

4

SanDisk the basis for PNY’s 8% penalty allegation. Is there a written provision in the uniform

5

license? If so, which provision? Is there an oral agreement? If so, who made the oral agreement?

6

SanDisk is permitted to conduct its own investigation and evaluation of this allegation, but it

7

cannot begin to do so until PNY advises of the basis for the allegation.
On the other hand, to the extent SanDisk asks for the names of the witnesses “who will

8
9

testify” to certain facts, such inquiries do not flow from the interrogatories. It is proper to ask for
the names of persons upon whose statements, actions, etc. PNY relies in making its allegations;

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

that is, the “complete basis” for its allegations. However, if the interrogatory is limited to

12

witnesses who will testify at trial, as opposed to just the names of witnesses to the alleged fact,

13

then PNY would not have to identify the witness if PNY does not intend to call the witness at trial.

14

SanDisk also challenges PNY”s failure to supplement its Rule 26 disclosures to identify

15

the witnesses who will testify to certain facts; namely, witnesses who will testify that they were

16

precluded from even entertaining a proposal from PNY. PNY states that it has agreed to do so,

17

but does not say when it will do so. Its response in the joint discovery letter suggests that it will

18

do so only when and if it notices these witnesses for deposition. Such a response is inadequate.

19

Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(i) requires parties to disclose the names of individuals that the disclosing party

20

may use to support its claims; it does not limit disclosure to those individuals the party deposes.

21

SanDisk has the right to make its own decision as whether to depose these witnesses.

22

B.

PNY’s Request for Documents

23

SanDisk has agreed to produce additional retailer communications as set forth on p. 3 of

24

the parties’ joint letter brief. (Dkt. No. 257. ) PNY complains, however, that SanDisk has

25

refused to provide any timeline for its production. The time has arrived (and past) for SanDisk to

26

determine the volume of documents to be reviewed and to give PNY reasonable and workable

27

dates. The same is true for the remaining Skurnik documents.

28

//
2

1

C.

Further Meet and Confer and Hearing

2

With the above guidance in mind, the Court orders the parties to meet and confer regarding

3

SanDisk’s request for supplementary responses to its interrogatory numbers 3, 12, 20 and 24 and

4

to the initial disclosures, along with PNY’s request for a deadline for SanDisk’s production of

5

documents it has agreed to produce. If the parties are unable to reach a final resolution, they are

6

ordered to appear in Courtroom F, 15th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, at 9:00

7

a.m. on Wednesday, July 2, 2014. At that time the Clerk will direct the parties to the jury room

8

so that counsel may meet and confer in person. The Court will see the parties at 11:00 a.m. to

9

resolve any remaining disputes. Each party must be represented by counsel with full authority to

10

resolve these discovery disputes without making a telephone call to another attorney.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

D.

Future Discovery Disputes

12

With the discovery deadline fast approaching the Court anticipates there may be further

13

discovery disputes (although this anticipation should not be construed as encouragement). To

14

facilitate the process, the Court imposes the following rules.
First, before any dispute may be brought to the Court’s attention, the parties must meet and

15
16

confer in person. The attorneys at the in-person meet and confer must have full authority to

17

resolve the dispute without consulting with another attorney not present and the attorney’s

18

authority must not be limited by any prior discussions or direction. If the parties cannot agree on a

19

location for the meet and confer, then the default shall be the Attorney Lounge on the 18th floor of

20

the Federal Courthouse in San Francisco where the case is pending.

21

Second, if after the in-person meet and confer a dispute remains, then the party seeking

22

discovery submits its portion of the joint letter brief to the opposing party. The opposing party

23

then has three business days to provide the moving party with a response. No party is required to

24

provide a response on a weekend or holiday. The moving party thereafter files the joint discovery

25

letter after modifying its portion to respond to the opposing party’s response.

26

//

27

//

28

//
3

1
2
3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 26, 2014
______________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge

5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4