PNY Technologies, Inc. v. Sandisk Corporation

Filing 272

ORDER Re: Joint Discovery Letter (Dkt. No. 269). Signed by Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on July 28, 2014. (jsclc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/28/2014)

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
LETTER

9
10

SANDISK CORPORATION,

Re: Dkt. No. 269

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Now pending before the Court is the parties’ joint discovery letter concerning Defendant

14

SanDisk Corporation’s (“SanDisk”) designation of certain deposition testimony and documents

15

produced in discovery as “Attorney’s Eyes Only” (“AEO”). SanDisk contends that its AEO

16

designations are necessary to ensure that Plaintiff PNY Technologies, Inc. (“PNY”)—its

17

competitor—does not gain unwarranted insight into its business strategy. PNY disagrees.

18

Although not entirely clear, the challenged AEO designations appear to encompass several

19

hundred pages of testimony and documents—none of which has been provided to the Court.

20

The parties shall meet and confer by no later than Monday, August 4 in an effort to select

21

10 documents or deposition excerpts for submission to the Court under seal that they believe are

22

representative of the AEO designations as a whole. If the parties are unable to agree on the 10

23

designations, at the meet-and-confer each party shall select five documents or deposition excerpts

24

for a total of 10 designations. Under either scenario, the parties’ chosen designations shall be filed

25

along with separate letter briefs no longer than eight pages in length addressing whether the AEO

26

designation is proper for each of the 10 selected designations. The parties’ selected designations

27

and accompanying briefs shall be filed by no later than Monday, August 11. The Court will then

28

notify the parties if a hearing on the matter is necessary.

1

The goal of this process is to resolve the dispute without the need for the parties and the

2

Court to analyze every challenged designation. After the Court rules, the parties will be ordered to

3

meet and confer regarding the remaining designations and, with the Court’s ruling as guidance,

4

attempt to resolve the dispute concerning the remaining designations on their own.

5
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 28, 2014
______________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge

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
2