Sandisk Corporation v. Round Rock Research LLC

Filing 282

ORDER RE: ROUND ROCK RESEARCHS MOTION TO COMPEL (Dkt. No. 243). Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 1/29/2014. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/29/2014)

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

SAN DISK CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,

13
14

v.

Case No.: 11-5243 RS (JSC)
ORDER RE: ROUND ROCK
RESEARCH’S MOTION TO COMPEL
(Dkt. No. 243)

15
16

ROUND ROCK RESEARCH LLC,
Defendant.

17
18
19

In this patent infringement action Round Rock Research LLC (“Round Rock”) alleges

20

that Plaintiff San Disk Corporation (“San Disk”) infringes several of its patents. One the eve

21

of the close of fact discovery, the parties filed several discovery motions. Now pending

22

before the Court is Round Rock’s motion to compel certain documents from San Disk. After

23

carefully considering the parties’ submissions, and having had the benefit of oral argument on

24

January 23, 2014, the Court rules as set forth below.

25

1.

Round Rock’s motion to compel production of certain schematics and, where

26

necessary, RTL code, is DENIED. Round Rock seeks the documents in connection with its

27

claim involving the ‘345 claim 1. Round Rock expressly limited its ‘345 claim 1

28

infringement contention to products involving mDOC H3 datasheet revisions 1.2 and 1.3.

1

(Dkt. No. 261 at 4 n.1.) San Disk, however, has already produced documents related to those

2

products, and Round Rock has not established that the production is inadequate.

3

2.

Round Rock’s motion to compel San Disk to produce a 30(b)(6) witness with

4

knowledge of third party manufacturing processes is DENIED. Rule 30(b)(6) does not

5

obligate a party to conduct an investigation into third parties in order to answer questions

6

about the third party at deposition. If Round Rock needed to learn about the manufacturing

7

processes of these third parties it should have subpoenaed the deposition of these parties.

8

3.

Round Rock’s motion to compel San Disk to produce additional documents

9

related to the Micron/San Disk litigation is DENIED. Round Rock has not established that

10

San Disk has failed to produce any existing documents in its possession, custody or control.

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

4.

Round Rock’s motion to compel San Disk to produce communications between

12

San Disk and customers regarding accused products is granted in limited part. The request is

13

overbroad on its face. From the record and oral argument it is difficult to discern if the

14

parties made a good faith effort narrow the request to a manageable and reasonable size.

15

After consulting with the parties, the Court ordered Round Rock to limit its search request to

16

communications involving 10 customers; Round Rock was to provide San Disk with the list

17

of customers by the close of business on Friday, January 23, 2014. The search should also be

18

limited to the product lines as agreed to at the hearing. By Tuesday, January 28, 2014, San

19

Disk was to advise Round Rock of the status of its search. Once San Disk determines how

20

many “hits” it receives it must either produce the relevant documents or, if it believes

21

production would be overly burdensome and disproportional, meet and confer with Round

22

Rock in an effort to limit the search to a reasonable number of documents. The Court is

23

available for a telephone conference the week of February 3, 2014 if the parties are unable to

24

finally resolve the matter themselves.

25

This Order disposes of Docket No. 243.

26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27

Dated: January 29, 2014
_________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

28

2

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

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

3