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
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?