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)

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 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?