Sandisk Corporation v. Round Rock Research LLC
Filing
294
ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION TO DENIAL OF MOTION TO COMPEL. by Judge Richard Seeborg (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/19/2014)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
15
16
SAN DISK CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROUND ROCK RESEARCH LLC
No. C 11-5243 RS
ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION
TO DENIAL OF MOTION TO
COMPEL
Defendant.
____________________________________/
17
18
Round Rock Research, LLC seeks review of an order of the assigned magistrate judge.
19
Round Rock moved to compel San Disk Corporation to present a deponent under Rule 30(b)(6) of
20
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure who had researched and obtained certain information regarding
21
the processes by which San Disk’s products are manufactured at third-party overseas fabrication
22
facilities. The magistrate judge denied the motion, concluding that Round Rock had failed to show a
23
legal or factual basis on which San Disk could be required to conduct an investigation of that nature
24
for purposes of responding to a deposition notice under Rule 30(b)(6).
25
Round Rock’s challenge to the order is premised on its assertion that the magistrate judge
26
failed to recognize that Rule 30(b)(6) requires a corporate defendant to provide “reasonably
27
available” information, as opposed merely to information in its “possession, custody, or control.”
28
Round Rock points to evidence that San Disk had the ability to obtain the information in question,
1
and argues that the magistrate judge made no finding as to whether it was thereby “reasonably
2
available.” Thus, according to Round Rock, the denial of its motion was contrary to law.
3
A district court may modify a magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive matter only if
Bahn v. NME Hospitals, Inc., 929 F.2d 1404, 1414 (9th Cir. 1991). Round Rock has failed to show
6
such error here because it is clear from the record that the magistrate judge understood and correctly
7
applied the “reasonably available” standard. Contrary to Round Rock’s contention, its motion was
8
not denied on grounds that the information was outside the possession, custody, or control of San
9
Disk. Rather, as the magistrate judge explained, the case law relied on by Round Rock did not
10
support a duty to conduct the kind of independent investigation of information held by overseas
11
For the Northern District of California
the order is “clearly erroneous” or “contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a);
5
United States District Court
4
third parties it contended San Disk should undertake. Round Rock’s showing that it might very well
12
be possible for San Disk to obtain such information given its contractual relationships with the third
13
parties does not translate into it being “reasonably available” within the meaning of the rule. The
14
magistrate judge’s conclusion that San Disk’s duties to prepare a witness under Rule 30(b)(6) did
15
not extend so far was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. The objection to the ruling is
16
therefore overruled.
17
Round Rock’s sealing motion [Dkt. 289] is granted, as San Disk at least arguably has an
18
interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the details of its operations reflected in the redacted
19
material, although it is seems likely at least some of the information might already be public or too
20
general to warrant sealing. Notwithstanding the motion is being granted in this instance, parties
21
should exercise care to request sealing only in the limited circumstances contemplated by the local
22
rules. In this instance, the details redacted from the briefing easily could have been omitted entirely
23
without altering the meaning or the forcefulness of the arguments.
24
25
26
27
28
2
1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
2
3
4
Dated: 2/19/14
RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
6
7
8
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
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?