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