Infineon Technologies AG v. Volterra Semiconductor Corporation

Filing 216

Order by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu denying 212 Motion to Quash without prejudice. (dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/15/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES, 12 13 Plaintiff(s), v. 14 ORDER VACATING HEARING DATE FOR AND DENYING INFINEON NA’S MOTION TO QUASH WITHOUT PREJUDICE VOLTERRA SEMICONDUCTOR, 15 No. C-11-06239-MMC (DMR) Defendant(s). ___________________________________/ 16 17 TO ALL PARTIES AND COUNSEL OF RECORD: 18 The above matter has been referred to Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu for resolution of 19 Non-party Infineon North America’s Motion to Quash ("Motion") [Docket No. 212]. The was 20 noticed for hearing on March 19, 2013, at 11:00 a.m. 21 The court VACATES the current hearing date on the Motion and DENIES the Motion 22 without prejudice. The subpoenas subject to the Motions to Quash shall not be operative pending 23 resolution of the instant dispute and the parties' compliance with the procedures for resolution of 24 discovery disputes as set forth below. Any joint letter regarding the instant discovery dispute (see 25 section below entitled "Resolution of Discovery Disputes") shall be filed no later than March 29, 26 2013. Discovery letter briefs must be e-filed under the Civil Events category of Motions and 27 Related Filings > Motions - General > "Discovery Letter Brief." 28 1 Parties shall comply with the procedures in this order, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 2 and the Northern District of California’s Local Rules, General Orders, and Standing Orders. Local 3 rules, general orders, standing orders, and instructions for using the Court's Electronic Case Filing 4 system are available at Failure to comply with any of the rules or 5 orders may be a ground for sanctions. 6 7 RESOLUTION OF DISCOVERY DISPUTES In order to respond to discovery disputes in a flexible, cost-effective and efficient manner, 8 the court uses the following procedure. The parties shall not file formal discovery motions. Instead, 9 as required by the federal and local rules, the parties shall first meet and confer to try to resolve their disagreements. The meet and confer session must be in person or by telephone, and may not be 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 conducted by letter, e-mail, or fax. If disagreements remain, the parties shall file a joint letter no 12 later than five business days after the meet and confer session, unless otherwise directed by the 13 court. Lead trial counsel for both parties must sign the letter, which shall include an attestation 14 that the parties met and conferred in person or by telephone regarding all issues prior to filing the 15 letter. Going issue-by-issue, the joint letter shall describe each unresolved issue, summarize each 16 party’s position with appropriate legal authority; and provide each party’s final proposed 17 compromise before moving to the next issue. The joint letter shall not exceed ten pages without 18 leave of court. Parties are expected to plan for and cooperate in preparing the joint letter so 19 that each side has adequate time to address the arguments. In the rare instance that a joint letter 20 is not possible, each side may submit a letter not to exceed four pages, which shall include an 21 explanation of why a joint letter was not possible. The parties shall submit one exhibit to the letter 22 that only sets forth each disputed discovery request in full, followed immediately by the objections 23 and/or responses thereto. No other information shall be included in any such exhibit. No other 24 exhibits shall be submitted without prior approval by the court. The court will review the 25 submission(s) and determine whether formal briefing or proceedings are necessary. Discovery 26 letter briefs must be e-filed under the Civil Events category of Motions and Related Filings > 27 Motions - General > "Discovery Letter Brief". 28 2 1 In the event that a discovery hearing is ordered, the court has found that it is often efficient 2 and beneficial for counsel to appear in person. This provides the opportunity, where appropriate, to 3 engage counsel in resolving aspects of the discovery dispute while remaining available to rule on 4 any disputes that counsel are not able to resolve. For this reason, the court expects counsel to appear 5 in person. Permission for a party to attend by telephone may be granted, in the court's discretion, 6 upon written request made at least one week in advance of the hearing if the court determines that 7 good cause exists to excuse personal attendance, and that personal attendance is not needed in order 8 to have an effective discovery hearing. The facts establishing good cause must be set forth in the 9 request. In emergencies during discovery events (such as depositions), any party may, after 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 exhausting good faith attempts to resolve disputed issues, seek judicial intervention pursuant to Civil 12 L.R. 37-1(b) by contacting the court through the courtroom deputy. If the court is unavailable, the 13 discovery event shall proceed with objections noted for the record. 14 CHAMBERS COPIES AND PROPOSED ORDERS 15 Pursuant to Civil L.R. 5-1(e)(7) and 5-2(b), parties must lodge an extra paper copy of certain 16 filings and mark it as a copy for “Chambers.” Please three-hole punch the chambers copy and 17 submit it to the Oakland Clerk’s Office. 18 Any stipulation or proposed order submitted by an e-filing party shall be submitted by email 19 to as a word processing attachment on the same day the document is e- 20 filed. This address should only be used for this stated purpose unless otherwise directed by the 21 court. 22 PRIVILEGE LOGS 23 If a party withholds information that is responsive to a discovery request by claiming that it 24 is privileged or otherwise protected from discovery, that party shall promptly prepare and provide a 25 privilege log that is sufficiently detailed and informative for the opposing party to assess whether a 26 document’s designation as privileged is justified. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(5). The privilege log shall 27 set forth the privilege relied upon and specify separately for each document or for each category of 28 similarly situated documents: 3 1 (a) the title and description of the document, including number of pages or 2 Bates-number range; 3 (b) the subject matter addressed in the document; 4 (c) the identity and position of its author(s); 5 (d) the identity and position of all addressees and recipients; 6 (e) the date the document was prepared and, if different, the date(s) on which it was 7 sent to or shared with persons other than its author(s); and 8 (f) the specific basis for the claim that the document is privileged or protected. 9 Communications involving trial counsel that post-date the filing of the complaint need not be placed on a privilege log. Failure to furnish this information promptly may be deemed a waiver of 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 the privilege or protection. 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 Dated: March 15, 2013 16 DONNA M. RYU United States Magistrate Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

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?