Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc.

Filing 149

ORDER TERMINATING JOINT DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEF, see 143 . Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 07/08/2015. (kawlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/8/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

AYLUS NETWORKS, INC.,

Case No. 13-cv-04700-EMC (KAW)

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER TERMINATING JOINT
DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEF

9
10

APPLE INC.,

Re: Dkt. No. 143
Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

The parties to the above-captioned case have filed a joint discovery letter brief. (Joint Ltr.,

14

Dkt. No. 143.) They dispute whether Apple's Rule 30(b)(6) deponents were adequately prepared

15

to testify on Topic No. 11, which concerns "[t]he design, development, function, operation and use

16

of AirPlay." (Id. at 2.)

17

Aylus specifically requests that Apple be compelled to designate a witness who is prepared

18

to give competent testimony or to provide a complete response to Interrogatory No. 13. (Id. at 5.)

19

Apple asserts that Aylus has waived its right to request further deposition testimony, or

20

alternatively, that Aylus' request should be denied because it is impossible to provide the requested

21

testimony. (Id. at 9.)

22

The parties' filing, however, does not conform to this Court's General Standing Order. As

23

the Court has previously explained, the parties must address disputes concerning different

24

discovery devices in separate joint letters. (See Feb. 25, 2015 Order at 1 n.1 ("To avoid any

25

confusion in the future, the parties are on notice that disputes concerning distinct discovery

26

devices should be briefed in separate joint letters.") (citing Judge Westmore's General Standing

27
28

Order ¶ 13 ("The parties shall file a separate joint letter for each discovery dispute (i.e. if the
parties have disputes regarding specific interrogatories and requests for production, they must file

1

two letters.")).) Additionally, neither party cites any legal authority for its respective position.

2

(See Judge Westmore's General Standing Order ¶ 13(c) ("With respect to each issue relating to the

3

unresolved dispute, a detailed summary of each party's final substantive position and their final

4

proposed compromise on each issue, including relevant legal authority.").) Aylus also does not

5

propose a compromise1 or substantively respond to Apple's proposed compromise, which is to

6
7

provide supplemental interrogatory responses to identify certain exemplary scenarios. (See Joint
Letter.) Accordingly, the parties' joint letter is TERMINATED.
If Aylus seeks responses in addition to those which Apple has agreed to provide in their

8
9
10

above-referenced compromise, the parties shall address the issues noted above in a further joint
letter, and only after lead trial counsel have met and conferred on Apple's proposed compromise.
(See Judge Westmore's General Standing Order ¶ 12.) Apple shall also consider whether the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

individual who will provide the supplemental interrogatory responses should be made available
12
for deposition.
13
14
15

The parties are reminded that any filing must conform to the Court's General Standing
Order. It shall also include a copy of the deposition notice at issue and a copy of the stipulation
which purportedly limited the scope of one of the Rule 30(b)(6) depositions.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 07/08/2015

18

______________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1

28

This is not the first time Aylus has failed to include a proposed compromise in a discovery letter.
See March 12, 2015 Order at 2, Dkt. No. 114.
2