BlackBerry Limited v. Typo Products LLC

Filing 106

ORDER REGARDING PARTIES' DISCOVERY DISPUTE re 103 Statement. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 10/10/2014. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/10/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

BLACKBERRY LIMITED,

Case No. 14-cv-00023-WHO

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER REGARDING PARTIES'
DISCOVERY DISPUTE

9
10

TYPO PRODUCTS LLC,

Re: Dkt. No. 103

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

BlackBerry seeks relief on three discovery issues in connection with its motion to hold

14

Typo in contempt of the preliminary injunction issued in this case: (i) the depositions of Mr.

15

Hallier and Mr. Yergensen; (ii) Typo’s allegedly inadequate interrogatory responses; and (iii)

16

Typo’s allegedly inadequate document production. The parties have submitted a joint letter

17

addressing these disputes. Dkt. No. 103.

18
19

I. THE DEPOSITIONS OF MR. HALLIER AND MR. YERGENSEN
The depositions of Mr. Hallier and Mr. Yergensen were originally scheduled for October 7

20

and 8, 2014. However, on October 3, the BlackBerry attorney who prepared to take these

21

depositions was ordered to serve on a jury on October 6-8. BlackBerry provided Typo various

22

alternate deposition dates. Typo’s counsel indicated that it is not able to conduct the depositions

23

until November 17-19, 2014.

24

BlackBerry requests that Typo be compelled to make Mr. Hallier and Mr. Yergensen

25

available for deposition on October 18 and 19 or November 1-4, 2014, or that the Court direct

26

Typo to adjust their schedules so that the depositions can go forward during other dates in

27

October. I decline BlackBerry’s invitation. But for BlackBerry cancelling the depositions (albeit

28

for legitimate reasons), the depositions would have already been conducted. Conducting the

1

depositions on November 17-19, 2014 will not unduly prejudice BlackBerry. The parties shall

2

conduct the depositions at a time mutually convenient to parties and counsel, but no later than

3

November 17-19, 2014.

4

II. TYPO’S INADEQUATE INTERROGATORY RESPONSES

5

Typo’s reliance on Rule 33(d) is improper and its interrogatory responses are inadequate. The

6

interrogatories at issue call for information that BlackBerry cannot compile from documents

7

without undue burden. In contrast, the information should be within Typo’s knowledge.

8

Narrative responses that provide at least an overview of the information at issue are therefore

9

warranted. The narrative responses may refer to specific documents in Typo’s production by
Bates number, but Typo may not rely solely on the documents. Typo shall provide supplemental

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

responses to interrogatories 1-5 within 10 days of this order.

12

III. TYPO’S INCOMPLETE DOCUMENT PRODUCTION

13
14
15
16
17

Typo shall complete its document production within 20 days of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 10, 2014
______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2