Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al

Filing 239


Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 8 ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, 9 v. 10 11 Case No. 14-cv-01012-SI ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SEEK RECONSIDERATION Re: Dkt. No. 237 LG ELECTRONICS, INC., et al., United States District Court Northern District of California Defendants. 12 13 On August 21, 2017, the Court denied non-party MSilicon Technology Corp.’s 14 (“MSilicon’s”) motion to quash plaintiffs’ deposition subpoena. Dkt. No. 236. MSilicon now 15 seeks leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s August 21, 2017 order. Mot. for 16 Leave (Dkt. No. 237). In support of its motion, MSilicon offers the declaration of its President, 17 Hsiaoshu Hsiung (“Hsiung”). Hsiung Decl. (Dkt. No. 237-1). In relevant part, Hsiung states that 18 “MSilicon has investigated whether it is in possession, custody, and control of documents related 19 to [certain MStar chips identified in plaintiffs’ subpoena]. 20 investigation, I am informed and believe that MSilicon is not in possession, custody, and control 21 of documents related to the chips identified . . . .” Hsiung Decl. ¶ 18. Hsiung also states that 22 “MSilicon does not have access to documents or files related to all the functions, structures, and 23 operations of every MStar Semiconductor, Inc. chip[,]” id. ¶ 13 (emphasis added), and that “[he] 24 personally do[es] not have access to, or the ability to obtain access to, all of MStar Semiconductor, 25 Inc.’s documents and records[,]” id. ¶ 16. On the basis of MSilicon’s 26 The Court finds that MSilicon has failed to demonstrate “a material difference in fact or 27 law . . . from that which was presented to the Court before entry of the . . . order for which 28 reconsideration is sought.” N.D. Cal. Civil L.R. 7-9(b)(1). Although MSilicon may not have 1 answers to all of plaintiffs’ questions, it is not required to. MSilicon likely has at least some 2 useful information in response to many of plaintiffs’ proposed topics. Accordingly, MSilicon’s 3 motion for leave to seek reconsideration is DENIED. 4 This order resolves Dkt. No. 237. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 8 Dated: August 23, 2017 ______________________________________ SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?