Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al
Filing
239
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SEEK RECONSIDERATION 237 . (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 8/23/2017)
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?