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

Filing 241

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY 240 . (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 8/25/2017)

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. ORDER RE: DISCOVERY Re: Dkt. No. 240 10 11 Case No. 14-cv-01012-SI LG ELECTRONICS, INC., et al., United States District Court Northern District of California Defendants. 12 13 The Court is in receipt of a joint letter from plaintiffs Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. and 14 ATI Technologies ULC (“AMD”) and non-party MSilicon Technology Corp. (“MSilicon”). Dkt. 15 No. 240. AMD seeks an order compelling MSilicon to produce materials responsive to AMD’s 16 subpoena for documents. As to almost every AMD document request, MSilicon states that it has 17 no responsive materials in its possession, custody, or control. MSilicon maintains that either (i) its 18 indirect parent company, MStar, or (ii) defendant LG is the proper party from which to seek such 19 discovery. The parties dispute whether MSilicon has “control,” in the sense that it has the right to 20 obtain responsive materials from its parent company, MStar. 21 In the Ninth Circuit, “‘[c]ontrol is defined as the legal right to obtain documents upon 22 demand.’” In re Citric Acid Litig., 191 F.3d 1090, 1107 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting United States v. 23 Int’l Union of Petroleum & Indus. Workers, 870 F.2d 1450, 1452 (9th Cir. 1989)). “Ordering a 24 party to produce documents that it does not have the legal right to obtain will oftentimes be futile, 25 precisely because the party has no certain way of getting those documents.” In re Citric Acid 26 Litig., 191 F.3d at 1108. “The party seeking production of the documents . . . bears the burden of 27 proving that the opposing party has such control.” Int’l Union of Petroleum & Indus. Workers, 28 870 F.2d at 1452 (citation omitted). 1 Given the limited information available to it, AMD has failed to carry its burden of 2 demonstrating that MSilicon has possession, custody, or control of relevant documents. 3 response to most document requests, MSilicon states that it does not have possession, custody, or 4 control of responsive materials, and that it has withheld nothing on the basis of objection. See 5 Dkt. No. 235-3 at 31-66. The sole exception is Request No. 29, which seeks documents regarding 6 the relationship between MStar and MSilicon. MSilicon believes it has materials responsive to 7 Request No. 29, but withholds them on the basis of various objections. 8 MSilicon’s objections to Request No. 29 are OVERRULED, and MSilicon is ORDERED to 9 produce responsive documents within 21 days of the date of this order.1 In all other respects, 10 In See id. at 66-67. AMD’s motion is DENIED at this time. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Should additional information come to light during AMD’s deposition of an MSilicon 12 agent(s), AMD may renew this request. Accordingly, AMD’s motion to compel is DENIED 13 WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 14 This order resolves Dkt. No. 240. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: August 25, 2017 ______________________________________ SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 28 The Court also expects MSilicon to produce responsive materials to Request No. 4, as specified in the parties’ joint statement. See Dkt. No. 240 at 5 n.2. 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?