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)
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?