Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v. Silergy Corporation et al

Filing 196

ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore regarding 190 Joint Discovery Letter Brief. Defendants to serve responses within 14 days of this order. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/9/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS, INC.,

Case No. 14-cv-01745-VC (KAW)

Plaintiff,
8

ORDER REGARDING 10/2/2015 JOINT
LETTER CONCERNING SALES
INFORMATION

v.
9
10

SILERGY CORPORATION, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 190

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

On October 2, 2015, the parties filed a joint letter, in which Plaintiff seeks to compel

14

supplemental responses to Request for Production No. 40 to Silergy and No. 33 to Compal.

15

(10/2/15 Joint Letter, “Joint Letter,” Dkt. No. 190.)

16

Upon review of the joint letter, the Court deems this matter suitable for disposition without

17

oral argument pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-1(b), and GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART

18

Plaintiff’s request to compel supplemental discovery responses.

19
20

I.

DISCUSSION

Request No. 40 to Silergy seeks “[a]ll documents referring or relating to communications

21

with Silergy’s customers (direct or indirect) or suppliers concerning the Silergy Step-Down

22

Regulators.” (Dkt. No. 147-1 at 50.) Request No. 33 to Compal seeks “[a]ll documents referring

23

or relating to communications with Compal’s suppliers including, without limitation, Silergy or

24

Compal’s customers concerning the Compal products incorporating one or more Step-Down

25

Regulators.” (Dkt. No. 147-2 at 22.)

26

Plaintiff contends that these requests seek the production of shipping documents, including

27

invoices and purchase orders, to determine the location of the sales and whether a product was

28

imported into the United States. (Joint Letter at 1-2.) The requests as propounded, however, do

1

not specifically request such information. Instead, they ask for all communications with

2

costumers and suppliers. Thus, they are overbroad.

3

During the parties’ meet and confer efforts, in lieu of the shipping documents, Defendants

4

offered to provide summary sales data extracted from its financial system that tracks sales to

5

customers, including the customer locations to which sales are billed or shipped. (Joint Letter at

6

5.) This is fair, and Defendants are ordered to do so. If Plaintiff wants the shipping documents

7

themselves, it needs to propound a request for production seeking same prior to the close of fact

8

discovery.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

II.

CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, Defendants shall provide the summary sales data within 14 days
of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 9, 2015
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2