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

Filing 201

ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore terminating 191 Discovery Letter Brief re: E-mail Discovery. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/20/2015)

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 TERMINATING 10/2/2015
JOINT LETTER RE: E-MAIL
DISCOVERY

v.
9
10

SILERGY CORPORATION, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 191

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

On June 23, 2015, the parties entered into a stipulation regarding the discovery of

14

electronically stored information (“ESI”), including the discovery process to obtain email. (ESI

15

Stip., Dkt. No. 154.)

16

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

17

Chen and Silergy’s application of Plaintiff’s 20 search terms to their respective personal and

18

corporate email accounts. (10/2/15 Joint Letter, “Joint Letter,” Dkt. No. 191 at 2.)

19

As an initial matter, the parties violated the undersigned standing order by failing to

20

address each disputed search term individually. (See Standing Order for Magistrate Judge Kandis

21

A. Westmore ¶ 13)(joint letter format). As a result, Defendant has only identified four of the

22

Plaintiff’s 20 search terms as being objectionable, none of which were addressed by Plaintiff.

23

Defendant’s objection to Term No. 14 appears meritorious, as some words are not variants of a

24

single root word and would count as multiple search terms. (See Joint Letter at 6-7.) The Court,

25

however, cannot definitively resolve this issue because several words are presumably in Chinese

26

and the parties have not provided English translations.

27
28

Furthermore, it appears by Plaintiff’s use of disjunctive terms, such as “or,” that it is
attempting to propound more than twenty search terms per custodian. (Joint Letter at 1.) It is

1

impossible for the undersigned to determine how many search terms have been propounded, or

2

whether some of the search terms violate the ESI Stipulation, because, again, several terms are not

3

in English. (See Joint Letter at 1.) The Court notes that some of the terms appear to address

4

specific issues and, therefore, would not violate the ESI Stipulation. Furthermore, Plaintiff is

5

correct in its assertion that it is not required to provide narrative requests, and need only identify

6

the custodian, search terms, and time frame. (See Joint Letter at 2.) If the term is disputed,

7

however, Plaintiff should briefly identify the issue the term addresses as part of the meet and

8

confer process.

9

Accordingly, the joint letter is TERMINATED on the grounds that the parties violated the
undersigned’s standing order and have failed to provide sufficient information to resolve the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

pending dispute. The parties are ordered to further meet and confer regarding the disputed terms.

12

The Court is confident that the parties can significantly narrow the scope of this dispute by

13

running any non-objectionable search terms as propounded, as well as by agreeing to narrow the

14

propounded terms through the addition of conjunctive words or phrases. (See ESI Stip. ¶ 10.)

15
16
17
18

Should the parties be unable to resolve the dispute in its entirety, they may file a new joint
letter, within 7 days of the close of fact discovery, which:
1. Individually addresses each remaining disputed search term and explain why the term
is either reasonable or objectionable, in the following format:

19

A. Search Term No. 1

20

MPS* or monolithic or “m company” or “m 公司 <English Translation>”

21

Plaintiff’s Position

22

[Plaintiff’s position, including how the search term(s) complies with the ESI

23

Stipulation, the number of terms, identifies the specific issue(s), etc.]

24

Defendant’s Position

25

[Defendant’s rationale as to why the search term is objectionable.]

26

B. Search Term No. 20

27

bump* or “凸塊 <English Translation>” or “凸块 <English Translation>”

28
2

1

Plaintiff’s Position

2

[Plaintiff’s position, including how the search term(s) complies with the ESI

3

Stipulation, the number of terms, identifies the specific issue(s), etc.]

4

Defendant’s Position

5

[Defendant’s rationale as to why the search term is objectionable.];

6

2. Provides an English translation of any non-English words (see format above);

7

3. Identifies the specific issue(s) each individual search term addresses to ensure that the

8

search term does not seek general discovery of a product or business, which is not

9

permitted pursuant to Paragraph 6 of the ESI Stipulation.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 20, 2015
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3