Teradata Corporation et al v. SAP SE et al

Filing 318

Supplemental order regarding 295 discovery letter and 314 emergency motion. This modifies previous orders at docket entries 313 and 315 . Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero on October 10, 2020. (jcslc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/10/2020)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

TERADATA CORPORATION, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 18-cv-03670-WHO (JCS)

v.
SAP SE, et al.,
Defendants.

SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER
REGARDING DISCOVERY LETTER
AND EMERGENCY MOTION
Re: Dkt. Nos. 295, 313, 314

12
13

The parties filed a joint letter, in which, among other things, Teradata complained that SAP

14

had not fully responded to four contention interrogatories, despite SAP’s demand that Teradata

15

provide complete responses to contention interrogatories propounded by SAP. In turn, SAP

16

complained that Teradata had yet to provide “complete responses to 12 SAP contention

17

interrogatories, deeming them ‘premature.’” Dkt. 295 at 3. The Court resolved this back-and-

18

forth at the hearing on October 9, 2020:

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

THE COURT: . . . So what I would order is for SAP to complete its
supplementation of these Contention Interrogatories 7 through 11
using complete -- giving complete answers of all the information that
is in its possession as of October 12th in that response, and for
Teradata to do the same about any disputed contention interrogatories
that haven't been finally answered by the same date with respect -- in
the same way. And I want to know what those are so I can include
them.
Anyone want to comment on that?
MR. LANIER: Your Honor, for SAP, Greg Lanier, no
comment. We understand.
MR. WHITAKER: And for Teradata, Your Honor, Mark
Whitaker, no comment.
THE COURT: Okay. . . .

1

Transcript (dkt. 317) at 24:10–24.

2

The Court’s ruling, therefore, was that both sides had to give complete answers to

3

contention interrogatories in dispute by October 12. No counsel objected to that ruling or to the

4

timing of the answers at the hearing, which was memorialized in an order later the same day. See

5

dkt. 313.

6

Apparently, the Court was naive in thinking that this resolved the matter: Rather than rely

7

on the assumption that each counsel’s “no comment” indicated agreement at least as to the

8

interrogatories that were in dispute, the Court should have required identification of the disputed

9

SAP interrogatories at the hearing. SAP emailed the Clerk to identify those contention
interrogatories. Teradata challenged that list, and followed up with an emergency motion (dkt.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

314) making the additional salient point (which should have been made at the hearing when the

12

court set the date) that the date set for Teradata to respond to SAP’s contention interrogatories was

13

to soon—three days after the hearing—and requesting until October 26 to supplement the

14

interrogatories identified by SAP in its email to the Clerk: 2, 5, 9, 13, 21, 26, 38, and 39 (the

15

“SAP Contention Interrogatories”). The Court agrees with Teradata that October 12, although

16

appropriate for SAP’s supplementation of interrogatories because it was proposed by SAP, is too

17

soon for Teradata’s response. The Court therefore adopts Teradata’s proposal.

18

The parties shall meet and confer regarding the SAP Contention Interrogatories. Proper

19

answers to contention interrogatories must include all information available to a party on the date

20

of response—here, the Courts sets October 26 as the date for supplementation of Teradata’s

21

response to the SAP Contention Interrogatories.

22
23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 10, 2020
______________________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
Chief Magistrate Judge

26
27
28
2