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)

Download PDF
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

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?