Speed Track, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al

Filing 327

ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore regarding 324 , 325 6/5/2018 Joint Discovery Letter Briefs. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/14/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SPEEDTRACK, INC.,

Case No. 4:09-cv-04479-JSW (KAW)

8

Plaintiff,

ORDER REGARDING 6/5/18 JOINT
DISCOVERY LETTERS

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

v.

Re: Dkt. Nos. 324 & 325
AMAZON.COM, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

12
13

On March 30, 2018, the district court adopted the parties proposed deadline of May 21,

14

2018 for Defendants’ Invalidity Contentions and accompanying document production pursuant to

15

Patent Local Rules 3-3 and 3-4. (Dkt. Nos. 298 & 300.) On June 5, 2018, the parties filed two

16

joint letters concerning whether Defendants are required to provide their Patent L.R. 3-4(a)

17

disclosures before the undersigned resolves their pending Motion to Strike SpeedTrack’s

18

Infringement Contentions and Stay Discovery, which is currently set for hearing on July 5, 2018.

19

(See Joint Letter #1, Dkt. No. 324 at 2; Joint Letter #2, Dkt. No. 325.) Specifically, one joint letter

20

pertains to Plaintiff’s attempt to compel the production (Joint Letter #1), while the other seeks a

21

protective order pending the resolution of the motion to strike (Joint Letter #2).

22
23
24

As an initial matter, these matters should have been addressed in a single joint letter,
because they concern the same issue, as they are truly two sides of the same coin.
Notwithstanding, while the Court understands Defendants’ apprehension to engage in

25

further discovery prior to the service of what they believe are rule-compliant infringement

26

contentions, Plaintiff’s infringement contentions have not yet been found insufficient. In the

27

absence of a stay, Plaintiffs are correct that Defendants are not relieved of their discovery

28

obligations. Apple Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., No. CV 10-04145 JW PSG, 2011 WL 334669, at

1

*2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2011) (Until a stay is granted, the parties are required to conduct discovery

2

as if no motion to stay had been filed.) To find otherwise would effectively allow a party to grant

3

itself a stay of discovery. Id. Indeed, it is possible that the pending motion to strike will be denied.

4
5
6
7

Accordingly, Defendants are ordered to complete its Patent L.R. 3-4(a) production within
14 days of this order. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in connection with these letters is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 14, 2018
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2