Ritz Camera & Image, LLC v. Sandisk Corporation et al

Filing 201

ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION TO COMPEL DOCUMENTS FROM THIRD PARTY. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 5/8/2014. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/9/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ALFRED T. GIULIANO, et al., Case No. 10-cv-02787-SBA (JSC) Plaintiffs, 8 v. 9 10 SANDISK CORPORATION, Defendant. ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION TO COMPEL DOCUMENTS FROM THIRD PARTY Re: Dkt. No. 197 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 Plaintiffs bring this antitrust putative class action against Defendant SanDisk Corporation. 14 Now pending before the Court is the parties’ joint discovery brief regarding Plaintiffs’ motion to 15 enforce a subpoena for documents to non-party SK Hynix America Inc. (“SKHA”). Plaintiffs seek 16 financial documents for use in damages modeling performed in connection with their upcoming 17 motion for class certification. After carefully considering the parties’ submissions, and having 18 had the benefit of oral argument on May 8, 2014, Plaintiffs’ motion is granted in part and denied 19 in part as set forth below. 20 SKHA shall produce the requested sales information for its raw chips and finished 21 products for 2007 through 2010. The Third Amended Complaint, the operative complaint, alleges 22 that Plaintiffs represent a class of direct purchasers of “raw and finished NAND flash memory 23 products.” (Dkt. No. 150 ¶ 21.) The district court has not dismissed the claims brought on behalf 24 of the flash memory chip direct purchasers for lack of standing; accordingly, those claims are 25 presently in the case and the requested documents are therefore relevant to Plaintiffs’ damages 26 computation. That being said, SKHA is a competitor of SanDisk and the documents sought by 27 Plaintiffs involve SKHA’s highly sensitive commercial information. Federal Rule of Civil 28 Procedure 45 provides that a court may quash or modify a subpoena if it seeks, among other 1 things, confidential commercial information. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(B)(i). If, however, the 2 requesting party shows a substantial need for the documents, the court may order them produced 3 under specified conditions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(C)(i). Plaintiffs have demonstrated a substantial need for the requested documents for the period 5 2007 through 2010. Moreover, SKHA’s three to six year-old historical cost and sales data is less 6 valuable than current or more recent financial data. Plaintiffs, however, have not shown a 7 substantial need post-2010. The allegedly fraudulently patents expired in 2009 and thus sales 8 made after the expiration of the patent are less likely to be related to, or have costs associated with, 9 SanDisk’s collection of royalties from those patents. While Plaintiffs speculate that SKHA may 10 have licensing agreements with SanDisk that required it to pay royalties on the patent even after 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 4 they expired, such speculation does not constitute a substantial need. 12 SKHA shall produce the documents in whatever form they are maintained within 14 days 13 of the date of this Order. SKHA does not need to produce the requested data for PPN NAND 14 products. The parties shall meet and confer on any needed modifications to the governing 15 protective order. 16 This Order disposes of Docket No. 197. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 20 Dated: May 8, 2014 ______________________________________ JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY United States Magistrate Judge 21 22 23 24 25 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?