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)
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?