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