U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC v. Acer, Inc. et al

Filing 1109

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE IN ECF NO. 1093 AND ECF NOS. 1094 AND 1098 in case 4:10-cv-03724-CW; AND ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE IN ECF NO. 510 in case 4:10-cv-05254-CW. Signed by Judge Laurel Beeler on 5/19/2014. (lblc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/19/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

San Francisco Division
U.S. ETHERNET INNOVATIONS LLC,

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

Plaintiff,
v.

13

No. C 10-03724 CW (LB)
ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE
IN ECF NO. 1093 AND ECF NOS. 1094
AND 1098

ACER INC, et al.,
14
15

Defendants.
____________________________________/

16
U.S. ETHERNET INNOVATIONS LLC,

No. C 10-05254 CW (LB)

17
Plaintiff,
18

v.

19

AT&T MOBILITY, LLC, et al.,

20

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE
IN ECF NO. 510

Defendants.
____________________________________/

21
22

In the two above-captioned related cases, Defendants seek to depose USEI’s two expert

23

witnesses, Dr. Mitzenmacher and Mr. Bratic, for four days each. See USEI v. Acer, No. C10-03724

24

CW (LB), 5/12/2014 Joint Letter, ECF No. 1093; USEI v. AT&T Mobility, No. C10-05254 CW

25

(LB), 5/12/2014 Joint Letter, ECF No. 510. USEI argues that two days each should be sufficient.

26

And regardless of their duration, the parties also cannot agree about when these depositions should

27

occur. The court held a telephonic hearing on the matter on May 19, 2014 and rules as follows.

28

In light of Dr. Mitzenmacher’s availability on Thursday, May 29, 2014 and Friday, May 30,

C 10-03724 CW (LB)
ORDER

1

2014, USEI must check to see if Dr. Mitzenmacher is available on Saturday, May 31, 2014, and if he

2

is, the court orders a third day’s deposition for that day.

3
4

In light of Mr. Bratic’s availability, his deposition will occur on June 10, 2014 and June 11,
2014, and Defendants will have two extra hours to depose him on each of those days.

5

The parties’ rebuttal expert reports now are due by June 3, 2014.

6

The court notes that in the Acer action, Intel also filed two discovery motions on May 13, 2014.

7

See USEI v. Acer, No. C10-03724 CW (LB), Administrative Motion to Seal Motion to Preclude,

8

ECF No. 1094; USEI v. Acer, No. C10-03724 CW (LB), Motion to Preclude, ECF No. 1094-4; USEI

9

v. Acer, No. C10-03724 CW (LB), Administrative Motion to Seal Motion to Compel, ECF No.

should have been brought before the undersigned. See 5/19/2014 Clerk’s Notice (clarifying that the

12
For the Northern District of California

1098; USEI v. Acer, No. C10-03724 CW (LB), Motion to Compel, ECF No. 1098-4. These disputes

11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

motions should be resolved by the undersigned). The court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE

13

Intel’s motions and instructs the parties to comply with the procedures for discovery disputes that

14

are found in the undersigned’s standing order.

15
16
17
18

This disposes of ECF No. 1093, 1094, 1094-4, 1098, and 1098-4 in the Acer action and ECF No.
510 in the AT&T Mobility action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 19, 2014

_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

C 10-03724 CW (LB)
ORDER

2