Ziptronix, Inc v. Omnivision Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 297

ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong GRANTING 286 MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION RE DISCOVERY LIMITS. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/9/2013)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5

OAKLAND DIVISION
6
7 ZIPTRONIX, INC.,

Plaintiff,

8
9

vs.

10 OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Case No: C 10-05525 SBA
ORDER GRANTING MOTION
FOR CLARIFICATION RE
DISCOVERY LIMITS
Docket 286

TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR
11 MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD., and
TSMC NORTH AMERICA CORP.,
12

Defendants.
13
14

The parties are presently before the Court on Defendants Taiwan Semiconductor

15

Manufacturing Company Ltd. ("TSMC Ltd.") and TSMC North America Corp.'s ("TSMC

16

NA") (collectively, "TSMC") motion for clarification regarding discovery limits.1 Dkt.

17

286. Plaintiff Ziptronix, Inc. ("Ziptronix") opposes the motion to the extent TSMC seeks

18

clarification that Ziptronix may only take a maximum of 20 hours of Rule 30(b)(6)

19

depositions of TSMC. Dkt. 293. According to Ziptronix, it is entitled to take a total of 40

20

hours of Rule 30(b)(6) depositions of TSMC, consisting of a maximum of 20 hours of Rule

21

30(b)(6) depositions of TSMC Ltd., and a maximum of 20 hours of Rule 30(b)(6)

22

depositions of TSMC NA. Id.

23

Having read and considered the papers filed in connection with this matter, and

24
1

On April 13, 2011, the parties filed a "Joint Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f)
Report" ("Rule 26(f) Report" or "Joint Report"). Dkt. 42. In paragraph six of the Joint
26 Report, the parties agreed to certain discovery limitations. Id. On February 6, 2012, the
Court issued a Case Management Order adopting the parties' Amended Joint Case
27 Management Statement (Dkt. 70). Dkt. 75. The parties' Amended Joint Case Management
Statement incorporated by reference the discovery limitations set forth in the parties' Rule
28 26(f) Report. See Dkt. 70.
25

1

having reviewed the record, the Court hereby GRANTS TSMC's motion.2 The Court

2

concludes that TSMC Ltd. and TSMC NA shall collectively be treated as one "party" for

3

purposes of the discovery limits set forth in paragraph six of the parties' Rule 26(f) Report.

4

See Dkt. 42. Accordingly, Ziptronix may only take a maximum of 20 hours of Rule

5

30(b)(6) depositions of TSMC.

6

If any party wishes to modify the discovery limitations established by the Court's

7

February 6, 2012 Case Management Order, the party shall file a duly noticed motion under

8

Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Prior to the filing of any such motion, the

9

parties shall meet and confer to discuss the issues presented by the motion as required by

10

this Court's Standing Orders. See Dkt. 21. The meet and confer requirement is essential to

11

conserving the limited time and resources of the Court and the parties by obviating the

12

filing of unnecessary motions. See Wong v. Astrue, 2008 WL 4167507, at *2 (N.D. Cal.

13

2008) ("The purpose of the [meet and confer] requirement is to encourage settlement,

14

resolve disputes which need not involve the Court, and avoid unnecessary litigation, thus

15

saving the parties', the Court's, and the taxpayers' limited time, money, and resources.").

16

The Court advises the parties that it may disregard any papers submitted that do not comply

17

with the meet and confer requirement. This Order terminates Docket 286.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

______________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge

8/9/2013

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2

28

The Court, in its discretion, finds this matter suitable for resolution without oral
argument. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 78(b); N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).
-2-