Netlist, Inc v. Smart Modular Technologies, Inc

Filing 178

ORDER REQUIRING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 4/4/2014. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/4/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

NETLIST, INC.,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case No.: 13-cv-05889 YGR
ORDER REQUIRING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

vs.
SMART STORAGE SYSTEMS, INC.;
SMART WORLDWIDE HOLDINGS, INC.; AND
DIABLO TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Defendants.
On March 4, 2014, plaintiff Netlist, Inc. filed a motion to Consolidate/Coordinate Related
Cases under Rule 42(a)(2):
[P]laintiff Netlist, Inc. (“Netlist”) will move, and hereby does move, this Court to consolidate
Related Case Nos. 4:13-CV-05889-YGR and 4:13-CV-03901-YGR (collectively, the “Patent
Cases”) under the above captioned matter for all purposes including trial pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a)(2). Additionally, Netlist requests coordinated discovery with
Related Case No. 4:13-CV-05962-YGR (the “Trade Secret Case”).
(Dkt. 155 at 1:5-10.) The parties agree that the Patent Cases should be consolidated and that they
should, at a minimum, be coordinated with the Trade Secret Case. The dispute stems from the
whether the Trade Secret Case should also be consolidated. The Court requires additional
information prior to the hearing on this matter as set forth herein.
First, one of the grounds for the disagreement focuses on the impact to the schedules of each
set of cases and trial of the same. However, the impact is not sufficiently delineated. Accordingly,

1

the PARTIES ARE ORDERED to meet and confer and to file jointly by Monday, April 7, 2014, a Joint

2

Statement which shall attach as an exhibit thereto, in landscape page format, a chart which includes

3

(i) the current schedule as ordered in Action No. 13-cv-3901, (Dkt. 68); (ii) additional rows

4

identifying additional “events” or deadlines which would be required for the Trade Secret Case; and

5

(iii) three additional columns for deadlines: one for “joint” agreement, a second for “plaintiff’s

6

proposal,” and a third for “defendants’ proposal.”

7

Second, in Plaintiff’s Reply in support of its motion (Dkt. 165), it argues: “if the Trade

8

Secret Case were to go forward with all four parties, difficult confidentiality issues may arise

9

because some information from one defendant may need to be kept from another defendant.” (Id. at

Northern District of California

3:4-6.) The contours of this perceived issue are not sufficiently explained. The parties are

11

United States District Court

10

ORDERED to meet and confer on this topic as well. In the April 7th submission, the issue shall be

12

more fully explained and the defendants shall respond and include any proposed measures for

13

addressing the issue.

14
15
16

Third, the plaintiff shall provide the court with its Trade Secret Disclosure. If necessary, it
may do so under seal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18
19

Dated: April 4, 2014

__________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2