Netlist, Inc v. Smart Modular Technologies, Inc

Filing 302

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DIPSUTE 296 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 2/23/2015 (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/23/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

NETLIST INC,

Case No. 13-cv-05889-YGR (JSC)

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE

9
10

SMART STORAGE SYSTEMS INC, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 296

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
Plaintiff Netlist, Inc. (“Netlist”) sues Defendant SanDisk Corporation (“SanDisk”), among

13
14

others, for infringement of a number of patents. The matter has been referred to the undersigned

15

magistrate judge for the purposes of discovery. (Dkt. No. 147.) Now before the Court is Netlist’s

16

individual letter brief requesting an order compelling SanDisk to respond to certain discovery

17

requests. (Dkt. No. 296.) There are two main categories of discovery requests at issue in Netlist’s

18

letter. According to SanDisk, however, the disputes as to both categories have already been

19

resolved and Netlist’s requests are therefore moot. (Dkt. No. 299 at 1.) In addition, SanDisk

20

argues that Netlist’s letter brief is procedurally improper because Netlist filed it without fully

21

engaging in a good faith meet and confer process about each category of documents. (Id.)

22

The first category, addressed in Section II of Netlist’s letter, pertains to discovery requests

23

for which there is no dispute as to scope (“Section II documents”). (Id. at 3.) SanDisk had agreed

24

to produce those documents, and the only relief Netlist seeks in this regard is an order compelling

25

SanDisk to produce them by a date certain. (See id.) Counsel for SanDisk states that his client

26

had already agreed to produce these Section II documents by February 20, 2015. (Dkt. No. 299 at

27

2.)

28

According to Netlist, the parties were at an impasse about the scope of required production

1

for the second category of documents, addressed in Section III of Netlist’s letter. (Dkt. No. 296 at

2

3.) The discovery requests at issue are Interrogatory 6, which seeks information about SanDisk’s

3

“backup, disaster recovery or archiving processes . . . including a description of the schedule and

4

the hardware/software used[,]” and three Requests for Production of Documents (Nos. 8, 31, 33)

5

pertaining to SanDisk’s inventory information regarding the Accused Products. (Dkt. No. 296 at

6

3-4.) However, SanDisk’s opposition indicates that SanDisk has already agreed to supplement its

7

response to Interrogatory No. 6 by February 27, 2015. (Dkt. No. 299 at 2.) In addition, San Disk

8

contends that it “has produced, or will produce, information showing SanDisks[’] inventory

9

information[,]” though SanDisk did not state an agreed-upon deadline for this production. (Id.)
The bottom line here is that the parties appear to have managed to resolve these discovery

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

disputes on their own. In accordance with SanDisk’s own representations, SanDisk shall produce

12

the Section II documents by February 24, 2015—a one-day deadline that should not pose any

13

difficulty given SanDisk’s agreement to do so by February 20—, and shall respond to the Section

14

III discovery requests by February 27, 2015. The Court encourages the parties to continue to

15

resolve any remaining discovery disputes informally and without Court involvement and reminds

16

the parties of their obligation to meet and confer in good faith before raising discovery disputes

17

with the Court. As set forth in the Court’s Standing Order, this obligation is a two-way street and

18

requires cooperation from both sides.

19

This Order disposes of Docket No. 296.

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22
23

Dated: February 23, 2015
______________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge

24
25
26
27
28
2