In Re Subpoenas to Intel Corporation

Filing 46

ORDER DENYING 40 MOTION for Leave to File Sur-Reply In Support of Intel Corporation's Opposition to TQ Delta, LLC's Motion to Compel filed by Intel Corporation; ORDER requiring Supplemental Joint Letter by 11/22/2017; ORDER continuing the hearing on TQ Delta's 1 MOTION to Compel to 12/7/2017 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 11/7/2017. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/7/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 Case No. 4:17-mc-80099-KAW IN RE SUBPOENAS TO INTEL CORPORATION, 8 10 ORDER DENYING INTEL CORPORATION'S MOTION TO FILE SUR-REPLY; ORDER REQUIRING SUPPLEMENTAL LETTER; ORDER CONTINUING HEARING DATE 11 Re: Dkt. No. 40 United States District Court Northern District of California 9 12 13 On September 15, 2017, Intel Corporation filed a motion to file a sur-reply to TQ Delta’s 14 motion to compel on the grounds that the reply included new arguments and new requests for 15 discovery. (Dkt. No. 40.) TQ Delta opposed the motion. (Dkt. No. 41.) Upon review of the 16 administrative motion and the moving papers, the Court finds that TQ Delta, rather than 17 impermissibly raising new arguments on reply, merely responded to Intel’s opposition and 18 factually stated that it may require depositions going forward. Accordingly, Intel’s motion to file 19 a sur-reply is DENIED. 20 Notwithstanding, given the thousands of pages that have been produced by Intel since the 21 filing of the motion to compel, including several documents that TQ Delta confirms are “highly 22 relevant,” the parties are ordered to further meet and confer—specifically, regarding the remaining 23 documents identified in TQ Delta’s reply— in an attempt to narrow the scope of the dispute. (See 24 Reply, Dkt. No. 33-4 at 12.) Should the parties be unable to resolve the dispute in its entirety, 25 they shall file a joint letter to inform the Court of the remaining documents TQ Delta still seeks to 26 compel, not to exceed 8 pages, on or before November 22, 2017.1 27 1 28 The parties may cite to prior filings using docket, page, and line numbers, but the Court would appreciate if the letter would, to the extent possible, encompass the entire, remaining dispute. To facilitate the Court’s resolution of any remaining disputes, the joint letter shall be in the 1 2 format outlined in the undersigned’s Standing Order: A. Request No. 22 3 [Summarize the issue and reproduce the request.] 4 TQ Delta’s Position 5 [TQ Delta’s position outlining why Intel’s response or position is deficient 6 7 and the relief requested.] 8 Intel’s Position [Intel’s rationale as to why it has fully responded to the request, etc.] 9 B. Request No. 3 10 [Summarize the issue and reproduce the request.] United States District Court Northern District of California 11 TQ Delta’s Position 12 [TQ Delta’s position outlining why Intel’s response or position is deficient 13 14 and the relief requested.] 15 Intel’s Position [Intel’s rationale as to why it has fully responded to the request, etc.] 16 17 (See Judge Westmore’s General Standing Order ¶ 13.) Thus, the November 16, 2017 hearing on the motion to compel is continued to December 18 19 7, 2017. IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 Dated: November 7, 2017 __________________________________ KANDIS A. WESTMORE United States Magistrate Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 2 28 Alternatively, the parties may use document categories or firmware specifications, such as those contained in TQ Delta’s Reply. (Reply at 12.) 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?