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)

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