In Re Subpoenas to Intel Corporation

Filing 50

ORDER VACATING 12/7/17 HEARING; ORDER requiring parties to file a second joint letter by 12/14/17. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 12/5/2017. (kawlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/5/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 8 9 Case No. 4:17-mc-80099-KAW IN RE SUBPOENAS TO INTEL CORPORATION, 10 Re: Dkt. No. 48 11 United States District Court Northern District of California ORDER VACATING 12/7/17 HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL; ORDER REQUIRING THE PARTIES TO FILE A SECOND JOINT LETTER 12 On November 22, 2017, the parties filed a joint letter to inform the Court of the remaining 13 documents TQ Delta still seeks to compel in light of the voluminous production that occurred after 14 the motion was filed. (Joint Letter, Dkt. No. 48.) Therein, Intel informed the undersigned of a 15 pending motion for summary judgment in Delaware that, if granted, would moot the pending 16 motion due to a license that would presumably preclude infringement. (Joint Letter at 3.) Instead 17 of addressing this point, and potentially providing a reason why the hearing should go forward 18 despite the pending motion(s), TQ Delta simply objected to the argument being raised in the joint 19 letter. (Joint Letter at 2.) Upon review of the redacted motion for summary judgment in TQ Delta, 20 LLC v. ADTRAN, Inc., and by not having the benefit of TQ Delta’s position, the Court assumes 21 that the motion is representative of motions filed in the other related cases. See Mot. for Summary 22 J. on the License Issue, TQ Delta, LLC v. ADTRAN, Inc., 14-cv-00954-RGA (D. Del. Oct. 26, 23 2017), ECF No. 245. Thus, at this juncture, while the undersigned declines to deny the motion to 24 compel without prejudice, the Court VACATES the December 7, 2017 hearing in order to obtain 25 additional information on the Delaware proceedings. 26 Accordingly, the parties are ORDERED to file a joint letter on or before December 14, 27 2017, to address the following: 28 1 1. Which of the Delaware cases have similar motions for summary judgment, and would 2 the pending motion(s), if granted, would resolve the instant discovery dispute? If the 3 motion(s) would not resolve the instant dispute in its entirety, the parties shall explain 4 which requests and which types or categories of documents would remain at issue. 5 2. Whether the motion(s) for summary judgment are set for hearing, and, if so, when they 6 7 are scheduled to be heard. 3. The effect of the stay of the cases as to the ‘430 patent, the ‘412 patent, and the ‘956 8 patent, entered on November 30, 2017, on the pending motion to compel. See 9 Stipulation to Partially Stay the Case, TQ Delta, LLC v. ADTRAN, Inc., 14-cv-00954RGA (D. Del. Nov. 30, 2017), ECF No. 261. If the stay impacts the pending motion to 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 compel, the parties must explain how the stay narrows or otherwise affects the dispute. 12 Upon receipt of the joint letter, the Court will determine whether a hearing should be 13 scheduled in January 2018 or if a hearing on the motion should, in the interests of judicial 14 economy, be continued until the district court in Delaware rules on the pending motion(s) for 15 summary judgment and/or the stay is lifted. 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 5, 2017 __________________________________ KANDIS A. WESTMORE United States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?