Jones et al v. Micron Technology Inc. et al

Filing 107

ORDER re 103 Joint Discovery Letter Brief. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 10/23/2019. (kawlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/23/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MICHELE JONES, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8

ORDER REGARDING JOINT
DISCOVERY LETTER

v.

9
10

MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC., et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 103

Defendants.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 18-cv-02518-JSW (KAW)

12

Case No. 18-cv-3805-JSW (KAW)
IN RE DYNAMIC RANDOM ACCESS
MEMORY (DRAM) DIRECT
PURCHASER ANTITRUST LITIGATION

13
14

ORDER REGARDING JOINT
DISCOVERY LETTER
Re: Dkt. No. 52

15
16

The instant cases concern allegations that Defendants conspired to raise market prices for

17
18

Dynamic Random Access Memory (“DRAM”) products. DRAM is a semiconductor memory

19

device that is used in digital electronics, including mobile phones, personal computers, tablets, and

20

televisions. Plaintiffs represent two groups: direct purchasers (“DP”), who buy DRAM directly

21

from Defendants, and indirect purchasers (“IP”), who buy the products that DRAM has already

22

been incorporated into. The DP complaints have been consolidated into In re Dynamic Random

23

Access (DRAM) Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 18-cv-3805 (“DP Case”), while

24

the active IP case is Jones v. Micron Technology, Inc., Case No. 18-cv-2518 (“IP Case”).1
Pending before the Court are two identical discovery letters, in which Plaintiffs request

25
26

that the Court: (1) compel Defendants to produce documents provided to any regulatory or

27
28

1

There are currently three IP cases. On October 11, 2019, counsel in the three IP cases agreed to
the consolidation of the cases into the Jones docket. (IP Case, Dkt. No. 105.)

1

governmental authority since January 1, 2017, specifically a Chinese investigation; and (2) compel

2

the parties to promptly participate in a Rule 26(f) conference, or to produce the documents prior to

3

the Rule 26(f) conference.2

4

I.

DISCUSSION

5

A.

6

Rule 26(d) provides that “[a] party may not seek discovery from any source before the

Production of Documents

7

parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), except . . . when authorized by these rules, by

8

stipulation, or by court order.” In deciding whether to allow early discovery, courts apply a good

9

cause standard. Twitch Interactive, Inc. v. Johnston, Case No. 16-cv-3404-BLF, 2017 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 44863, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2017); Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc., 208

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

F.R.D. 273, 276 (N.D. Cal. 2002). “Good cause may be found where the need for expedited

12

discovery, in consideration of the administration of justice, outweighs the prejudice to the

13

responding party.” Semitool, Inc., 208 F.R.D. at 276.
The Court finds that Plaintiffs have not established good cause because they have not

14
15

explained why they require expedited discovery. While Plaintiffs argue that other courts in this

16

district “routinely order the production of antitrust investigation documents pending the filing of

17

consolidated amended complaints,” the fact that other courts permit such production does not

18

establish why Plaintiffs require expedited discovery here. (See Discovery Letters at 2.) Similarly,

19

arguments that the burden to Defendants is minimal does not establish good cause, as Plaintiffs

20

must still establish that their need for expedited discovery outweighs any such burden. (See id. at

21

4.)
Moreover, the Court notes that in dismissing the IP Complaint’s Sherman Act claims, the

22
23

presiding judge specifically did not consider allegations regarding the Chinese investigation,

24
25
26
27
28

2

Plaintiffs also request that the Court reset the date by which Plaintiffs are to file their amended
complaints to forty-five days after the production of the documents. (Discovery Letters at 2.) In
the referral order, the presiding judge stated that the deadlines for the IP amended complaint and
DP consolidated complaint will be set after the undersigned “rules on the dispute outlined in the
October 2, 2019 letter (namely, whether to compel production of certain documents or whether to
order a Rule 25(f) conference).” (IP Case, Dkt. No. 104 at 3.) Therefore, the undersigned will not
address the amended complaint deadline.
2

1

explaining that “[a]llegations concerning past or ongoing investigations are also not particularly

2

helpful to suggest a contemporary conspiracy: the scope of an investigation is not always evident

3

to the public or to the Court, and investigations that do not result in a finding of fact or admission

4

suggest only that a government body believed a circumstance appeared suspicious.” (IP Case,

5

Dkt. No. 98 at 26-27.) Further, “allegations of investigations outside of the United States are fully

6

unpersuasive: foreign laws may prohibit behavior that is lawful under § 1.” (Id. at 27.) While

7

Plaintiffs argue that other courts have permitted early discovery of documents provided to foreign

8

investigatory bodies, Plaintiffs again do not explain why such discovery is warranted in this case.3

9

Thus, for purposes of expedited discovery, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to establish

10

any need for the requested documents prior to the Rule 26(f) conference.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

B.

12

Rule 26(f)(1) requires that “the parties must confer as soon as practicable--and in any event

Rule 26(f) Conference

13

at least 21 days before a scheduling conference is to be held or a scheduling order is due under

14

Rule 16(b).” At the Rule 26(f) conference, the parties must make their Rule 26 disclosures and

15

devise a proposed discovery plan, taking into consideration “the nature and basis of their claims

16

and defenses . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(2).
Plaintiffs request that Defendants be ordered to participate in a Rule 26(f) conference,

17
18

arguing that because “the case has been pending for over a year, it is appropriate and efficient for

19

the parties to hold a Rule 26(f) conference now.” (Discovery Letters at 5.) Defendants respond

20

that the current claims and defenses are not clear, as there is no operative complaint in the IP Case,

21

and DP Plaintiffs have been ordered to file a consolidated complaint.
The Court finds that a Rule 26(f) conference is premature, particularly when the presiding

22
23

judge will be setting briefing deadlines “on the expected motions to dismiss in the IP and DP

24

cases.” (IP Case, Dkt. No. 104 at 3.) Thus, even if the general subject matter of the cases is

25

known, the pleadings and scope of the specific claims are not settled, making it premature to make

26

disclosures and discuss a discovery plan. See Zavala v. Kruse-Western, Inc., 2019 WL 3219254,

27
28

In so finding, the Court’s analysis is based on the standards for early discovery. The Court does
not find that such documents are not relevant or that they may not be discoverable at a later stage.
3
3

1

at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 17, 2019) (denying motion to compel a Rule 26(f) conference because

2

“[u]ntil the motion to dismiss is resolved, the actual claims and defenses at issue will be unclear”);

3

Contentguard Holdings, Inc. v. ZTE Corp., Case No. 12cv1226-CAB (MDD), 2013 WL

4

12072533, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2013) (finding no good cause to require a Rule 26(f)

5

conference because “[u]ntil the motion to dismiss is resolved, the actual claims and defenses will

6

be unclear. It would be inefficient and cause unnecessary expense for the parties to engage in

7

discovery on claims that may not survive and defenses and counterclaims that may not be

8

asserted”).

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

II.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ request for expedited discovery
or a Rule 26(f) conference.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 23, 2019
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4