Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Bel Fuse Inc. et al

Filing 371

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd granting 364 plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery from Defendant XFMRS, Inc. 5/24/2011 hearing is vacated. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/18/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 *E-FILED 05-18-2011* 3 4 5 6 NOT FOR CITATION 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN JOSE DIVISION 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 7 12 13 14 No. C07-06222 RMW (HRL) HALO ELECTRONICS, INC., ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM DEFENDANT XFMRS, INC. Plaintiff, v. [Re: Docket No. 364] BEL FUSE INC. and XFMRS, INC., 15 Defendants. / 16 17 Plaintiff Halo Electronics, Inc. (Halo) moves to compel document and interrogatory 18 discovery from defendant XFMRS, Inc. (XFMRS).1 XFMRS opposes the motion. The matter 19 is deemed appropriate for determination without oral argument, and the May 24, 2011 hearing 20 is vacated. CIV. L.R. 7-1(b). Upon consideration of the moving and responding papers, this 21 court grants the motion as follows: With respect to the requested technical documentation, there appears to be no serious 22 23 dispute that the discovery is relevant and responsive to at least Halo’s Requests for Production 24 12, 13, 15, 17 and 18. However, Halo says that defendant has yet to produce certain technical 25 documents for some of the products at issue. XFMRS says that, for various logistical reasons, it 26 has taken some time to obtain the requested documents for production. Nevertheless, it tells 27 this court that requested documents as to the remaining part numbers are being gathered and 28 Plaintiff advises that the portion of its motion seeking the production of product samples is moot. 1 1 will be produced as soon as the documents are received from its China manufacturer and 2 processed for production. Accordingly, Halo’s motion as to the requested technical 3 documentation is granted. XFMRS shall complete its production by June 10, 2011. Halo also moves for supplemental answers to Interrogatories 2, 3 and 9.2 Halo’s motion 4 5 primarily seeks an order requiring XFMRS to provide quarterly (as opposed to annual) sales 6 information. Halo contends that quarterly information is essential for parts that had mid-year 7 changes. Plaintiff also requests that defendant be ordered to provide complete supplementation 8 as to all of the information sought by these interrogatories. Defendant does not deny that it has 9 quarterly data available, but argues that the data is unnecessary for all of the products at issue and that providing that information to Halo will be unduly burdensome. XFMRS, however, has 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 not substantiated its assertion that producing the requested quarterly information will impose an 12 undue burden. Moreover, to the extent defendant has additional responsive information that it 13 has not yet provided in response to these interrogatories (or information which updates or 14 corrects information previously given), then XFMRS shall provide that information to Halo. 15 XFMRS’ supplemental interrogatory answers shall be served no later than June 10, 2011. 16 17 SO ORDERED. Dated: May 18, 2011 18 HOWARD R. LLOYD 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Halo agrees, however, that to the extent the information called for by Interrogatory 2 is included within the information XFMRS provides in response to Interrogatories 3 and 9, then XFMRS does not need separately supplement its response to Interrogatory 2. (See Reply at 1 n.1 and 4 n.4). 2 A. Neal Seth 3 Andrew P. Nemiroff 4 Christopher Todd Norris 5 David Moorman 6 David James Miclean 7 Emily Rita Frank efrank@bakerlaw.com 8 Harold C. Moore hcmoore@maginot.com, hcmoore@maginot.com 9 Jennifer McGuone Lantz jennifer.lantz@haynesboone.com, efilesjc@haynesboone.com 10 John Cameron Adkisson jca@fr.com, mla@fr.com 11 For the Northern District of California 5:07-cv-06222-RMW Notice has been electronically mailed to: 2 United States District Court 1 Joshua L. Raskin JRaskin@WOLFBLOCK.com 12 Juanita R. Brooks brooks@fr.com, gonzales@fr.com, lrperez@fr.com 13 Kent Andrew Lambert klambert@bakerdonelson.com, lhunter@bakerdonelson.com, psigmon@bakerdonelson.com nseth@bakerlaw.com, nseth@bakerlaw.com anemiroff@cozen.com, jcipriani@cozen.com, rbrenner@cozen.com todd.norris@bullivant.com, sanfranciscodocketing@bullivant.com drmoorman@maginot.com DMiclean@MicleanLaw.com 14 Limin Zheng zheng@fr.com, horsley@fr.com 15 16 Martin C. Fliesler mcf@fdml.com, cakinselledge@fdml.com, etf@fdml.com, jgeringson@fdml.com, jpo@fdml.com, mme@fdml.com 17 Martin G. Raskin mraskin@cozen.com, jcipriani@cozen.com, rbrenner@cozen.com 18 Michael A. Swift maswift@maginot.com, srogers@maginot.com 19 Michael J Kane kane@fr.com, skarboe@fr.com, stenen@fr.com 20 Michael J. Pape pape@fr.com, mla@fr.com 21 Michael Joseph Powell 22 Rex Hwang 23 Samuel F Miller 24 Sarah Katherine Casey 25 Terry John Mollica 26 William R. Woodford 27 Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program. mpowell@bakerdonelson.com, pburks@bakerdonelson.com rhwang@lhlaw.com, ldias@lhlaw.com smiller@bakerdonelson.com skcasey@bakerdonelson.com tjm@cmlawoffices.com woodford@fr.com, aburt@fr.com, skarboe@fr.com, stenen@fr.com 28 3

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?