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)

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NOT FOR CITATION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

[e-mail]

8

Harold C. Moore

[e-mail], [e-mail]

9

Jennifer McGuone Lantz

[e-mail], [e-mail]

10

John Cameron Adkisson

[e-mail], [e-mail]

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

[e-mail]

12

Juanita R. Brooks

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

13

Kent Andrew Lambert [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

14
Limin Zheng

[e-mail], [e-mail]

15
16

Martin C. Fliesler [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

17

Martin G. Raskin

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

18

Michael A. Swift

[e-mail], [e-mail]

19

Michael J Kane

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

20

Michael J. Pape

[e-mail], [e-mail]

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.

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

[e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

28
3