Avago Technologies U.S., Inc et al v. Venture Corporation Limited

Filing 83

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd denying as moot 70 defendant Emcore Corporation's Motion to Compel Production of Documents. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/17/2009)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NOT FOR CITATION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES U.S., INC., AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL SALES PTE. LIMITED, AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES JAPAN, LTD., AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES CANADA CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff, No. C08-03248 JW (HRL) ORDER DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT EMCORE CORPORATION'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS [Re: Docket No. 70] *E-FILED 12-17-2009* United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 EMCORE CORPORATION; VENTURE CORPORATION fka VENTURE MANUFACTURING (S) LTD., Defendants. / Plaintiffs (collectively referred to here as "Avago") supply optoelectronics products, RF/microwave components, and enterprise ASICs (Application Specific Integrated Circuits). They sue for the alleged failure of certain fiber optic transceivers that were sold to Avago customers. Defendant Venture Corporation ("Venture") reportedly manufactured the transceivers in question. Defendant Emcore Corporation ("Emcore") manufactured a component of the transceivers -- i.e., Vertical Cavity Surface Emitting Lasers ("VCSELs") -- which allegedly caused the transceivers to be defective. Avago asserts claims for breach of contract and breach of express warranty against Venture, as well as a claim for negligent interference with prospective economic advantage against Emcore. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Emcore moves to compel plaintiffs to produce documents responsive to Emcore's first set of requests for production. Plaintiffs oppose the motion. Upon consideration of the moving and responding papers, as well as the arguments of counsel, this court denies the motion as moot. The discovery requests at issue essentially seek documents relating to plaintiffs' allegations. On the instant motion, there was no dispute whether documents would be produced. The parties disagreed only as to when the production should happen. Emcore felt that it had been reasonable in extending production deadlines and that plaintiffs had more than enough time to gather and produce documents. Plaintiffs stated that they were in the midst of processing hundreds of thousands of pages of documents gathered from around the globe -- an effort that reportedly included digitally converting documents for the parties' agreed-upon method of electronic discovery. In their view, Emcore was demanding production by unreasonable and arbitrary deadlines. In any event, at the motion hearing, plaintiffs argued that the instant motion is now moot because they have produced all responsive, non-privileged documents, as well as a privilege log of documents that have been withheld. Based on plaintiffs' counsel's representations, it appears that plaintiffs have produced all responsive, non-privileged documents located after diligent inquiry and reasonable search as to the requests at issue. Nonetheless, insofar as plaintiffs say they are willing to provide defendants with a written statement to that effect, and to the extent it has not already been done, they shall do so no later than 10 days from the entry of this order. Defendants' motion is otherwise deemed moot.1 Plaintiffs' request for payment of their attorney's fees incurred in connection with the United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 At oral argument, Emcore alluded to concerns about the state of plaintiffs' document production, which Emcore says is a "mass jumble." Plaintiffs heartily disagree with Emcore's characterizations. This court does not address these issues here because they are not the subject of the instant motion, and the parties indicated that they are continuing to meet-and-confer on these matters. 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 instant motion is denied. SO ORDERED. Dated: December 17, 2009 HOWARD R. LLOYD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 5:08-cv-03248-JW Notice electronically mailed to: Caroline Ann Haugsten Sayers csayers@whitecase.com Desiree DeSurra ddesurra@whitecase.com Dori Lynn Yob dyob@hopkinscarley.com, ash@hopkinscarley.com Erik Paul Khoobyarian epk@hopkinscarley.com, pvoight@hopkinscarley.com James Jonathan Hawk jhawk@whitecase.com John Calvin Brown , III jbrown@redbrownlaw.com John V. Picone , III jpicone@hopkinscarley.com, dhodges@hopkinscarley.com Matthew Paul Lewis mlewis@whitecase.com 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. United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

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?