PixArt Imaging, Inc v. Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) Pte.Ltd., Inc et al

Filing 52

ORDER re 49 and 50 Discovery Dispute Joint Report #1. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 7/15/2011. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/15/2011)

1

** E-filed July 15, 2011 **

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

For the Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION

8

United States District Court

7

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11

PIXART IMAGING, INC.,
Plaintiffs,

12

No. C10-00544 JW (HRL)
ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE
JOINT REPORT # 1

v.

13

[Re: Docket Nos. 49, 50]
14

AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES GENERAL IP
(SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD, et al.,

15
16

Defendants.
____________________________________/

17

On July 13 and 14, 2011, the parties in the above-caption patent infringement action filed in

18

two parts a Discovery Dispute Joint Report # 1 (“Joint Report”).1 Docket Nos. 49, 50. Plaintiff

19

PixArt Imaging, Inc. (“PixArt”) contends that defendants Avago Technologies General IP

20

(Singapore) Pte. Ltd, Avago Technologies ECBU IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., and Avago Technologies

21

U.S., Inc. (collectively, “Avago”) filed the Joint Report in violation of this Court’s Standing Order

22

re: Civil Discovery Disputes (“Standing Order”).

23

The Standing Order requires parties, before filing a discovery dispute joint report, to meet-

24

and-confer about the disputed discovery issue using “the customary convenient means of

25

communication - telephone, e-mail, correspondence, person to person talks between members of

26

opposing litigation teams - to try to reach agreement.” Standing Order ¶ 2(b). “If that fails to lead to

27

complete agreement, then LEAD COUNSEL (and any unrepresented person), accompanied by

28

1

Previously, this Court granted the parties’ request that the deadline for filing any discovery dispute
joint report be extended two weeks from June 29, 2011 to July 13, 2011. Docket No. 48.

1

anyone else whose presence is needed to fully explore resolution, shall meet IN PERSON for as

2

long as and as often as is needed to reach full agreement.” Id. ¶ 2(c) (emphasis in original).

3

Here, it appears that Avago’s lead counsel never met-and-conferred in person about the

4

disputed issue. Avago writes that it “believes that it has complied with Judge Lloyd’s Standing

5

Order because Mr. Greenfeld, who has been leading the advancement of this case for Avago since

6

he started at Mayer Brown in October 2010, met in person with [PixArt’s lead counsel,] Mr.

7

[Michael] Page of Durie Tangri.” Docket No. 49 at 4. The problem is that Mr. Greenfeld is not

8

Avago’s lead counsel; Mr. Duane D. Hough is. And, it appears that Mr. Hough and Mr. Page never

9

discussed this particular discovery dispute in person, as this Court’s Standing Order requires. See

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Docket No. 50 at 2, 9.
Since Avago did not comply with the Standing Order, the Court DENIES its requested relief.

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14
15

Dated:

July 15, 2011
HOWARD R. LLOYD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

2

1

C10-00544 JW (HRL) Notice will be electronically mailed to:

2

Cliff Allan Maier

3
4
5

[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]
Daralyn J. Durie
[e-mail]
Duane D. Hough
[e-mail], [e-mail]
Michael Henry Page [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]
Robert Greenfeld
[e-mail]

6
7

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.

8
9

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3