Avago Technologies Fiber IP (Singapore) PTE. Ltd. v. IPtronics Inc. et al

Filing 703

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: DISCOVERY MOTIONS by Judge Paul S. Grewal granting 641 ; granting 642 ; granting 644 ; denying 645 ; denying 646 ; granting 649 ; granting-in-part and denying-in-part 674 ; denying 677 . (psglc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/7/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12

SAN JOSE DIVISION

13

AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,

14
Plaintiffs,
15
16

v.
IPTRONICS INC., et al.,

17

Defendants.

18

21

Case No.: 5:10-cv-02863-EJD
OMNIBUS ORDER RE:
DISCOVERY MOTIONS
(Re: Docket Nos. 641, 642, 644, 645,
646, 649, 674, 677)

Yesterday, the court heard arguments on eight discovery motions.1 The motions concern

19
20

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

depositions and document production that Plaintiffs Avago Technologies, Inc. et al. want and
which Defendants IPtronics, Inc., et al. and Mellanox Technologies Inc., et al., as well as third

22
parties, don’t.
23
For months, Defendants have told Avago and this court that it had six depositions to go:

24
25

“the Avago Entities have already exhausted 14 of their allotted 20 fact depositions.”2 A few weeks

26
1

See Docket No. 697.

2

See Docket No. 525 at 7.

27
28

1
Case No.: 5:10-cv-02863-EJD
OMNIBUS ORDER RE: DISCOVERY MOTIONS

1

ago, Defendants changed their tune, arguing Avago has exceeded its allotment by six. The court

2

must hold Defendants to their previous representations.3 Avago therefore may take six more

3

depositions of its choosing. But there are some ground rules. First, Avago may not take

4

depositions of third parties it has already deposed in this case or in the ITC investigation. Avago

5
6

may only take depositions of third parties it has not previously deposed, including Finisar
Corporation. While duplication may be inevitable, parties can bear that burden; third parties

7
8
9

should not. Second, Avago shall pay for any fees and costs associated with document production
and depositions. This should mitigate any burden Defendants and third parties face. Third, any

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

deposition of Defendants shall take place by August 21, 2015. Any deposition of any third party

11

shall take place by September 21, 2015.

12
13

Finally, because Avago’s motion to modify the protective order will not unreasonably
prejudice Defendants, it is GRANTED.

14
In sum, Avago’s motions to compel the production of Defendants’ 30(b)(6)s are
15
16

GRANTED.4 Avago’s motion to modify the protective order is GRANTED.5 Defendants’

17

motions for entry of protective orders and fees are DENIED.6 Avago’s motion to compel the

18

production of documents and things from Finisar is GRANTED.7 Avago’s motion for leave to take

19
20
21
22
23
24

3

See Russell v. Rolfs, 893 F.2d 1033, 1037 (9th Cir. 1990); Rockwell Int’l Corp. v. Hanford Atomic
Metal Trades Council, 851 F.2d 1208, 1210 (9th Cir. 1988).

4

See Docket Nos. 641, 642.

5

See Docket No. 644.

6

See Docket Nos. 645, 646.

7

See Docket No. 649.

25
26
27
28

2
Case No.: 5:10-cv-02863-EJD
OMNIBUS ORDER RE: DISCOVERY MOTIONS

1

additional depositions is GRANTED-IN-PART.8 Finisar’s motion for protective order and to

2

quash Avago’s 30(b)(6) deposition is DENIED.9

3

SO ORDERED.

4

Dated: August 6, 2015

5

_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
8

See Docket No. 674.

9

See Docket No. 677.

27
28

3
Case No.: 5:10-cv-02863-EJD
OMNIBUS ORDER RE: DISCOVERY MOTIONS