Tessera, Inc. v. UTAC (Taiwan) Corporaiton
Filing
103
ORDER on 102 Discovery Letter Brief by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd. (hrllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/8/2013)
1
*E-FILED: February 8, 2013*
2
3
4
5
NOT FOR CITATION
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
SAN JOSE DIVISION
9
TESSERA, INC.,
Plaintiff,
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
No. C10-04435 EJD (HRL)
ORDER ON DDJR #1
v.
11
[Dkt. 102]
UTAC (TAIWAN) CORPORATION,
12
13
Defendant.
____________________________________/
14
Plaintiff Tessera, Inc. (“Tessera”) sues Defendant UTAC (Taiwan) Corporation (“UTC”) for
15
alleged failure to pay royalties under a patent license agreement. Tessera alleges breach of contract
16
and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and seeks declaratory relief. The
17
Court bifurcated discovery, and the parties are nearing the end of the first phase, which is limited to
18
issues of contract interpretation.
19
Tessera’s response to some of UTC’s requests for production included redactions and
20
alterations of responsive documents and withholding of attachments within email families
21
containing one or more responsive documents. A discovery dispute has arisen over whether Tessera
22
is entitled to (1) redact non-privileged portions of responsive documents and (2) withhold non-
23
privileged attachments from email families containing one or more responsive documents. Tessera
24
claims that the redacted and withheld information is non-responsive and confidential business
25
information. None of the redactions, alterations or deletions, however, are based on the attorney-
26
client privilege or work product doctrine. Tessera also claims that providing all of the initially
27
redacted and withheld information would require an extensive re-review of documents, as the
28
redacted and withheld material also contain privileged material and third-party confidential material.
Sensitive Confidential Information and/or Trade Secrets (“Protective Order”), whose stated purpose
3
is to shield “confidential, proprietary, or private information” from public disclosure or “from use
4
for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation.” (Dkt. 72). The Protective Order entered in
5
this case is based on the Court-approved model form provided by this District. It contains
6
provisions for designating material as “Confidential,” or “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes
7
Only.” Tessera fails to convince the Court that the Protective Order is insufficient to protect
8
sensitive information that belongs to itself or third parties. Tessera’s claim over the burden of
9
conducting a second review of the documents is also unavailing. Tessera made the decision to alter
10
For the Northern District of California
The Court has entered a Stipulated Protective Order for Litigation Involving Patents, Highly
2
United States District Court
1
the original documents and it can bear the repercussions of its choice. 1 Further, Tessera’s claim that
11
it would have to re-review “thousands” of pages of its production does not strike the Court as overly
12
burdensome in the context of this particular litigation.
For these reasons, the Court orders Tessera to re-produce its responsive documents in a form
13
14
in which they are ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form, without relevance-based
15
redactions or alterations to portions of those documents, and that it produce complete versions of
16
responsive emails with all attachments, no later than February 14, 2013. This deadline should not
17
interfere with the depositions scheduled for February 19-21, 2013, as the redacted and previously
18
withheld information is, at least according to Tessera, irrelevant to this matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
20
Dated: February 8, 2013
21
22
HOWARD R. LLOYD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Tessera’s decision to withhold attachments to emails and make redactions to documents is at odds
with Rule 34(b)(2)(E)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which instructs a party to “produce
documents as they are kept in the usual course of business” or “organize and label them to
correspond to the categories in the request.”
2
1
C10-04435 EJD (HRL) Order will be electronically mailed to:
2
Benjamin W. Hattenbach: bhattenbach@irell.com
3
Brian David Ledahl: bledahl@irell.com
4
David H. Herrington: dherrington@cgsh.com
5
Jennifer Renee Bunn: jbunn@irell.com
6
Joseph Mark Lipner: jlipner@irell.com, csilver@irell.com, jgejerman@irell.com
7
Kathleya Chotiros: kchotiros@cgsh.com
8
Laura Elizabeth Evans: levans@irell.com, ybromley@irell.com
9
Lawrence B. Friedman: lfriedman@cgsh.com
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
Michael F. Heafey: MHeafey@orrick.com, jromero@orrick.com, mawilliams@orrick.com
11
Morgan Chu: mchu@irell.com
12
Nathaniel E. Jedrey: njedrey@cgsh.com
13
Richard William Krebs rkrebs@irell.com, rbrown@tessera.com, Slee@irell.com,
sveeraraghavan@tessera.com, tegarcia@tessera.com
14
15
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.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
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?