GSI Technology, Inc. v. United Memories, Inc.

Filing 276

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTES by Judge Paul S. Grewal granting 248 Discovery Letter Brief; granting 250 Discovery Letter Brief; granting 251 Discovery Letter Brief; granting 252 Discovery Letter Brief; granting 253 Discovery Letter Brief; granting 254 Discovery Letter Brief; denying 255 Motion to Compel (psglc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/6/2014)

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

GSI TECHNOLOGY, INC.,

14

Plaintiff,
v.

15
16

UNITED MEMORIES, INC., and
INTEGRATED SILICON SOLUTION, INC.,

17

Defendants.

18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
ORDER RE: DISCOVERY MOTIONS
(Re: Docket Nos. 248 , 250 , 251 , 252 ,
253 , 254, 255)

On Monday afternoon, the parties appeared for a hearing on the seven pending discovery

19
20

motions in this case. One thing became abundantly clear: GSI needs to clearly and specifically

21

identify all its claimed trade secrets to move this case forward. 1 Under California law, GSI is

22

required to “make some showing that is reasonable, i.e., fair, proper, just and rational[,] . . . under

23
24
25
26
27

1

See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2019.210 (“In any action alleging the misappropriation of a trade
secret . . . before commencing discovery relating to the trade secret, the party alleging the
misappropriation shall identify the trade secret with reasonable particularity.”); see also Perlan
Therapeutics, Inc. v. Superior Court, 178 Cal. App. 4th 1333, 1350 (2009) (holding that a plaintiff
‘is not entitled to include broad, ‘catch-all’ language” in his trade secret identifications, because if
it “does not know what its own trade secrets are, it has no basis for suggesting defendants
misappropriated them”).

28
1
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
ORDER RE: DISCOVERY MOTIONS

1

all of the circumstances to identify its alleged trade secret in a manner that will allow the trial court

2

to control the scope of subsequent discovery, protect all parties' proprietary information, and allow

3

them a fair opportunity to prepare and present their best case or defense at a trial on the merits.” 2

4

GSI has acknowledged that it may claim as independent trade secrets several distinct subparts of

5
6

the overall “compilation” currently claimed. If so, now is the time to do so. No later than
Wednesday, August 13, 2014, GSI shall supplement its Section 2019.210 disclosure to identify to

7
8
9

both UMI and ISSI each and every distinct trade secret that it intends to claim in this litigation by
Bates range; any trade secrets not specifically identified by that date will be understood to be out of

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

this case. GSI also shall supplement its responses to any interrogatories propounded by UMI or

11

ISSI that are implicated by its Section 2019.210 disclosure. 3

12
13

Once GSI has supplemented its Section 2019.210 disclosure and supplemental interrogatory
responses, UMI and ISSI’s justification for failing to respond to various GSI’s discovery requests

14
will become moot. UMI and ISSI therefore are to respond to the discovery requests identified in
15
16

Docket No. 252 by no later than September 12, 2014.
ISSI’s position that it need not respond to GSI’s Interrogatory No. 14 and Request for

17
18

Production No. 36 – while simultaneously seeking discovery on the same issue – is unreasonable. 4

19

The parties indicate that the disagreement on these requests centers on “whether paragraphs 84-89

20

of GSI’s Second Amended Complaint remain in the case or not.” 5 The answer to that question is a

21

simple yes. Paragraphs 84-89 present simple factual allegations, not separate trade libel and

22
23
24

2

25

3

26

Advanced Modular Sputtering, Inc. v. Superior Court, 132 Cal. App. 4th 826, 836 (2005).

See In Re Convergent Tech. Sec. Lit., 108 F.R.D. 328, 337 (N.D. Cal. 1985); see also Stoncor
Group, Inc. v. Campton, Case No. 05-cv-1225-JLR, 2006 WL 314336, *1-2 (W.D. Wash. 2006).
4

27

See Advanced Tactical Ordnance Systems, LLC v. Real Action Paintball, Inc., Case No.
1:12-cv-0296, 2013 WL 501735, at *3 (N.D. Ind. Feb. 8, 2013).

28

5

See Docket No. 261 at 1.
2

Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
ORDER RE: DISCOVERY MOTIONS

1

defamation causes of action. 6 The allegations may not end up being relevant to the final

2

adjudication, or supported by the evidence, but they remain in the case to support the UCL,

3

misappropriation of trade secrets and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage

4

claims. 7 By September 12, 2014, ISSI shall respond to Interrogatory 14 and RFP 36.

5
6

Finally, the court is persuaded that the documents surrounding Pat Lasserre may be
reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 8 On those grounds, GSI is to

7
8
9

produce any such documents in its care, custody or control by no later than September 12, 2014.
However, the third-party subpoena served on Lasserre himself is overbroad on its face, and as such,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

ISSI’s motion to compel compliance with that subpoena is denied. 9

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

Dated: August 6, 2014
____________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
6

24

See Docket No. 197 at 19-20.

7

25
26

See id. at ¶¶ 170, 182, 214, 238 (incorporating ¶¶ 84-89 by reference in support of UCL,
misappropriation of trade secrets and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage
claims).
8

27
9

28

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.

See Legal Voice v. Stormans Inc., 738 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2013) (affirming denial of a
motion to compel compliance with a third-party subpoena where subpoena was overbroad).
3
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
ORDER RE: DISCOVERY MOTIONS