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

Filing 601

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTES by Judge Paul S. Grewal granting-in-part and denying-in-part 468 ; granting-in-part and denying-in-part 469 ; granting-in-part and denying-in-part 471 ; granting-in-part and denying-in-part 473 ; granting-in-part and denying-in-part 475 ; granting-in-part and denying-in-part 478 ; denying 481 . (psglc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/11/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11

GSI TECHNOLOGY, INC.,

12

Plaintiff,
v.

13
14

UNITED MEMORIES, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

15
16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
OMNIBUS ORDER RE: DISCOVERY
DISPUTES
(Re: Docket Nos. 468, 469, 471, 473,
475, 478, 481)

After a lengthy hearing, before the court are seven remaining letter briefs on various
discovery disputes between the parties. In the interest of resolving these disputes in a timely

18
fashion, the court rules as follows:
19
Issue

Ruling

Reason/Explanation

20

Docket No.

21

468

GSI’s motion to compel
its Request For
Production No. 116:
Joint defense agreement
between UMI and ISSI

DENIED

GSI does not show substantial need
for the joint defense agreement.1

468

GSI’s motion for UMI to
complete and clarify
responses to Requests for

GRANTED

UMI must qualify what parts of the
RFAs are admitted. In particular,
UMI must specify page numbers and

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

See AMEC Civil, LLC v. DMJM Harris, Inc., Case No. 06-cv-064-FLW, 2008 WL 817059, at *4
(D.N.J. July 11, 2008) (“Generally, joint defense agreements are protected by work product
privilege, and are therefore not discoverable without showing substantial need.”) (citing R.F.M.A.S.
Inc. v. So, Case No. 06-cv-13114-VM, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14969, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)).
1
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
OMNIBUS ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTES

Admission Nos. 8-9, 2030

1

Bates ranges where possible, and at
least specify the rationale provided in
its opposition to GSI’s motion.

2
3

469

GSI’s request for
production of “complete”
UMI and ISSI privilege
logs

DENIED

GSI’s challenge is not reasonable;
mere speculation is not enough, and
post-litigation communications and
work-product are presumed
privileged.2

469

GSI’s request for
production of documents
withheld based on
improper privilege claims
by UMI and ISSI

DENIED

GSI does not show substantial need
for the joint defense agreement.3

469

GSI’s request for
production of the Kim
Hardee document by ISSI

GRANTED

UMI does not assert privilege over the
documents anywhere in its papers.

471

ISSI’s request for
DENIED
sufficient answers to its
Requests For Admission
Nos. 52-56 under 36(a)(4)
and 36(a)(6)

“A denial is a perfectly reasonable
response.”4

473

UMI’s request for GSI to
supplement its deficient
responses to all 124 of
UMI’s Requests for
Admission

GRANTEDIN-PART

GSI shall admit or deny each request
for admission. To the extent GSI
admits only in-part, GSI shall identify
what it admits to under Fed. R. Civ. P.
36(a)(4). UMI’s request that denials
based on objections should be deemed
admitted is DENIED.

475

UMI’s motion to compel
GSI to provide a prepared
30(b)(6) witness and Paul
Chiang for deposition

GRANTED

The March 20, 2015 order explicitly
extended the deadline for both UMI’s
30(b)(6) deposition and UMI’s
deposition of Chiang. As addressed at
the hearing, the deadline for these
depositions is July 24, 2015.

4
5
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

2

See Ryan Inv. Corp. v. Pedregal De Cabo San Lucas, Case No. 06-cv-3219, 2009 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 118337, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2009) ([C]ounsel’s communications with the client and
work product developed once the litigation commences are presumptively privileged and need not
be included on any privilege log. . . . Plaintiff’s motion to compel is therefore denied to the extent
it seeks to require a log of postlitigation counsel communications and work product.”).

26

3

27

4

28

See AMEC Civil, LLC, 2008 WL 817059, at *4.

K.C.R. v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, Case No. 13-cv-3806-SSX, 2014 WL 3433772, at *3 (C.D. Cal.
July 14, 2014).
2
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
OMNIBUS ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTES

1

478

GSI’s motion to compel
ISSI’s written discovery:
Interrogatory No. 25

DENIED

GSI does not show substantial need
for the joint defense agreement.5

478

GSI’s motion to compel
ISSI’s written discovery:
Requests for Admission

DENIED

“A denial is a perfectly reasonable
response.”6

478

GSI’s motion to compel
ISSI’s written discovery:
Interrogatory No. 13 and
Requests for Production
Nos. 68, 69

GRANTED

ISSI’s responses were deficient and
not reciprocal to its discovery requests
from GSI.

481

ISSI’s Rule 37 motion for
sanctions (UMI joined)

DENIED

Even though Defendants have shown
that GSI’s search efforts were
unreasonable, Defendants fail to show
any legitimate prejudice from the
untimely production of the disputed
documents. The court has made no
conclusive findings about the survival
of the non-compete—only a
preliminary determination.
Defendants can still rely upon the
documents in pursuing summary
judgment.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15

Except as stated otherwise above, the parties shall produce all discovery ordered by June

16

19, 2015.

17

SO ORDERED.

18

Dated: June 11, 2015

19
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
5

See AMEC Civil, LLC, 2008 WL 817059, at *4.

6

K.C.R, 2014 WL 3433772, at *3.

27
28

3
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
OMNIBUS ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTES