Keranos, LLC v. Silicon Storage Technology, Inc. et al

Filing 9

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd terminating 4 Silicon Storage Technology, Inc.'s Motion to Compel Without Prejudice. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/17/2013)

1
2

*E-FILED: May 17, 2013*

3
4
5
6
NOT FOR CITATION

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

7

No. C13-80108MISC LHK (HRL)

KERANOS, LLC,

12

Plaintiff,
v.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

SILICON STORAGE TECHNOLOGY, INC.;
SEIKO EPSON CORPORATION; EPSON
AMERICA, INC.; FREESCALE
SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.; MICROCHIP
TECHNOLOGY, INC.; SAMSUNG
SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.; SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.; TOSHIBA
CORPORATION; TOSHIBA AMERICA
ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS, INC.;
TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR
MANUFACTURING CO., LTD.; TSMC
NORTH AMERICA,

ORDER TERMINATING SILICON
STORAGE TECHNOLOGY, INC.’S
MOTION TO COMPEL WITHOUT
PREJUDICE

Defendants.
/

21
22

On May 16, 2013, Silicon Storage Technology, Inc. (SST) filed the instant ancillary

23

action, seeking an immediate in camera review to determine if some 470 pages of documents

24

gathered in response to a non-party subpoena are privileged. On the record presented, the court

25

declines to do so. To begin, this court has just received SST’s papers; and, it is unrealistic to

26

think that what SST would have this court do could feasibly be accomplished before the May

27

21, 2013 fact discovery cutoff. More to the point, there is no indication that anyone actually

28

claims that the documents are privileged. And, SST says that it is still working on an agreement

1

that would permit STMicroelectronics (whom SST says holds the privilege) to review the

2

documents and determine whether the privilege will even be asserted. Additionally, SST’s

3

papers raise the spectre of possible disputes over attorney-client privilege issues, and the court

4

declines to issue an order compelling production of the subject documents without the benefit of

5

hearing from all affected parties and non-parties, who currently are not before the court.

6

Accordingly, SST’s motion to compel will be terminated, without prejudice to renew the

documents. Be advised that this court does not entertain noticed discovery motions. Any such

9

future application must be brought to the court’s attention via a Discovery Dispute Joint Report

10

(DDJR) in compliance with the undersigned’s Standing Order re Civil Discovery Disputes. If a

11
For the Northern District of California

request if a claim of privilege is actually made and a dispute arises as to the production of the

8

United States District Court

7

DDJR is filed, this court will give it as prompt attention as is feasible. But, to the extent SST

12

has concerns about the May 21 fact discovery cutoff, those concerns will have to be addressed

13

to the court in the underlying action.

14
15

SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 17, 2013

16
HOWARD R. LLOYD
17

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

1

5:13-mc-80108-LHK Notice has been electronically mailed to:

2

James Carl Otteson [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail]

3
Michelle Gail Breit [e-mail], [e-mail]
4
William Robert Pearson [e-mail]
5
Jeffrey David Mills [e-mail]
6
Brian Christopher Banner [e-mail]
7
Andrew W. Spangler [e-mail]
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3