Corning Optical Communications Wireless Ltd. v. Solid, Inc. et al

Filing 299

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTES re 234 , [237-4], [238-4], 244 , [296-3] Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on August 26, 2015 (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/26/2015) Modified on 8/26/2015 (psglc2, COURT STAFF).

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
12

CORNING OPTICAL COMMUNICATIONS
WIRELESS LTD.,
Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
SOLID, INC. et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 5:14-cv-03750-PSG
OMNIBUS ORDER RE: DISCOVERY
DISPUTES
(Re: Docket Nos. 234, 237-4, 238-4, 244,
296-3)

Plaintiff Corning Optical Communications Wireless Ltd. and Defendants SOLiD, Inc. and
17
Reach Holdings LLC present a variety of disputes to the court. In the interest of efficiency, the
18
court will dispense with a lengthy recitation of the facts and legal standards and simply rule as
19
follows:
20

As to Corning’s motion regarding Defendants’ privilege claims, 1 the motion is DENIED.

21
The court is satisfied that the materials at issue sufficiently “touch base” with the United States and
22
are properly governed by and protected by U.S. privilege law. As to Corning’s assertion of waiver,
23
the court is satisfied that the receiving party shared a sufficient common interest to keep the
24
privilege intact.
25
26
27
1

28

See Docket No. 234.

1
Case No. 5:14-cv-03750-PSG
OMNIBUS ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTES

As to Corning’s motion to preclude regarding Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) topics, 2 the motion is

1
2

GRANTED-IN-PART. The court is persuaded that Defendants’ Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses were

3

adequately—if not perfectly—prepared to testify about the designated topics, with one exception:

4

Topic 10. Corning is entitled to take an additional three hours of Rule 30(b)(6) deposition

5

testimony on this topic alone. As to the remaining topics, to the extent any witness was unable to

6

answer certain questions during deposition, those witnesses will be precluded from offering any

7

such testimony at trial pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37.
As to Corning’s motion to compel production of certain documents, 3 the motion is

9

GRANTED-IN-PART. Defendants shall produce all documents responsive to Request for

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

Production No. 31. As to Request for Production Nos. 5 and 58, the court is satisfied that

11

Defendants have already produced all documents responsive to those requests. No further

12

production is necessary. As to Request for Production Nos. 16 and 17, pursuant to Corning’s

13

representation in its reply brief that Defendants have fully responded to these requests, 4 the motion

14

is DENIED AS MOOT.
As to Defendants’ motion for leave to amend invalidity contentions, 5 the motion is

15
16

GRANTED. The court is satisfied that Defendants were sufficiently diligent in seeking such an

17

amendment. The court also cannot identify any real prejudice to Corning that might flow from

18

amended invalidity contentions. To the extent Corning would like to further depose Defendants’

19

expert based on the amended contentions, Corning may have an additional three hours to do so.
As to Defendants’ motion for leave to file the supplemental declaration of Barry Bruce, 6 the

20
21

motion is GRANTED.

22

All discovery ordered herein must be completed no later than September 9, 2015.

23
2

See Docket No. 237-4.

3

See Docket No. 238-4.

4

See Docket No. 253-3 at 3.

5

See Docket No. 244.

6

See Docket No. 296-3.

24
25
26
27
28

2
Case No. 5:14-cv-03750-PSG
OMNIBUS ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTES