Optronic Technologies, Inc., v. Ningbo Sunny Electronic Co., Ltd. et al

Filing 110

ORDER re 97 Joint Discovery Statement re plaintiff's Request to Compel Production of Documents. Parties' proposal(s) due by 6/15/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi on 6/11/2018. (vkdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/11/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
8

OPTRONIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC,
Plaintiff,

9
v.

10
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No.16-cv-06370-EJD (VKD)

NINGBO SUNNY ELECTRONIC CO.,
LTD., et al.,

12

ORDER RE JOINT DISCOVERY
STATEMENT RE PLAINTIFF'S
REQUEST TO COMPEL PRODUCTION
OF DOCUMENTS

Defendants.

13
14

On June 11, 2018, the Court held a telephonic hearing on plaintiff’s request to compel

15

production of documents from defendants’ counsel (Dkt. No. 97). The parties advised the Court

16

that they expect the discovery schedule, and perhaps other deadlines in this case, will need to be

17

extended to accommodate certain developments that have occurred in discovery since the filing of

18

the Joint Statement. Further, based on the parties’ representations during the hearing, the Court

19

expects that defendants’ recent production of documents and its responses to plaintiff’s written

20

discovery requests may bear on the issue presented in the Joint Statement.

21

Accordingly, the Court orders as follows:

22

1.

The parties shall meet and confer regarding a proposal for an extension of the

23

discovery schedule and, if necessary, other deadlines in the case, and shall submit their

24

agreed proposal or, if there is no agreement, their respective proposals to the Court for

25

consideration by Judge Davila no later than Friday, June 15, 2018.

26

2. The parties’ proposal for extension of the schedule shall include a date for the

27

submission of a supplemental discovery letter brief that includes the following:

28

a. The specific document requests as to which plaintiff seeks to compel

1

defendants’ counsel to produce responsive documents. (The Court understands

2

that plaintiff has served a subpoena on defendants’ counsel that describes the

3

documents plaintiff seeks.)

4
5
6

b. Defendants’ and/or defendants’ counsel’s objections the specific document
requests at issue.
c. The parties’ respective positions regarding whether there are documents that
have been sought in discovery from defendants but have not been produced in

8

discovery, and whether those documents are in the possession of defendants’

9

counsel. The parties should also address whether the information plaintiff

10

seeks through document discovery has been provided or may be obtained

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

through other means of discovery from defendants, such as interrogatories,

12

requests for admissions, or deposition testimony.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 11, 2018

15
16
VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI
United States Magistrate Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2