QBEX Computadoras S.A., v. Intel Corporation

Filing 69

ORDER REGARDING 64 APRIL 4, 2018 JOINT DISCOVERY LETTER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen on 4/19/2018. (ofr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/19/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

QBEX COMPUTADORAS S.A.,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Case No.17-cv-03375-LHK (SVK)
ORDER REGARDING APRIL 4, 2018
JOINT DISCOVERY LETTER

v.
INTEL CORPORATION,

Re: Dkt. No. 64

Defendant.
Before the Court is a discovery dispute relating to responses to interrogatories. ECF 64.

13

In this matter, Plaintiff Qbex Computadores, S.A. (“Qbex”) alleges that Intel Corporation (“Intel”)

14

provided defective microprocessors that were incorporated into smartphones sold by Qbex in

15

Brazil. Intel served interrogatories and Qbex responded on December 19, 2017. Intel now moves

16

to compel further responses from Qbex to Interrogatory Nos. 2, 6, 8, and 9. The Court held a

17

hearing on April 19, 2018. Based upon the parties’ submissions and oral arguments, the Court

18

orders as follows.

19

Interrogatory No. 2: As discussed at the hearing, the Court agrees that Qbex’s responses

20

are mostly sufficient given the early stage of the case and discovery. However, Qbex is to

21

supplement its responses with facts to support its allegations that representations made by Intel

22

were false, including facts regarding 1) the team responsible for the production of the Intel

23

Smartphones; 2) questions raised by the team about the design of the SoFia microprocessors; and

24

3) the response of Intel executives to these issues. Qbex is also to supplement its response by

25

providing facts regarding the technical reports it alleges that Intel had which showed the defect of

26

the microprocessors. See ECF 64-1 at 19 (Qbex’s response to Interrogatory No. 2).

27
28

Interrogatory No. 6: Qbex is to provide additional facts in support of its allegation that
Intel breached a contract “by supplying defective units,” including describing what units where

1

supplied to whom, a time frame within which those units were provided, and how those units

2

reached Qbex. Additionally, Qbex is to provide additional facts in support of its allegation that

3

Intel failed “to provide the promised technical support,” by identifying Qbex requests to Intel for

4

technical support and/or Intel failures to provide technical support as well as a general time frame

5

within which this alleged breach occurred.

6
7
8
9

Interrogatory No. 8: The Court denies Intel’s motion to compel supplemental responses
to Interrogatory No. 8 at this time for reasons explained at the hearing.
Interrogatory No. 9: Qbex is to provide additional facts in support of its allegation that it
“undertook efforts to work with Intel,” describing Qbex’s specific efforts and providing a time
frame for such efforts. Qbex is also to describe its efforts to replace defective phones, as alleged

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

in the Amended Complaint. ECF 48 at ¶ 98.

12

For all of the foregoing supplementations, Qbex may supplement its responses with

13

reference to specific documents in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d). Qbex shall supplement

14

its responses to Interrogatory Nos. 2, 6, and 9 as described above by May 3, 2018.

15
16

SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 19, 2018

17
18
SUSAN VAN KEULEN
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2