Regents of the University of Minnesota v. LSI Corporation et al

Filing 292

ORDER Denying 287 Motion Relief from Magistrate Judge Order. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 11/21/2023. (ejdlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/21/2023)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7

SAN JOSE DIVISION

8
9

REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
MINNESOTA,

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 5:18-cv-00821-EJD
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE
PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE
JUDGE

LSI CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.

Re: Dkt. No. 287

On October 30, 2023, Magistrate Judge Cousins (“Magistrate Judge”) issued an Order

15

(“Prior Order”) denying Plaintiff Regents of the University of Minnesota (“UMN”)’s requests to

16

compel production of discovery from Defendant LSI Corporation (“LSI”). Order on Discovery

17

Dispute (“Prior Order”), ECF No. 279. UMN now moves this Court to set aside the Magistrate

18

Judge’s Prior Order and grant its requests to compel. Pl.’s Mot. for Relief from Mag. Judge Order

19

(“Mot. for Relief”), ECF No. 287.

20

A district court may reconsider any pretrial matter referred to a magistrate judge when “the

21

magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). After

22

carefully reviewing the Magistrate Judge’s Prior Order and UMN’s objections thereto, the Court

23
24
25
26
27
28

finds that it is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.
First, the Magistrate Judge did not commit clear error in determining that UMN’s request
for deposition transcripts and exhibits and other documents produced by LSI in a companion case,
amounting to almost 50,000 documents and totaling nearly a million pages, was not relevant and
proportional to the needs of the case. Prior Order 1; Joint Discovery Dispute Letter, ECF No. 267.
Case No.: 5:18-cv-00821-EJD
ORDER DEN. MOT. FOR RELIEF FROM MAGISTRATE JUDGE ORDER
1

1

UMN argues that the Magistrate Judge applied the wrong legal standard. Because the Magistrate

2

Judge noted in the Prior Order that production may be easy, but “easy does not make it necessary,”

3

UMN argues that the Magistrate Judge erroneously applied a standard of “necessity” rather than

4

“relevance.” Mot. for Relief 4; Prior Order 1. However, UMN wholly ignores the sentence

5

immediately prior, where the Magistrate Judge states: “The Court is not persuaded that the

6

information sought is relevant and proportional to the needs of the case under Rule 26.” Prior

7

Order 1. A plain reading of the Prior Order makes clear that the Magistrate Judge correctly

8

applied the Rule 26 relevancy standard.
Second, the Magistrate Judge did not commit a clear error in determining that UMN’s

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9
10

request for LSI’s license agreements and testimony from Warren Waskiewicz was not relevant and

11

proportional to the needs of the case. Prior Order 2. UMN again argues that the Magistrate Judge

12

applied the wrong legal standard. Because the Magistrate Judge indicated in his Prior Order that

13

the licenses were “not probative of Georgia-Pacific factors,” UMN argues that the Magistrate

14

Judge incorrectly analyzed whether the material sought is admissible rather than whether it is

15

discoverable. Mot. for Relief 4; Prior Order 2. However, just like it did above, UMN wholly

16

ignores the sentence directly prior, where the Magistrate Judge states: “The Court agrees with LSI

17

that the “‘offensive licensing’ information sought from Waskiewicz is not relevant and

18

proportional to the needs of the case under Rule 26.” Prior Order 2. Again here, a plain reading

19

of the Prior Order makes clear that the Magistrate Judge correctly applied the Rule 26 relevancy

20

standard. Further, the Magistrate Judge’s discussion of the Georgia-Pacific factors is clearly in

21

response to UMN’s own arguments it presented in its discovery letter. See Joint Discovery Letter

22

3.

23

Third, the Magistrate Judge did not commit a clear error in determining that Rule 30(b)(6)

24

testimony as to proposed topic No. 7 was not relevant. Prior Order 2. The Magistrate Judge

25

properly applied the correct legal standard to find that the information sought is irrelevant to the

26

issues of willful infringement and knowledge of the ’601 patent. Id.

27
28

Fourth, the Magistrate Judge did not commit a clear error in determining that UMN failed
Case No.: 5:18-cv-00821-EJD
ORDER DEN. MOT. FOR RELIEF FROM MAGISTRATE JUDGE ORDER
2

1

to meet its showing for additional custodian discovery for emails from LSI 30(b)(6) designee

2

witness Ryan Phillips. Id. The Magistrate Judge properly applied the correct legal standard to

3

find that UMN failed to show “a distinct need based on the size, complexity, and issues of this

4

specific case.” Id.

5

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES UMN’s motion for relief.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

Dated: November 21, 2023

8
9
10

EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case No.: 5:18-cv-00821-EJD
ORDER DEN. MOT. FOR RELIEF FROM MAGISTRATE JUDGE ORDER
3