Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. et al v. Intersil Corporation

Filing 11

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd granting in part and denying in part 1 , 3 Motion to Quash Subpoenas. Motion granted as to Lindsey Munro. Motion denied as moot as to Trip Slautterback. 5/1/2018 hearing vacated. (hrllc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/27/2018)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS, INC.,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

Case No.5:18-mc-80060-HRL

v.
INTERSIL CORPORATION,
Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTION TO
QUASH SUBPOENAS
Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 3

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

The present discovery dispute arises out of litigation filed by plaintiff Monolithic Power
Systems, Inc. (MPS) in the District of Delaware against Intersil Corporation (Intersil), an MPS
competitor in the semiconductor industry. This court is told that the lawsuit concerns Intersil’s
alleged theft of MPS’s claimed confidential technical information concerning a fix for a problem
in motherboards manufactured by MPS’s customer, Supermicro Computer, Inc. (Supermicro).
MPS claims that Intersil misused that information to defame MPS’s products to MPS’s customers.
Among other things, Intersil disputes that MPS took reasonable steps to maintain the
confidentiality of the claimed trade secrets that Intersil supposedly misappropriated.
Relevant to the present discovery dispute is what, if any, non-disclosure agreements
(NDAs) MPS had in place with Supermicro prior to the filing of the lawsuit. The parties disagree
whether Intersil should be permitted to depose one of MPS’s in-house attorneys, Ms. Lindsey

1

Munro.1 Munro was involved in the negotiation of what MPS calls a “renewal NDA” entered

2

between MPS and Supermicro shortly after this litigation was filed on December 6, 2016. She

3

also prepared two slide presentations on NDAs that MPS says were used by the company to train

4

employees on confidentiality issues.
Prior to the signing of the December 2016 NDA, MPS says that it had an “unwritten

5
6

confidentiality understanding” with Supermicro, as well as protections afforded by the terms and

7

conditions of MPS’s web portal, “MyMPS.” Intersil scoffs at the characterization of the

8

December 2016 NDA as a “renewal,” and questions what, if any, NDA arrangements actually

9

were in place prior to the entry of that agreement. Intersil also has its doubts about the MyMPS
web portal terms and conditions, which Intersil says, concern materials made available in

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

connection with the use of that particular website. Defendant also claims that Supermicro

12

employees who logged on to MyMPS to download data sheets had no authority to bind

13

Supermicro to a contract.
Intersil now wants to depose Munro about the content of her negotiations with Supermicro

14
15

concerning the December 2016 NDA. This discovery is crucial, says defendant, because Intersil

16

believes that the December 2016 NDA “renewed” nothing and that any suggestion about

17

“updated” NDAs merely was a notion MPS concocted after-the-fact to support its allegations. For

18

its part, MPS maintains that the December 2016 NDA is irrelevant because it was not operative

19

during case events. At any rate, MPS contends that Intersil has not shown that Munro’s deposition

20

is warranted. Additionally, MPS says that Intersil had the documents purportedly providing the

21

basis for Munro’s deposition for over a year. Thus, MPS argues that defendant’s efforts to depose

22

Munro (and to have her produce documents in connection with the deposition) come far too late in

23

the case. Here, MPS points out that under the case schedule, document discovery was to have

24
25
26
27
28

1

MPS also moved to quash a subpoena for the deposition of Trip Slautterback, an MPS sales
employee. However, having agreed to make Slautterback available for deposition, and having
further agreed to have the dispute over that deposition resolved in Delaware, MPS said that it
included Slautterback in the present motion simply as a precaution. This court is informed that
Slautterback has since been deposed. MPS’s motion to quash as to him therefore is denied as
moot.
2

1

been substantially completed by November 17, 2017, and fact discovery closed on March 30,

2

2018.

3

The matter is deemed suitable for determination without oral argument, and the May 1,

4

2018 hearing is vacated.2 Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Upon consideration of the moving and responding

5

papers, this court grants MPS’s motion to quash as to Munro.
Although there is no absolute prohibition against deposing an opposing party’s counsel,

7

such examinations “should be permitted only where the party seeking the deposition shows that

8

(1) no other means exist to obtain the information, (2) the information sought is relevant and

9

nonprivileged, and (3) the information is crucial to the preparation of the case.” Chao v. Aurora

10

Loan Servs., LLC, No. C10-3118 SBA (LB), 2012 WL 5988617, at *3 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 26, 2012)

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

6

(citing Shelton v. Am. Motors Corp., 805 F.2d 1323, 1327 (8th Cir. 1986)); Graff v. Hunt &

12

Henriques, No. C08-0908 JF (PVT), 2008 WL 2854517 at *1 (N.D. Cal., July 23, 2008) (same).

13

Intersil has not persuaded that the information it seeks meets the Shelton criteria.

14

Defendant wants to examine Munro about the “content of her negotiations with Supermicro to

15

determine what, if any, NDA arrangements were in place prior to the so-called ‘update.’” (Dkt. 6-

16

3 at ECF p. 7). Intersil says that Munro’s deposition is important because neither Rohan Samsi

17

(MPS’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) designee) nor Kevin Bauer (Supermicro’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6)

18

designee) were able to testify about Munro’s communications with Supermicro. Although

19

communications between Munro and Supermicro are not privileged, MPS says that those

20

communications occurred by email, all of which have been produced. (Dkt. 2-4). Intersil does

21

not, on this motion, challenge the completeness of that email production. True, one of the emails

22

indicates that Munro had a phone call with Supermicro. However, that email appears to simply

23

reflect agreement about certain proposed edits that had already been discussed by others: “Hi

24

Deanna, thank you for talking with me earlier. As we discussed, I made a few changes to the

25

Supermicro NDA consistent with the discussions between Joseph and Saria.” (Dkt. 2-4 at ECF p.

26
27
28

2

MPS does not consent to the transfer of this motion to Delaware for resolution, and Intersil has
not asked for a transfer order.
3

1

3). And, in response to an interrogatory asking about MPS’s communications with Supermicro,

2

MPS confirmed that “the only non-written correspondence about this negotiation consisted of

3

MPS proposing the edits reflected in MPS_INT0005144-46, and Supermicro agreeing to these

4

edits without further discussion; this correspondence and agreement was reflected in e-mail

5

correspondence afterward.” (Dkt. 8-10 at ECF p. 12).3
Intersil nonetheless argues that it should be permitted to depose Munro about the NDA

6
7

slide presentations that she prepared, stating that the presentations are “the only policies and

8

procedures governing the protection, use, and/or treatment of trade secrets that [MPS] has been

9

able to identify . . ..” (Dkt. 6-3 at ECF p. 10). Intersil maintains that a deposition about the
presentations is crucial because the slides contain mostly “bullet points” rather than “detailed

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

expositions of [MPS’s] policies.” (Dkt. 6-3 at ECF p. 10). However, MPS points out that it has,

12

in response to interrogatories, denied that the presentations are company “policies.” (Dkt. 8-8 at

13

ECF pp. 22-26). Moreover, MPS argues that although defendant certainly had the opportunity to

14

do so, Intersil never sought discovery about documents MPS produced and which MPS says are

15

the company’s “actual confidentiality policies”---including an employee handbook, an IT

16

department handbook, and a “Design and Development Data Security Procedure”---none of which

17

were authored by Munro. (See Dkts. 8-5, 8-6, 8-7). Intersil nevertheless contends that the slides

18

contain statements that reportedly contradict Mr. Samsi’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition

19

testimony as to whether any individual employee is authorized to bind the corporation to an NDA

20

agreement. However, Intersil has not convincingly demonstrated that a probing deposition of

21

Munro is warranted to expound upon claimed discrepancies that are apparent on the face of the

22

documents themselves.
In sum, Intersil has not convincingly demonstrated that Munro has any unique or personal

23
24

knowledge relevant to the issues that cannot be obtained from other sources. MPS’s motion to

25
26
27
3

28

Although one or both sides have asked to seal MPS’s emails and interrogatory responses, the
contents discussed in this order were disclosed by MPS in its public filings.
4

1

quash therefore is granted.

2

SO ORDERED.

3

Dated: April 27, 2018

4
5
HOWARD R. LLOYD
United States Magistrate Judge

6
7
8
9
10

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
5