Apple Inc. v. Rivos, Inc. et al

Filing 174

ORDER ON DISPUTED DISCOVERY ISSUES. Re: ECF #164 . Signed by Judge Nathanael M. Cousins on 4/3/2023. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/3/2023)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

APPLE, INC.,
Plaintiff,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

v.

13

RIVOS, INC., and others,

14

Defendants.

Case No. 22-cv-02637 EJD (NC)
ORDER ON DISPUTED
DISCOVERY ISSUES
Re: ECF 164

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

At the discovery status hearing today the parties were able to resolve many issues
from ECF 164 after further conferring and collaboration. Specifically, the parties resolved
Apple Issues Nos. 2 and 3 and Rivos Issues Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8, as stated at the
hearing. The Court set additional deadlines: 4/10/23, for agreement to ESI protocol;
4/14/23 noon for filing of a joint discovery status update, limited to 10 pages total; 4/17/23
11:00 a.m. in person in courtroom 5 for a discovery status hearing; and 5/12/23 for
bilateral substantial completion of document production.
This Order resolves the four remaining disputed discovery issues that were raised at
the hearing from ECF 164: Apple Issues Nos. 1 and 4 and Rivos Issues Nos. 1 and 5.
• Apple Issue No. 1: Apple’s request to compel production of forensic images for
devices and storage locations where Apple confidential information was stored or
transmitted is DENIED. The Court finds that Apple’s requested relief is not needed

1

and not proportional to the needs of the case in consideration of Defendants’ offer

2

to provide to FTI forensic images of devices and storage accounts that were used to

3

store or transmit purported Apple confidential information. See ECF 168

4

(Defendants’ proposed order). Defendants are required to provide the forensic

5

images to FTI by April 13, 2023.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

6

• Apple Issue No. 4: Apple’s request to compel discovery concerning unnamed

7

former employees is DENIED. There are two parts to Apple’s request. First, Apple

8

demands images and documents from the devices of 13 former employees who are

9

not parties to this case. The employees have agreed to produce responsive

10

documents using Apple’s search terms. The Court finds that Apple’s request for

11

more is speculative, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the

12

case. Second, Apple asks Rivos to search for documents responsive to Apple’s

13

discovery requests for all of Apple’s former employees at Rivos. Apple says this

14

applies to “dozens” of employees. Apple’s request is DENIED as speculative,

15

unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case.

16

• Rivos Issue No. 1: Rivos’ request to compel deadlines for Apple’s discovery

17

responses is GRANTED IN PART. Apple must substantially complete its

18

document production on all previously served discovery by May 12, 2023.

19

Defendants must meet this same deadline. Additionally, by April 7, 2023, Apple

20

must provide Defendants with a list of custodians, non-custodial sources, and search

21

terms it plans to use. The parties must meet and confer on any disputes and include

22

any disputes in their April 14 discovery status report.

23

• Rivos Issue No. 5: Rivos’ request to compel dates for the depositions of Mr.

24

Santhanam and Ms. Cerny is GRANTED. Apple must offer dates for these

25

depositions by April 7 and substantially complete the production of each deponent’s

26

custodial documents at least one week before the deposition.

27

No fees or costs awarded at present.

28
2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 3, 2023

_____________________________________
NATHANAEL M. COUSINS
United States Magistrate Judge

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
3