Valeo Schalter und Sensoren GmbH v. NVIDIA Corporation

Filing 186

ORDER re 169 171 172 173 Discovery Disputes Filed December 26, 2024. Signed by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi on 1/9/2025. (vkdlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/9/2025)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
8

VALEO SCHALTER UND SENSOREN
GMBH,

9

Plaintiff,

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

v.

Case No. 23-cv-05721-EKL (VKD)
ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTES
FILED DECEMBER 26, 2024
Re: Dkt. Nos. 169, 171, 172, 173

NVIDIA CORPORATION,

12

Defendant.

13
14

On December 26, 2024, the parties filed four discovery dispute letters, all of which

15

concern complaints by plaintiff Valeo Schalter und Sensoren GmbH (“Valeo”) regarding

16

defendant NVIDIA Corporation’s (“NVIDIA”) responses to Valeo’s discovery requests. Dkt.

17

Nos. 169, 171, 172, 173. The Court held oral argument on these disputes on January 7, 2025.

18

Dkt. No. 180.

19

As NVIDIA observes, all four of the discovery dispute letters are untimely, in view of

20

Judge Lee’s standing order, which provides in relevant part: “The close of fact discovery is the

21

date by which all discovery must be completed, including motions to compel, hearings on

22

discovery motions, and any additional discovery resulting from orders on discovery motions.”

23

Standing Order for Civil Cases Before Judge Eumi K. Lee at 4. Because fact discovery closed on

24

December 18, 2024, these discovery dispute letters do not comply with the requirements of the

25

presiding judge’s standing order. However, as Valeo notes, the operative case management order

26

entered by Judge Pitts, to whom the case was earlier assigned, provides in relevant part: “Any

27

disputes with respect to discovery or disclosure are referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge.

28

Discovery motions must be filed no more than seven days after the applicable discovery cutoff.

1

See Civil L.R. 37-3.” Dkt. No. 39 at 2. If not for the provisions in Judge Lee’s standing order, the

2

filing of these discovery dispute letters would not be untimely. See Civil L.R. 37-3; Fed. R. Civ.

3

P. 6(a)(1)(C). Although the parties were aware that several discovery disputes remained as of the

4

close of discovery on December 18, 2024—including disputes that had been briefed and those that

5

had not—neither party raised any concerns about, or sought clarification regarding, the

6

discrepancies between the case management order and the standing order with respect to

7

submission of these remaining discovery disputes for resolution. See generally Dkt. No. 185

8

(transcript of December 18, 2024 case management conference); see also Dkt. No. 165 at 7

9

(section on “identified discovery disputes”).

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Moreover, even if the Court considers these disputes timely filed under Civil Local Rule

11

37-3, three of the four disputes do not comply with the undersigned magistrate judge’s

12

requirements for resolution of discovery disputes. Standing Order for Civil Cases Before

13

Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi at 3-4. Specifically, with respect to the letters filed at

14

Dkt. Nos. 171, 172, and 173, Valeo did not allow adequate time for the parties to confer in good

15

faith to resolve the disputes without the Court’s assistance, nor did Valeo allow adequate time for

16

preparation of the joint discovery dispute letters.

17

Nevertheless, the Court heard from both parties regarding the merits of all four discovery

18

disputes on January 7, 2025. Based on the discussion at the hearing, the Court believes that most

19

of the matters raised can be resolved expeditiously on the merits, as follows:
Dkt. No. 169 – NVIDIA’s production of responsive custodial ESI

20

1.

21

As discussed at the hearing, the large discrepancy between the number of documents hit by

22

search terms and the number of documents NVIDIA has determined are responsive to Valeo’s

23

document requests does not necessarily show that NVIDIA has withheld from production

24

documents that are responsive and that should have been produced. However, it is difficult for the

25

Court to assess the merits of Valeo’s complaints about NVIDIA’s production without additional

26

information about how the production compares to the documents collected by application of

27

search terms.

28

To assist the parties and the Court in finally resolving this dispute, the Court directs the
2

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

parties to conduct an “experiment” as follows: Valeo identifies a single custodian from among the

2

custodians listed on pages 2-3 of Dkt. No. 169; NVIDIA provides a list of the control numbers for

3

all documents for that custodian that were hit by a search term but were not produced; Valeo

4

selects 100 of those control numbers; NVIDIA screens the 100 not-produced documents

5

corresponding to the selected control numbers for privilege/protection only, and then shares the

6

remainder with Valeo; Valeo reviews the shared documents for responsiveness. If Valeo believes

7

any of the shared documents should have been produced as responsive to its document requests,

8

Valeo must so advise NVIDIA, and the parties must confer thereafter. If a dispute remains

9

regarding whether this experiment suggests a problem with NVIDIA’s review for responsiveness

10

that requires the Court’s attention, the parties shall file a further joint discovery dispute letter

11

regarding this matter. Otherwise, the parties shall file a status report informing the Court that no

12

further action regarding this matter is necessary.

13

The parties shall confer and jointly propose a schedule for promptly accomplishing the

14

tasks outlined above for purposes of this experiment, including a date for a further joint discovery

15

dispute letter, if necessary, or alternatively a status report. They shall file their proposed schedule

16

with the Court no later than January 14, 2025.
Dkt. No. 171 – Hyperlinked Perception Team documents and .bin files

17

2.

18

At the hearing, NVIDIA offered to identify by Bates numbers the Perception Team

19

documents that it recently produced; it shall do so. Valeo represents that there are approximately

20

10 documents that contain hyperlinks to Perception Team documents, and Valeo asks NVIDIA to

21

produce each such hyperlinked document. NVIDIA must produce the hyperlinked documents if

22

they can be identified.

23

NVIDIA must also produce the .bin files Valeo has identified in readable format.

24

The Court expects Valeo to reciprocate with respect to similar requests made by NVIDIA

25

for production of hyperlinked documents or unreadable files in readable format.
Dkt. No. 172 – Production of financial projections

26

3.

27

The Court previously ordered NVIDIA to produce revenue and costs projections, generated

28

on at least a quarterly basis in the ordinary course of NVIDIA’s business, for the portion of
3

1

NVIDIA’s business that includes the accused technology, for the relevant time period. Dkt. No.

2

141 at 3-4. At the hearing, NVIDIA represented that it has complied with this order to the extent

3

projections are available.
NVIDIA shall provide to Valeo the Bates numbers of the documents corresponding to

4

United States District Court
Northern District of California

5

these projections no later than January 13, 2025.
Dkt. No. 173 – Rule 30(b)(6) topics 26, 39, 134, 136, 170, 171, 178

6

4.

7

As discussed at the hearing, the excerpt of Sangmin Oh’s deposition testimony provided by

8

Valeo does not support Valeo’s contention that Mr. Oh was not prepared to testify regarding Topic

9

39. Valeo’s request for relief as to this topic is denied.

10

As to the remaining topics, the excerpt of Ali Kani’s deposition testimony provided by

11

Valeo reflects that Mr. Kani was not prepared to testify regarding Topic 26; however, it appears

12

the parties disagree regarding the topic or topics for which Mr. Kani was designated. Similarly,

13

the parties appear to disagree about the topics for which Ms. Sanville was designated.
After conferring, the parties shall jointly advise the Court regarding which topics are at

14
15

issue and whether a dispute remains regarding whether NVIDIA’s corporate representatives were

16

prepared to testify to those topics. The parties shall file a joint status report regarding this matter

17

by January 10, 2025, including a proposal for resolution of any remaining disputes.

18

***

19

This order requires the parties to engage in additional fact discovery efforts after the

20

December 18, 2024 fact discovery deadline, which is contrary to the requirements in Judge Lee’s

21

standing order regarding the time for completion of fact discovery. Accordingly, once the parties

22

have made the additional filings required in this order, and the Court has set deadlines for the

23

completion of these discovery efforts, the Court will require the parties to seek an extension of the

24

fact discovery deadline for the limited purpose of completing these specific discovery efforts, by

25

application to Judge Lee.

26

//

27

//

28

//
4

1
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 9, 2025

3
4
Virginia K. DeMarchi
United States Magistrate Judge

5
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