Industrial Technology Research Institute v. LG Electronics Inc. et al

Filing 103

ORDER Denying as Moot 66 Defendants' Motion for Issuance of a Letter of Request to LG Display Inc. in the Republic of Korea. Signed by Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo on 10/17/2014. (srm)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH INSITUTE, 12 13 14 v. Plaintiffs, LG ELECTRONICS INC. And LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A. INC, 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 13-CV-2016-GPC-WVG ORDER DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF A LETTER OF REQUEST TO LG DISPLAY INC. IN THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA [DOC. NO. 66] Pending before the Court is LG Electronics Inc.’s and LG Electronics U.S.A. Inc.’s (Defendants) Motion for Issuance of Letter Rogatory to LG Display Inc. (LG Display), a Korean company based in the Republic of Korea. (Doc. No. 66) Industrial Technology Research Institute (Plaintiff) opposes the use of a letter of request. (Doc. No. 80). This Court was prepared to grant Defendants’ Motion for Issuance of the Letter of Request, but LG Display’s motion to intervene (Doc. No. 47) was granted today so this Court hereby denies the Motion as moot.1/ 25 26 27 28 1/ This is in line with the Defendants intent as they expressed that they would withdraw their motion if LG Display’s motion to intervene was granted (Doc. No. 66-2 at 1). 1 13CV2016 1 This Court will, however, take this opportunity to address a misguided argument in 2 Plaintiff’s opposition. Plaintiff argues that Defendants have “control” over LG Display’s 3 documents under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. (Doc. No. 80 at 4). Plaintiff’s asserted 4 definition of “control” comes from a New York district court as “the legal right, authority 5 or practical ability to obtain documents upon demand” (Id. at 4 (emphasis added by the 6 Court), citing S.E.C. v. Credit Bancorp, Ltd., 194 F.R.D. 469, 471 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). 7 Plaintiff’s liberal definition of “control,” however, is NOT the definition in the Ninth Circuit. 8 Defendants correctly state the definition of “control” as being only the “legal right to obtain 9 documents upon request.” (Doc. No. 82 at 2, citing In re Citric Acid Litig., 191 F.3d 1090, 10 1107-08 (9th Cir. 1999)). The court in Citric explicitly rejected the “practical ability” test for 11 “control” and acknowledges all the other Circuits that do as well. Id. Plaintiffs failure to 12 even acknowledge binding precedent is troubling. However, this Court has no evidence that 13 the Plaintiff intentionally misled it, so this Court will give Plaintiff the benefit of the doubt 14 as perhaps a rushed oversight. However, Plaintiff’s counsel are strongly advised to 15 reacquaint themselves with the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically rule 3.3 16 Candor Toward the Tribunal: “[a] lawyer shall not knowingly . . fail to disclose to the 17 tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction . . . .” and the sanctions that can 18 accompany such a failure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c). 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 DATED: October 17, 2014 22 23 24 Hon. William V. Gallo 25 U.S. Magistrate Judge 26 27 28 2 13CV2016

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?