Qualcomm Incorporated v. Apple Incorporated

Filing 309

ORDER on 260 Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute regarding Qualcomm's Responses and Objections to Apple's Third Set of Requests for Production (48-56) and Interrogatories (9-11). Apple's motion to compel, as presented in this Joint Motion, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The parties are instructed to meet and confer further and may bring a revised joint motion within 2 weeks of this Order. If a new joint motion is filed, the parties must clearly state their positions regarding each Interrogatory and RFP at issue. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 08/22/2018. (atk)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,

13

Plaintiff,

14

v.

15

APPLE, INC.,

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

Defendant.

Case No.: 17cv1375-DMS-MDD
ORDER ON JOINT MOTION FOR
DETERMINATION OF
DISCOVERY DISPUTE
REGARDING QUALCOMM’S
RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS
TO APPLE’S THIRD SET OF
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
(48-56) AND INTERROGATORIES
(9-11)
[ECF No. 260]

BACKGROUND
Before the Court is the Joint Motion of the parties for determination of
a discovery dispute filed on July 19, 2018. (ECF No. 260). The Joint Motion
presents Apple’s motion to compel further responses from Qualcomm to nine
Requests for Production (“RFP”) and three Interrogatories relating to
Qualcomm’s Gobi UNDP chips and devices.
1
17cv1375-DMS-MDD

1
2

LEGAL STANDARD
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorize parties to obtain

3

discovery of “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or

4

defense and proportional to the needs of the case . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P.

5

26(b)(1). “Information within the scope of discovery need not be admissible in

6

evidence to be discoverable.” Id. District courts have broad discretion to

7

limit discovery where the discovery sought is “unreasonably cumulative or

8

duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more

9

convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C).

10

An interrogatory may relate to any matter that may be inquired of

11

under Rule 26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2). The responding party must

12

answer each interrogatory by stating the appropriate objection(s) with

13

specificity or, to the extent the interrogatory is not objected to, by

14

“answer[ing] separately and fully in writing under oath.” Rule 33(b). The

15

responding party has the option in certain circumstances to answer an

16

interrogatory by specifying responsive records and making those records

17

available to the interrogating party. Rule 33(d).

18

A party may request the production of any document within the scope of

19

Rule 26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). “For each item or category, the response

20

must either state that inspection and related activities will be permitted as

21

requested or state an objection to the request, including the reasons.” Rule

22

34(b)(2)(B). If the responding party chooses to produce responsive

23

information, rather than allow for inspection, the production must be

24

completed no later than the time specified in the request or another

25

reasonable time specified in the response. Id. An objection must state

26

whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that

27

objection. Rule 34(b)(2)(C). An objection to part of a request must specify the
2
17cv1375-DMS-MDD

1

part and permit inspection or production of the rest. Id. The responding

2

party is responsible for all items in “the responding party’s possession,

3

custody, or control.” Rule 34(a)(1). Actual possession, custody or control is

4

not required. Rather, “[a] party may be ordered to produce a document in the

5

possession of a non-party entity if that party has a legal right to obtain the

6

document or has control over the entity who is in possession of the

7

document.” Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 620 (N.D. Cal. 1995).

8
9

DISCUSSION
In their briefs, the parties did not address independently each

10

Interrogatory and RFP at issue. The parties present this dispute as a single

11

problem: Whether Qualcomm’s responses are sufficient in describing and

12

producing documents regarding the implementation and sale of modems and

13

products using a “flashless boot protocol.” Qualcomm argues that it has and

14

is continuing to produce information consistent with its understanding of

15

Apple’s requests. Apple complains that Qualcomm’s responses and

16

production fail to identify the specific “Gobi 1000 and Gobi 2000” products

17

that implemented the relevant boot protocol. (ECF No. 260-1 at 5).

18

A consistent theme in the various disputes between these parties in this

19

case and in other cases between these parties assigned to this Court, is the

20

service of dramatically overbroad RFPs and Interrogatories which, when

21

finally narrowed through the meet and confer process, or during a discovery

22

hearing, end up bearing little resemblance to the original. Here, Apple now

23

appears to be asking a rather straightforward question and Qualcomm

24

asserts that it is answering that question. The Court cannot discern whether

25

there is a real dispute here or this is just another example of lawyers

26

behaving badly. It continues to boggle the mind that if a party wants a

27

specific question answered and certain documents produced, counsel bury
3
17cv1375-DMS-MDD

1

that in complex and overbroad requests. On the other hand, simple answers

2

often are preceded by boilerplate objections and promises to produce relevant,

3

non-privileged information. Oftentimes, like here, it is not apparent whether

4

the question, as now posed, has been answered and responsive documents

5

produced.

6

These parties need to sharpen their practice if they desire solid

7

direction and rulings from the Court. The Court is not convinced that the

8

parties effectively have communicated their needs and limitations to each

9

other. Nor have the parties provided to the Court clear arguments regarding

10

each disputed discovery request. It is not obvious, based upon a review of the

11

actual Interrogatories and RFPs that there really is just one question extant.

12

For example, Interrogatory 9 relates to devices sold or offered for sale in the

13

U. S. prior to March 10, 2010. This certainly seems to fit within the single

14

question that the parties claim is at the heart of this dispute. But,

15

Interrogatory 11 asks for the identities of three persons at Qualcomm most

16

knowledgeable about the boot procedure. It seems that Interrogatory 11 can

17

be answered regardless of the answer to Interrogatory 9, but the parties

18

lumped everything together. The parties need to return to the conference

19

table.
CONCLUSION

20

Apple’s motion to compel, as presented in this Joint Motion, is DENIED

21
22

WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The parties are instructed to meet and confer

23

//

24

//

25

//

26

//

27

//
4
17cv1375-DMS-MDD

1

again and may bring a new joint motion within 2 weeks of this Order. If a

2

new joint motion is filed, the parties must clearly state their positions

3

regarding each Interrogatory and RFP that remains in dispute.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 22, 2018

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
5
17cv1375-DMS-MDD