Greenthread, LLC v. OmniVision Technologies, Inc.
Filing
112
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re 85 OPPOSED MOTION to Compel Compliance with P.R. 3-1 and Strike Uncharted Products filed by OmniVision Technologies, Inc., 94 OPPOSED MOTION to Compel Defendant OmniVision Technologies Inc. to Remove Improper Confidential Designations filed by Greenthread, LLC. (Motion(s) 85 , 94 terminated). Signed by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap on 4/30/2024. (NKL)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
GREENTHREAD, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Defendant.
v.
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INC.,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-CV-00212-JRG
(LEAD CASE)
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-CV-00157-JRG
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court are two related discovery motions in Lead Case No. 2:23-cv-212. First is
Defendant OmniVision Technologies Inc.’s (“OmniVision”) Motion to Compel Greenthread’s
Compliance with P.R. 3-1 and Strike Uncharted Products (the “Motion to Strike”). (Dkt. No. 85.)
Having considered the Motion to Strike and the subsequent briefing, the Court finds that the
Motion to Strike should be DENIED.
Second is Plaintiff Greenthread, LLC’s (“Greenthread”) Motion to Compel OmniVision to
Remove Improper Confidential Designations (the “Motion to Compel”). (Dkt. No. 94.) Having
considered the Motion to Compel and the subsequent briefing, the Court finds that the Motion to
Compel should be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
I.
BACKGROUND
The Asserted Claims in this case relate to the concentration and location of chemicals
called “dopants” in semiconductor devices. For example, Claim 1 of the ’842 patent states:
A semiconductor device, comprising:
a substrate of a first doping type at a first doping level having first and second
surfaces; a first active region disposed adjacent the first surface of the substrate
with a second doping type opposite in conductivity to the first doping type and
within which transistors can be formed;
a second active region separate from the first active region disposed adjacent to the
first active region and within which transistors can be formed;
transistors formed in at least one of the first active region or second active region;
and at least a portion of at least one of the first and second active regions having at
least one graded dopant concentration to aid carrier movement from the first surface
to the second surface of the substrate.
(Dkt. No. 1-3 at 4:45-60.) The dopant concentration in a semiconductor product is not information
that is ordinarily available to the public, but such can be determined through expensive reverse
engineering.
A.
Greenthread’s Infringement Contentions
Greenthread served its P.R. 3-1 infringement contentions on OmniVision on July 6, 2023.
Greenthread identified over 200 Accused Products by their model numbers based on publicly
available information from OmniVision’s website. The contentions include an infringement chart
for a single exemplary product, the OmniVision OV24A1Q image sensor (the “OV24A1Q”), and
Greenthread contends that the Accused Products are any product by OmniVision that “comprise[s]
or consist[s] of the same or similar structures, features, or functionalities as the exemplary
[product].” (Dkt. No. 85-2 at 3-4.) Greenthread’s claim chart primarily relies on a report detailing
the reverse engineering of OmniVision’s OV24A1Q product (the “Tech Insights Report”). (Id.);
(Dkt. No. 37 at 4.)
OmniVision previously moved to dismiss this case under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that
Greenthread’s claim chart attached to the Complaint did not sufficiently notify OmniVision of its
infringement theories, and that the chart definitively proved that some accused features were not
2
present in the Accused Products. (See Dkt. No. 34.) The Court denied that motion. (Dkt. No. 90.)
The claim chart at issue in the Motion to Strike is similar to the one attached to the Complaint.
Both primarily rely on the reverse engineering of the OV24A1Q as presented in the Tech Insights
Report and follow the same claim-by-claim analysis. However, the claim chart attached to the
infringement contentions also includes extensive annotations and analysis not found in the chart
attached to the Complaint which further identifies the accused features and clarifies how such
features infringe the Asserted Claims.
B.
The Parties’ Discovery Efforts
The parties began negotiating the review of “Highly Sensitive Process Information”
(“Process Information”) at least as of October 4, 2023. (Dkt. No. 93-3.) “Process Information” is
any material that includes highly sensitive and proprietary process flows, recipes, or chip-level
schematics. (Id. at 7.) Specifically, Greenthread sought production of “the doping profiles of the
products identified in the infringement contentions” for the purposes of creating updated
infringement contentions. (Id. at 23.) Greenthread inquired multiple times as to the time and
location that Process Information would be made available for review. (Id.) OmniVision refused
to provide a concrete answer, insisting that it was unable to make such disclosures without first
receiving more detailed infringement contentions detailing Greenthread’s infringement theories.
(See id at 27-28.) OmniVision also represented that “[a]s a general rule, OmniVision does not have
access to doping profiles” as that was “confidential information of the foundry.”
OmniVision’s P.R. 3-4(a) disclosures were due October 16, 2023. However, OmniVision
did not provide the address at which Process Information could be viewed until October 30—two
weeks after the deadline and nearly a month after OmniVision had first reached out attempting to
schedule review of such information. (Id. at 11.) OmniVision explained that the delay was due to
the lack of clarity regarding Greenthread’s infringement contentions. (Id. at 15.)
3
According to Greenthread, upon reviewing the Process Information, Greenthread
discovered the documents contained “lots of information about the doping in its products.” (Dkt.
No. 94 at 3) (emphasis in original). Further, according to Greenthread, none of the documents it
reviewed appeared to meet the definition of “Process Information.” (Id.)
After review was completed, Greenthread requested printouts of 123 of the 5,000
documents that had been made available for review. OmniVision responded that it “objects to the
production of all of these files in their entirety.” (Dkt. No. 93-3 at 9.) When asked for the basis of
the objection, OmniVision explained that 123 files was “much more than we expected,” and it
stated that Greenthread was “not complying with the terms of the protective order.” (Id. at 7.)
Specifically, OmniVision argued that Greenthread was seeking to “print out Process Material as
an alternative to reviewing Process Material electronically on the stand-alone computer.” (Id.)
OmniVision also objected to the relevance of the documents, again pointing to its lack of
understanding of Greenthread’s infringement theory from Greenthread’s infringement
contentions. (Id.) Finally, OmniVision objected that the request was not “reasonable” as some
documents were “clearly seeking more than 20% of the process flow.” (Id. at 3.)
On November 16, 2023, the parties met and conferred to resolve this dispute. (Dkt. No. 854 at 2.) Following the meet and confer, OmniVision agreed to produce 44 of the 123 documents
under the Attorney’s Eyes Only (“AEO”) designation, but it maintained its objections to printing
the other 79 documents. (Id. at 4.) OmniVision memorialized the meet and confer in a letter dated
November 17, 2023. Greenthread never responded to the letter.
Greenthread also communicated its intent to have its expert reviewing documents starting
“on Friday, December 15, 2023 . . . and continuing daily over the following week.” (Dkt. No. 94
at 4.) However, according to Greenthread, a “miscommunication” prevented its expert from
4
starting Friday, December 15, 2023. When the expert arrived at OmniVision’s facility the
following Monday, he was turned away because OmniVision did “not have the staff available to
supervise the inspection.” (Id.)
C.
The Court’s Protective Order
Paragraph 16 of the Protective Order governs the disclosure of Process Information. (Dkt.
No. 52 at 7-8.) The protections afforded to Process Information are analogous to the “source code”
protections in the Court’s model order. (Id. at 7-8.) Specifically, Process Information must be
initially reviewed by the receiving party in person on a stand-alone computer but can be printed.
(Id.) Further, like the Court’s model order, there is no set limit to the number printouts that a party
may request, so long as the requested number of printouts is “reasonable.” (See id at 10-11.) The
parties also agreed to an extra limitation concerning the printing of Process Information that is not
found in the Court’s model order. A request for printouts that include more than “20% of the
process flow steps for each process” triggers a requirement for the parties to meet and confer over
whether such a request is “reasonable.” (Id. at 11.) If the parties cannot resolve the dispute, then
either Party may seek an order from the Court. (Id.)
Paragraph 24 of the Protective Order provides that a party may seek to have the designation
of confidential materials withdrawn or modified. Specifically, it states that a “Party may request
in writing to the other Party that the Designation given to any specifically identified
DESIGNATED MATERIAL be modified or withdrawn. If the designating Party does not agree to
redesignation within ten (10) days of receipt of the written request, the requesting Party may apply
to the Court for relief . . . . Upon any such application to the Court, the burden shall be on the
designating Party to show why its classification is proper.” (Id. at 17.)
5
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
“Local Patent Rule 3-1 requires a party claiming infringement to identify each accused
product in its infringement contentions.” Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. FedEx Corp., No. 2:16cv-00980, 2017 WL 4812436, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 25, 2017) (quoting Tivo Inc. v. Samsung Elecs.
Co., No. 2:15-CV-1503, 2016 WL 5172008, at *1 (E.D. Tex. 2016)). “The purpose of P.R. 3-1
infringement contentions is to provide reasonable notice to an accused infringer of the accused
products.” Revolaze LLC v. J.C. Penney Corp. Inc., No. 2:19-cv-00043, 2020 WL 2220158, at *3
(E.D. Tex. May 6, 2020). “This notice allows the accused infringer to conduct its own discovery
and prepare its defense.” Id.
P.R. 3-6(b) allows a party to supplement its infringement contentions “by order of the
Court, which shall be entered only upon a showing of good cause.” P.R. 3-6(b). The Court
considers four factors when determining good cause: “(1) the explanation for the failure to meet
the deadline; (2) the importance of the thing that would be excluded if the proposed amendment is
not allowed; (3) potential prejudice in allowing the thing that would be excluded; and (4) the
availability of a continuance to cure such prejudice.” Intellectual Ventures II, 2017 WL 4812436,
at *2 (citing Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Sys., No. 2:16-CV-230, 2017 WL 2531591, at
*1 (E.D. Tex. April 27, 2017)).
III.
DISCUSSION
A.
OmniVision’s Motion to Strike Greenthread’s Infringement Contentions
(Dkt. No. 85)
OmniVision moves to strike Greenthread’s infringement contentions on two grounds. First,
OmniVision argues that Greenthread has not put OmniVision on notice of its infringement theories
because it has not sufficiently identified what structures infringe the Asserted Claim elements.
6
Second, OmniVision argues that Greenthread fails to sufficiently explain how the OV24A1Q is
representative of all Accused Products. The Court addresses each argument in turn.
1. Greenthread’s Identification of the Accused Structures
OmniVision argues that Greenthread’s chart of the OV24A1Q fails to identify relevant
features of the Asserted Claims and thus fails to adequately notify OmniVision of Greenthread’s
infringement theories. (Dkt. No. 85 at 6.) Specifically, OmniVision contends that Greenthread fails
to identify what structures in the OV24A1Q infringe the following claim elements:
•
a “substrate of a first doping type at a first doping level having first and
second surfaces”;
•
the “first active region”;
•
the “second active region”;
•
“transistors formed in the at least one of the first active region or second
active region”;
•
a “graded dopant concentration to aid carrier movement from the first
surface to the second surface of the substrate” in the first or second active
regions.”
For example, OmniVision contends that there are two available doping types: P-type or
N-type. In one picture of its chart, Greenthread identifies with arrows an N-doped photodiode
region as the “substrate” but appears to point to P-type areas as the “first surface” and “second
surface,” despite the claim requiring a “substrate of a first doping type.” (Dkt. No. 85 at 8.)
OmniVision argues that it is unclear what structure Greenthread accuses of being the “substrate”
and whether the “first doping type” is “P” or “N.” (Id.)
Greenthread argues in response that “[OmniVision] appears to believe either that (1) the
substrate of the entire device must be entirely P or entirely N and/or (2) that the ‘first doping type’
refers to uniform silicon before structures like transistors are built in it, i.e., before the chip was
made, sold, and reverse engineered. Both are claim constructions introducing new limitations.”
7
(Dkt. No. 93 at 9.) Nonetheless, when OmniVision sought clarification as to Greenthread’s
contentions, Greenthread answered, “[b]ased on what we take to be your claim construction, the
‘substrate,’ as we believe you understand it, is P.” (Dkt. No. 93-3 at 20.) Greenthread contends
that OmniVision’s arguments are best left for claim construction, at which point, Greenthread can
also amend its infringement contentions, if necessary, under P.R. 3-6. (Id. at 10.)
In another example, OmniVision argues that because the “first active region” limitations
are defined with respect to the “substrate” limitations, Greenthread’s inability to identify the
“substrate” or its “first doping type” prevents discernment of what is “disposed adjacent” to the
“first surface” or if there is a “second doping type opposite in conductivity.” For example, in the
contentions Greenthread asserts that “the active region is a doped silicon region at the surface of
the device (e.g. the source and drain and silicon between them),” but Greenthread’s accompanying
visuals show three structures—a source, drain and channel—as constituting an “active region.”
(Dkt. No. 85 at 9.)
Greenthread responds that OmniVision correctly identifies that an “active region”
comprises “the source and drain [of a transistor] and silicon between them,” and that by identifying
specific transistors, Greenthread necessarily identifies the source, drain, and active region. (Dkt.
No. 93 at 10.) Further, Greenthread argues that its extensive annotations spell out in large red
letters exactly what features comprise the source, drain, and active regions.
The Court agrees with Greenthread. As a preliminary matter, this Court denied
OmniVision’s Motion to Dismiss, which raised similar arguments. Specifically, OmniVision
moved to dismiss the Complaint on the grounds that Greenthread’s claim charts conclusively
proved that certain claim elements were absent from the Accused Products. (Dkt. No. 34.) The
Court disagreed and found that it “cannot determine whether a ‘substrate’ or ‘second active region’
are absent from OmniVision’s products without first defining the terms ‘substrate’ and ‘second active
8
region.’” (Dkt. No. 90 at 5.) Accordingly, the Court concluded that OmniVision’s arguments were best
left for claim construction. (Id.)
The infringement contentions at issue include the same evidence from the claim charts in the
Complaint and add even more detailed annotations and analysis of the structures of the OV24A1Q.
Having reviewed Greenthread’s infringement contentions, the Court finds that Greenthread
identifies the accused features in the OV24A1Q with sufficient specificity to comply with P.R. 3-1.
For example, Greenthread contends that a substrate is an “underlying layer,” and it
identifies what it considers to be the “substrate,” “first surface,” and “second surface” in the
OV24A1Q with annotations of multiple pictures:
(See e.g., Dkt. No. 85-2.)
9
(Id.)
Greenthread also states that the “active region” is “a doped silicon region at the surface of
a semiconductor device (e.g., the source and drain and silicon between them) where a transistor
can be formed.” (Id.) The accompanying visuals identify what Greenthread considers to be the
active region:
(Id.)
Greenthread also identifies what it considers to be the source and the drain:
10
(Id.)
OmniVision accuses Greenthread of “draw[ing] a box around a text label” to identify the
accused features. (Dkt. No. 85 at 10.) However, the box around the text label is simply meant to
clarify that “S/D” on the product teardown image means “Source/Drain.” It is apparent that
Greenthread is not contending that a text label is the Source/Drain, but rather that the feature
identified by the text label is the Source/Drain. Such is consistent with its diagrams from prior
claim constructions in previous cases:
(Id.)
11
The Court also finds that Greenthread’s contentions adequately disclose its theories for
how dopant grading aids carrier movement. Greenthread’s contentions explain, the “scanning
capacitance/microwave impedance microscopy (SCM/sMIM)” used to create the images in
Greenthread’s charts
electrically characterizes the tested device and generates maps which provide
graphical representation of the dopant types and concentrations by measuring
carrier movement as they are attracted to or repulsed by the probe. The SCM/sMIM
maps taken from OmniVision Accused Products shown herein demonstrate
differences in carrier concentration as a function of depth, which generate electric
fields within the accused products.
(Dkt. No. 85-2 at 36.)
The Court finds that the infringement contentions include sufficient detail to put
OmniVision on notice of Greenthread’s infringement theories. Accordingly, the Court finds no
compelling reason to strike the infringement contentions on these grounds.
2.
Greenthread’s Representativeness Allegations
OmniVision also argues that Greenthread’s infringement contentions should be stricken
with respect to all products but the charted OV24A1Q because Greenthread accuses hundreds of
products despite only providing a chart for the OV24A1Q. (Dkt. No. 85 at 11.) OmniVision argues
that, to the extent that Greenthread were to believe that additional charts would be materially
identical to the OV24A1Q chart, Greenthread must provide such an explanation. However,
OmniVision contends that the products are not materially identical. For example, OmniVision
points out that Greenthread points to the pixel array portion of CIS die in the OV24A1Q for
infringement, but some of the accused products do not have a pixel array. (Id.) Further,
OmniVision contends that Greenthread conceded that there is no unified infringement theory
earlier in the case when it argued, “even if the CIS die transistors don’t infringe, the ISP transistors
clearly do.” (See id.; Dkt. No. 37 at 15.) OmniVision argues that Greenthread has not charted the
12
ISP transistors in the OV24A1Q or any other product that Greenthread contends would
alternatively infringe.
Greenthread argues that whether its theories may ultimately be vindicated is an entirely
separate matter from whether P.R. 3-1 has been satisfied. (Dkt. No. 93 at 13.) Greenthread argues
that it is willing to provide additional charts for additional products, but it contends that such
requires discovery that OmniVision refuses to provide. (Id.) Greenthread notes that its contentions
define “OmniVision Accused Products” and identify more than 200 specific OmniVision products
by model number based on publicly available information, and it is not relying on “same or similar
functionality” language to “sweep in unidentified products that could have been identified with
sufficient specificity.” (Id.) (emphasis in original).
Greenthread argues that public information does not disclose which of OmniVision’s
products include the features accused of infringement, forcing Greenthread to undertake expensive
reverse engineering of the OV24A1Q. Greenthread argues that it “remains willing” and even
“wants” to create more infringement charts, but it argues that OmniVision has obstructed its ability
to access the important confidential documents that are necessary for Greenthread to create
updated infringement contentions. (Id. at 5) (emphasis in original).
The Court agrees with Greenthread. The Court has already decided a similar motion
pertaining to Member Case No. 2:23-cv-00157. (See Dkt. No. 109.) The reasoning from the Court’s
prior decision applies here.
Greenthread cannot chart the “specific arrangements and properties” of every
Accused Product when such information is not publicly available. Further,
Greenthread is not required to provide infringement charts for every Accused
Product. It is sufficient at this stage that Greenthread has charted a representative
product and articulated its theory of how this product is representative of the other
Accused Products.
(Id. at 7.)
13
Greenthread has accused specific product models and has articulated its representativeness
contentions for the OV24A1Q product. OmniVision may disagree that this product actually
infringes or is actually representative of all Accused Products in this case, that this is precisely the
type of information that discovery is designed to reveal. The Court does not find that Greenthread’s
infringement contentions should be stricken on these grounds.
B.
Greenthread’s Motion to Compel OmniVision to Remove Improper
Confidential Designations (Dkt. No. 94)
Greenthread argues that OmniVision has obstructed its ability to obtain discovery
necessary for Greenthread to update its infringement contentions. Specifically, Greenthread argues
that OmniVision has obstructed its ability to review critical Process Information through dilatory
scheduling tactics, improper confidentiality designations, and a blanket refusal to comply with
Greenthread’s requests for printouts of the Process Information. Accordingly, Greenthread moves
to compel OmniVision to:
(1) remove its improper mass designations of Process Information and make a
particularized showing for any documents it actually believes are Process
Information;
(2) promptly provide Greenthread with hard copies of properly designated Process
Information Greenthread requests; and
(3) make any properly designated Process Information available for electronic
review at locations convenient to Greenthread’s counsel and its expert.
(Dkt. No. 94 at 5.)
OmniVision contends that Greenthread has failed to comply with Local Rule CV-7(h).
Greenthread certifies in its Motion to Compel that it met and conferred with opposing counsel on
November 16, 2023. However, according to OmniVision, the parties did not discuss whether
OmniVision’s designations should be modified or withdrawn or discuss modifying the terms of
the Protective Order at the November 16, 2023 meet and confer. (Dkt. No. 100 at 2.) OmniVision
14
contends that the only topic related to this motion that was discussed was “which documents are
you going to print, which documents are you not going to print and why,” which OmniVision
memorialized in a letter to Greenthread the following day, November 17, 2023. (Id.) Greenthread
never responded to OmniVision’s letter and was silent until December 19, 2023 when it filed its
Motion to Compel and its response to OmniVision’s Motion to Strike.
The Court agrees that Greenthread has not complied with L.R. CV-7(h) and L.R. CV-7(i).
The certificate of conference does not include a statement “that the personal conference or
conferences required by this rule have been conducted or were attempted, the date and manner of
such conference(s) or attempts, the names of the participants in the conference(s), an explanation
of why no agreement could be reached, and a statement that discussions have conclusively ended
in an impasse, leaving an open issue for the court to resolve.” L.R. CV-7(i). Further, it does not
appear that the parties engaged in a meet and confer sufficient to comply with L.R. CV-7(h). This
is a sufficient reason to deny the motion.
Further, both parties have failed to follow the Court’s instructions in the Discovery Order.
Greenthread moves to compel OmniVision to modify or withdraw certain confidentiality
designations. Per Paragraph 24 of the Protective Order, Greenthread is required to first request, in
writing, that OmniVision withdraw or modify the designations and then allow ten (10) days for
the parties to come to an agreement before filing any such motion. Greenthread did not do so.
In fact, Greenthread acknowledges that it did not comply with the instructions of Paragraph
24 in a footnote of its Motion to Compel. (See Dkt. No. 94 at 2 n.1.) Greenthread contends that the
basis for its motion is the fact that the Protective Order prohibits “blanket protections,” and it states
that the Protective Order “provides a separate process” for challenging the designation of “any
specifically identified” material. (Id.) Greenthread implies that it need not comply with Paragraph
15
24’s requirements because it seeks to have the confidentiality designations modified or withdrawn
under a “separate process.” According to Greenthread, it cannot comply with Paragraph 24 because
of OmniVision’s mass designation and refusal to print documents, which prevents Greenthread
from making specific identifications.”
What Greenthread seeks is a modification or withdrawal of confidentiality designations,
which is governed by Paragraph 24 of the Protective Order. Greenthread cannot circumvent the
requirements of Paragraph 24 by arguing that it is challenging “blanket” designations instead of
“specific” designations. Identifying specific designated materials is not a “separate process” for
relief. It is a requirement for a party to move to have designations withdrawn or modified.
Greenthread’s argument that it is unable to identify specific materials for de-designation is
unavailing. Greenthread merely needs to identify which materials it seeks to have the designations
withdrawn or modified. Here, that would be the 79 documents designated by OmniVision as
Process Information. Greenthread identifies these documents for the Court in its motion. There is
no reason why it could not have similarly identified such documents for OmniVision in a written
request as the Protective Order instructs.
Conversely, in the same brief that OmniVision accuses Greenthread of failing to comply
with the instructions in Paragraph 24, OmniVision itself fails to comply with the instructions
concerning the same paragraph. The Protective Order states that any motion seeking relief under
Paragraph 24 “shall be treated procedurally as a motion to compel.” The Discovery Order entered
in this case states “an opposed discovery related motion, or any response thereto, shall not exceed
seven (7) pages. Attachments to a discovery related motion, or any response thereto, shall not
exceed five (5) pages.” OmniVision filed over twenty pages of attachments with no request to
exceed the page limit. (See Dkt. Nos. 100-1, 100-2, 100-3, 100-4, 100-5, 100-6.)
16
Finally, the Court is both persuaded and concerned that the parties are not taking seriously
their obligations to meet and confer. Both motions before the Court are based on the far-toocommon “chicken and egg” problem where each side insists that they are unable to move without
the other side moving first. The information necessary for Greenthread to make more infringement
charts is non-public and requires discovery or expensive reverse engineering. OmniVision is
moving to strike Greenthread’s infringement contentions at the same time that it is refusing to
produce and print documents that Greenthread seeks for the very purpose providing OmniVision
updated infringement contentions. On the other hand, Greenthread, is engaging in motion practice
without following the Court’s instructions for doing so and without properly communicating its
positions to OmniVision. Both parties are failing to properly communicate and cooperate. The
Court reminds both parties that “[a]n unreasonable failure to meet and confer violates Local Rule
AT-3 and is grounds for disciplinary action.” L.R. CV-7(h).
The Court finds that Greenthread’s Motion to Compel (Dkt. No. 94) should be DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE given the aforementioned procedural defects.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, the Court finds that OmniVision’s Motion to Strike (Dkt. No.
85) should be and hereby is DENIED, and the Motion to Compel (Dkt. No. 94) should be and
hereby is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. It is ORDERED that the parties shall meet and
confer concerning Greenthread’s Motion to Compel (Dkt. No. 94.) Barring an agreement by the
parties as to Greenthread’s requested relief, Greenthread may resubmit its Motion to Compel
within thirty (30) days of the issuance of this Order.
17
So Ordered this
Apr 30, 2024
18
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?