Avago Technologies, Inc. v. Iptronics Inc.

Full title: AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. IPTRONICS INC., et al.…

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, N.D. California, San Jose Division

Date published: Aug 7, 2015

5:10-cv-02863-EJD (N.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2015)

Opinion

AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. IPTRONICS INC., et al., Defendants. No. 5:10-cv-02863-EJD United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division. August 7, 2015

          OMNIBUS ORDER RE: DISCOVERY MOTIONS (Re: Docket Nos. 641, 642, 644, 645, 646, 649, 674, 677)

          PAUL S. GREWAL, Magistrate Judge.

         Yesterday, the court heard arguments on eight discovery motions.¹ The motions concern depositions and document production that Plaintiffs Avago Technologies, Inc. et al. want and which Defendants IPtronics, Inc., et al. and Mellanox Technologies Inc., et al., as well as third parties, don't.

1 See Docket No. 697.

         For months, Defendants have told Avago and this court that it had six depositions to go: "the Avago Entities have already exhausted 14 of their allotted 20 fact depositions."² A few weeks ago, Defendants changed their tune, arguing Avago has exceeded its allotment by six. The court must hold Defendants to their previous representations.³ Avago therefore may take six more depositions of its choosing. But there are some ground rules. First, Avago may not take depositions of third parties it has already deposed in this case or in the ITC investigation. Avago may only take depositions of third parties it has not previously deposed, including Finisar Corporation. While duplication may be inevitable, parties can bear that burden; third parties should not. Second, Avago shall pay for any fees and costs associated with document production and depositions. This should mitigate any burden Defendants and third parties face. Third, any deposition of Defendants shall take place by August 21, 2015. Any deposition of any third party shall take place by September 21, 2015.

2 See Docket No. 525 at 7.

3 See Russell v. Rolfs, 893 F.2d 1033, 1037 (9th Cir. 1990); Rockwell Int'l Corp. v. Hanford Atomic Metal Trades Council, 851 F.2d 1208, 1210 (9th Cir. 1988).

         Finally, because Avago's motion to modify the protective order will not unreasonably prejudice Defendants, it is GRANTED.

         In sum, Avago's motions to compel the production of Defendants' 30(b)(6)s are GRANTED.⁴ Avago's motion to modify the protective order is GRANTED.⁵ Defendants' motions for entry of protective orders and fees are DENIED.⁶ Avago's motion to compel the production of documents and things from Finisar is GRANTED.⁷ Avago's motion for leave to take additional depositions is GRANTED-IN-PART.⁸ Finisar's motion for protective order and to quash Avago's 30(b)(6) deposition is DENIED.⁹

4 See Docket Nos. 641, 642.

5 See Docket No. 644.

6 See Docket Nos. 645, 646.

7 See Docket No. 649.

8 See Docket No. 674.

9 See Docket No. 677.

         SO ORDERED.