From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

GSI Technology, Inc. v. United Memories Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Jun 11, 2015
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG (N.D. Cal. Jun. 11, 2015)

Opinion

Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG

06-11-2015

GSI TECHNOLOGY, INC., Plaintiff, v. UNITED MEMORIES, INC., et al., Defendants.


OMNIBUS ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTES

(Re: Docket Nos. 468, 469, 471, 473, 475, 478, 481)

After a lengthy hearing, before the court are seven remaining letter briefs on various discovery disputes between the parties. In the interest of resolving these disputes in a timely fashion, the court rules as follows:

Docket No.

Issue

Ruling

Reason/Explanation

468

GSI's motion to compelits Request ForProduction No. 116:Joint defense agreementbetween UMI and ISSI

DENIED

GSI does not show substantial n1eedfor the joint defense agreement.

468

GSI's motion for UMI tocomplete and clarifyresponses to Requests for

GRANTED

UMI must qualify what parts of theRFAs are admitted. In particular,UMI must specify page numbers and



Admission Nos. 8-9, 20-30

Bates ranges where possible, and atleast specify the rationale provided inits opposition to GSI's motion.

469

GSI's request forproduction of "complete"UMI and ISSI privilegelogs

DENIED

GSI's challenge is not reasonable;mere speculation is not enough, andpost-litigation communications andwork-product are presumedprivileged.

469

GSI's request forproduction of documentswithheld based onimproper privilege claimsby UMI and ISSI

DENIED

GSI does not show substantial needfor the joint defense agreement.

469

GSI's request forproduction of the KimHardee document by ISSI

GRANTED

UMI does not assert privilege over thedocuments anywhere in its papers.

471

ISSI's request forsufficient answers to itsRequests For AdmissionNos. 52-56 under 36(a)(4)and 36(a)(6)

DENIED

"A denial is a perfectly reasonableresponse."

473

UMI's request for GSI tosupplement its deficientresponses to all 124 ofUMI's Requests forAdmission

GRANTED-IN-PART

GSI shall admit or deny each requestfor admission. To the extent GSIadmits only in-part, GSI shall identifywhat it admits to under Fed. R. Civ. P.36(a)(4). UMI's request that denialsbased on objections should be deemedadmitted is DENIED.

475

UMI's motion to compelGSI to provide a prepared30(b)(6) witness and PaulChiang for deposition

GRANTED

The March 20, 2015 order explicitlyextended the deadline for both UMI's30(b)(6) deposition and UMI'sdeposition of Chiang. As addressed atthe hearing, the deadline for thesedepositions is July 24, 2015.



478

GSI's motion to compelISSI's written discovery:Interrogatory No. 25

DENIED

GSI does not show substantial needfor the joint defense agreement.

478

GSI's motion to compelISSI's written discovery:Requests for Admission

DENIED

"A denial is a perfectly reasonableresponse."

478

GSI's motion to compelISSI's written discovery:Interrogatory No. 13 andRequests for ProductionNos. 68, 69

GRANTED

ISSI's responses were deficient andnot reciprocal to its discovery requestsfrom GSI.

481

ISSI's Rule 37 motion forsanctions (UMI joined)

DENIED

Even though Defendants have shownthat GSI's search efforts wereunreasonable, Defendants fail to showany legitimate prejudice from theuntimely production of the disputeddocuments. The court has made noconclusive findings about the survivalof the non-compete—only apreliminary determination.Defendants can still rely upon thedocuments in pursuing summaryjudgment.


See AMEC Civil, LLC v. DMJM Harris, Inc., Case No. 06-cv-064-FLW, 2008 WL 817059, at *4 (D.N.J. July 11, 2008) ("Generally, joint defense agreements are protected by work product privilege, and are therefore not discoverable without showing substantial need.") (citing R.F.M.A.S. Inc. v. So, Case No. 06-cv-13114-VM, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14969, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)).

See Ryan Inv. Corp. v. Pedregal De Cabo San Lucas, Case No. 06-cv-3219, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118337, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2009) ([C]ounsel's communications with the client and work product developed once the litigation commences are presumptively privileged and need not be included on any privilege log. . . . Plaintiff's motion to compel is therefore denied to the extent it seeks to require a log of postlitigation counsel communications and work product.").

See AMEC Civil, LLC, 2008 WL 817059, at *4.

K.C.R. v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, Case No. 13-cv-3806-SSX, 2014 WL 3433772, at *3 (C.D. Cal. July 14, 2014).

See AMEC Civil, LLC, 2008 WL 817059, at *4.

K.C.R, 2014 WL 3433772, at *3.
--------

Except as stated otherwise above, the parties shall produce all discovery ordered by June 19, 2015. SO ORDERED. Dated: June 11, 2015

/s/_________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge


Summaries of

GSI Technology, Inc. v. United Memories Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Jun 11, 2015
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG (N.D. Cal. Jun. 11, 2015)
Case details for

GSI Technology, Inc. v. United Memories Inc.

Case Details

Full title:GSI TECHNOLOGY, INC., Plaintiff, v. UNITED MEMORIES, INC., et al.…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

Date published: Jun 11, 2015

Citations

Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG (N.D. Cal. Jun. 11, 2015)