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:
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 | |
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. |
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