Filed: Aug. 07, 2015
Latest Update: Aug. 07, 2015
Summary: 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. For months, Defendants have told Avago and this court that it had six
Summary: 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. For months, Defendants have told Avago and this court that it had six ..
More
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.
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.
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
SO ORDERED.
