UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 11, 2008
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, PLAINTIFF,
BROADCOM CORPORATION, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Barbara L. Major United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING QUALCOMM INCORPORATED'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS [Doc. No. 773] and RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.
As set forth in this Court's April 3, 2008 Order, the parties are to present their requests for documents to each other, and serve subpoenas duces tecum upon third parties for the production of documents, on or before April 11, 2008. See Doc. No. 765. By ex parte application filed today, Qualcomm requests that the Court extend that deadline until after the Court rules on Qualcomm's pending Motion Regarding Remand Proceedings [Doc. No. 763].
The pending motion asks the Court to clarify that any disclosure of attorney-client privileged material would be without waiver of that privilege and to implement adequate measures to protect Qualcomm's privilege. See Doc. No. 773 (Qualcomm's summary of its briefing).
Qualcomm contends that it cannot comply with the current deadline for serving requests for production of documents until the Court rules on the pending motion because Qualcomm will be "unable to make informed judgments about the scope and subject matter of documents it should seek, or whether it should request any documents at all." Doc. No. 773. However, Qualcomm does not provide any specific explanation of why the outcome of the motion will affect its ability to request the production of documents. To the extent Qualcomm's ex parte application actually objects to the production of documents prior to resolution of the privilege and disclosure issues, the application is premature and directed to the wrong deadline. The Court highlights that the April 11, 2008 deadline applies only to service of requests.
Accordingly, Qualcomm's motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
RUDI M. BREWSTER U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE ALL COUNSEL
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.