UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
November 10, 2008
NXP SEMICONDUCTORS USA, INC., PLAINTIFF,
LSI CORPORATION, INC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
AGERE SYSTEMS, INC., COUNTERCLAIMANT,
NXP SEMICONDUCTORS USA, INC., COUNTERCLAIM-DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Richard Seeborg United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING LSI CORPORATION'S MOTION TO COMPEL
Defendants LSI Corporation and Agere Systems (collectively "LSI") moves to compel plaintiff NXP Semiconductors USA, Inc. ("NXP") on shortened time to supplement its responses to various interrogatories and requests for production of documents. NXP opposes the motion. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b) this matter is suitable for disposition without oral argument. For the reasons stated below, the motion will be denied.
In this patent action, the presiding judge has elected to stage discovery with the initial focus directed to NXP's product license defense. Once the Court determines that issue on summary judgment, then if necessary discovery will turn to questions of patent infringement and invalidity. This Court, by order dated September 23, 2008, granted in part and denied in part each party's motions to compel discovery on matters touching upon the product license defense issue. LSI now moves to compel further responses to discovery ordered by the Court ostensibly because such supplemental information is necessary for it to respond to NXP's summary judgment motion due to be filed by December 15, 2008. In particular, LSI seeks to compel NXP to supplement Interrogatories Nos. 2 and 19 relative to facts supporting NXP's product license defense; Interrogatory No. 18 seeking identification of "historical Philips products" for purposes of comparison; Document Request No. 44 seeking materials describing such products; Document Request No. 41 requesting documents pertaining to corporate acquisitions made by NXP since 1987 (the date of the Philips - AT&T Patent License Agreement); and Document Request No. 42 which seeks agreements reflecting the transfer of Philips' assets to NXP and the subsequent evolution of that entity. In addition, LSI seeks to preclude NXP from presenting evidence relative to a comparison of NXP and historical Philips products owing to NXP's alleged failure to present a proper Rule 30 (b)(a) witness to testify on that subject.
LSI fails to demonstrate that the further discovery it seeks to compel is necessary for it to oppose the impending product license summary judgment motion. The responses provided by NXP to the discovery ordered by the Court place LSI in a position to understand the contours of NXP's product license defense and to marshal its arguments in opposition. To require a supplemental response to the interrogatories and document requests identified would be unduly burdensome and beyond the scope of targeted discovery contemplated by the presiding judge At the same time, nothing in this order precludes LSI from invoking Rule 56(f), if appropriate, in its opposition to summary judgment should it conclude, in good faith, upon receiving NXP's summary judgment motion, that specific discovery is necessary for it to oppose that motion.
Similarly, this order should not be interpreted to relieve NXP of the obligation to produce a Rule 30(b)(6) deponent as it has indicated it will do to address the differences between products sold by Philips on July 1, 1987 and NXP products currently available for sale.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, LSI's motion to compel is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS ORDER WAS ELECTRONICALLY PROVIDED TO:
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.