Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Pixart Imaging, Inc v. Avago Technologies General Ip (Singapore) Pte. Ltd

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION


July 15, 2011

PIXART IMAGING, INC.,
PLAINTIFFS,
v.
AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES GENERAL IP (SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Howard R. Lloyd United States Magistrate Judge

E-filed July 15, 2011

NOT FOR CITATION

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE JOINT REPORT # 1 [Re: Docket Nos. 49, 50]

On July 13 and 14, 2011, the parties in the above-caption patent infringement action filed in two parts a Discovery Dispute Joint Report # 1 ("Joint Report").*fn1 Docket Nos. 49, 50. Plaintiff PixArt Imaging, Inc. ("PixArt") contends that defendants Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd, Avago Technologies ECBU IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., and Avago Technologies U.S., Inc. (collectively, "Avago") filed the Joint Report in violation of this Court's Standing Order 22 re: Civil Discovery Disputes ("Standing Order").

The Standing Order requires parties, before filing a discovery dispute joint report, to meet- and-confer about the disputed discovery issue using "the customary convenient means of 25 communication - telephone, e-mail, correspondence, person to person talks between members of 26 opposing litigation teams - to try to reach agreement." Standing Order ¶ 2(b). "If that fails to lead to 27 complete agreement, then LEAD COUNSEL (and any unrepresented person), accompanied by anyone else whose presence is needed to fully explore resolution, shall meet IN PERSON for as 2 long as and as often as is needed to reach full agreement." Id. ¶ 2(c) (emphasis in original).

Here, it appears that Avago's lead counsel never met-and-conferred in person about the disputed issue. Avago writes that it "believes that it has complied with Judge Lloyd's Standing Order because Mr. Greenfeld, who has been leading the advancement of this case for Avago since 6 he started at Mayer Brown in October 2010, met in person with [PixArt's lead counsel,] Mr. [Michael] Page of Durie Tangri." Docket No. 49 at 4. The problem is that Mr. Greenfeld is not Avago's lead counsel; Mr. Duane D. Hough is. And, it appears that Mr. Hough and Mr. Page never 9 discussed this particular discovery dispute in person, as this Court's Standing Order requires. See Docket No. 50 at 2, 9.

Since Avago did not comply with the Standing Order, the Court DENIES its requested relief.

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

IT IS SO ORDERED.

C10-00544 JW (HRL) Notice will be electronically mailed to:

Cliff Allan Maier cmaier@mayerbrownrowe.com, Cmaier@mayerbrown.com, cnotification@mayerbrown.com, cpohorski@mayerbrown.com, jwilkinson@mayerbrown.com Daralyn J. Durie ddurie@durietangri.com Duane D. Hough dhough@mayerbrown.com, strobinson@mayerbrown.com Michael Henry Page mpage@durietangri.com, charlie_chang@pixart.com.tw, records@durietangri.com Robert Greenfeld rgreenfeld@mayerbrown.com Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

United States District Court For the Northern District of California


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.