Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03148/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03148-45/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 Patent Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL

CO., LTD.,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

MEDIATEK, INC., ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

____________________________________/

Case No. C-05-3148 MMC (JCS)

ORDER RE PENDING DISCOVERY

MOTIONS 

[Docket Nos. 373/482, 382/492, 386, 396/463,

413/477, 421/460, 435 and 456]

The Court has received the following motions (collectively referred to as “the Motions”):

1. Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendants’ Motion to Compel MediaTek, Inc. To

Produce Additional Corporate Witnesses (Docket Nos. 373 and 482); and

2. Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendants’ Motion to Compel MediaTek to Produce

Certain Documents Related to the Technical Operation of the Accused MediaTek Products (Docket

Nos. 382 and 492);

3. Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendants’ Motion to Compel A Further Response to

Panasonic’s Interrogatory No. 16 (Docket No. 386);

4. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents Relating to ITC ‘506

Investigation and Sales in the United States of Products Incorporating MediaTek Chips (Docket Nos.

396 and 463);

5. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendants to Identify Payer of Oppo’s and MSI’s

Legal Fees and Produce Related Evidence (Docket Nos. 413 and 477);

Case 3:05-cv-03148-MMC Document 511 Filed 02/27/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

6. Defendant and Counterclaimant MediaTek, Inc.’s Motion for Order Compelling

Production of Complete Written Discovery Responses, Documents and Depositions (Docket Nos.

421 and 460); and

7. Defendant and Counterclaimant MediaTek, Inc.’s Motion for Order Compelling

Production of Documents Pursuant to Para. 15 of the Stipulated Protective Order (Docket No. 456).

Lead trial counsel for all parties and non-parties implicated by the Motions met and

conferred regarding the matter on February 26, 2007. The parties reached a tentative agreement that

would result in the withdrawal of nearly all of the Motions, and requested that the Court change the

briefing schedule on the Motions to accommodate those agreements. The parties agree that Plaintiff

and Defendants in this action will supplement various discovery responses by Monday, March 5,

2007. Accordingly, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. The Motion for an Order Shortening Time is DENIED (Docket No. 435), except as

set forth in this Order.

2. In lieu of any further briefing on the above-referenced motions, the parties may

submit one (1) joint letter of no more than ten (10) pages, setting forth each of the issues that remain

in dispute and each party’s detailed position with respect to those issues, along with each party’s

final proposed compromise on each issue (the “Joint Letter”). The Joint Letter shall be submitted, if

any issues remain, on or before March 9, 2007. If all issues (other than as set forth in Paragraph 4)

have been resolved, the Motions shall be withdrawn. The Court will determine whether any

additional proceedings are necessary based on the Joint Letter.

3. In addition, the issues relating to Non-Parties Lite-On, DLA Piper, Goldman & Zoran

may also be resolved. Specifically, counsel advised the Court that the only remaining issue concerns

documents in the custody of DLA Piper pertaining to Non-Party Lite-On. (There are also issues

related to Non-Party TEAC. By separate order of the Court, permission is granted for Plaintiff to refile its motion to compel against Non-Party TEAC in the Central District of California.) With

respect to Non-Party Lite-On, if this issue is not resolved by 9:30 a.m. on February 27, 2007,

counsel for Plaintiff and counsel for Lite-On and DLA Piper are directed to appear before the

undersigned at that time.

Case 3:05-cv-03148-MMC Document 511 Filed 02/27/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

4. Counsel advised that there is one issue between Plaintiff and Defendants that cannot

be resolved. That issue concerns the question of whether two inadvertently-produced documents

(the “Two Documents”) are protected by the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine. 

Pursuant to the agreement of the parties, the following schedule shall be followed with respect to the

Two Documents: on or before Friday, March 2, 2007, Plaintiff shall submit in camera the Two

Documents to the undersigned. In addition, at that time, Plaintiff shall file arguments on why it

believes the documents are protected from disclosure. Defendants may file a response to those

arguments on or before Wednesday, March 7, 2007. After receiving those briefs, the Court will

determine whether oral argument is necessary on this issue. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 26, 2007 _______________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03148-MMC Document 511 Filed 02/27/07 Page 3 of 3