Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00244/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00244-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 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

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER—C-00-20905 RMW

SPT

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-filed: 8/30/07

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., HYNIX

SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA INC.,

HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR U.K. LTD., and

HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR

DEUTSCHLAND GmbH,

Plaintiffs,

v.

RAMBUS INC.,

Defendant.

No. CV-00-20905 RMW

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

[Re: August 29, 2007 Joint Conference]

RAMBUS INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., HYNIX

SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA INC.,

HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR

MANUFACTURING AMERICA INC.,

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,

INC., SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.,

SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR,

L.P.,

NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION,

NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION

U.S.A.,

Defendants.

No. C-05-00334 RMW

Case 5:06-cv-00244-RMW Document 134 Filed 08/30/07 Page 1 of 6
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

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER—C-00-20905 RMW

SPT 2

RAMBUS INC., 

Plaintiff,

v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,

INC., SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.,

SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR,

L.P., 

Defendants.

No. C-05-02298 RMW

RAMBUS INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., and

MICRON SEMICONDUCTOR PRODUCTS,

INC.,

Defendants.

No. C-06-00244 RMW

The court held a telephone case management conference on August 29, 2007 to discuss,

among other things, an appropriate limitation on the number of live witnesses each of the parties can

call in their cases-in-chief at the upcoming trial set for January 22, 2008. The parties submitted

letter briefs setting forth their positions and were given the opportunity to orally address the issues. 

The court has carefully considered the submissions and arguments and finds that the limitations set

forth below insure that each party has a fair opportunity to present its case and at the same time

limits potential discovery expense and abuse and assures that the parties are focused in their trial

preparation.

The court intended after it first read the parties' submissions to limit the number of fact

witnesses significantly more than it has in this order. However, given that almost all of the

witnesses have previously testified at trial, the FTC proceedings or in deposition, the court finds that

the burden of deposition discovery is not as great as the court previously assumed. There is

probably no need to depose certain witnesses and the depositions of some other witnesses may be

very brief. However, if the required statements of expected witness testimony reveal a substantial

Case 5:06-cv-00244-RMW Document 134 Filed 08/30/07 Page 2 of 6
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

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER—C-00-20905 RMW

SPT 3

amount of unanticipated, new subject matter, the court will consider an application for relief.

The court orders:

1. Each side (Rambus on one side and Hynix, Samsung, Micron and Nanya (collectively the

"manufacturers") on the other) is allowed to call the following witnesses in their cases-in-chief:

Anthony Diepenbrock, Joel Karp, Neil Steinberg, Geoff Tate, Lester Vincent and Farhad Tabrizi. In

addition, the manufacturers may call Richard Crisp.

2. Rambus may call 24 witnesses in addition to the 6 identified in paragraph 1. Sixteen of

those witnesses must come from its reduced witness list identified in its letter to the court dated

August 29, 2007. The last 2 witnesses must be identified by August 31. Rambus may name

alternates for the manufacturers' trial counsel identified in its reduced list in its August 29, 2007

letter.

3. The manufacturers as a group may call 11 of the non-Rambus witnesses common to the

manufacturers as identified in the manufacturers' letter to the court dated August 29, 2007. 

4. Each of the manufacturers may in addition call 3 witnesses from the list of witnesses

unique to each manufacturer set forth in the manufacturers' August 29, 2007 letter to the court—this

number may be increased by agreement of the manufacturers by one witness for each witness

removed from the list of 11 described in paragraph 3. 

5. For each witness that any party intends to call who has not previously testified at trial, in

the FTC proceedings or at deposition in a matter involving Rambus, the party intending to call that

witness must serve on each other party by September 5, 2007, or 24 hours before the witness

testifies, whichever occurs first, a summary of the witness's expected testimony sufficient to inform

all parties of the factual issues on which the witness may testify. If the witness has previously

testified, a summary of expected testimony is required only if the witness is going to testify on a new

subject or concerning events occurring since he or she previously testified.

6. Witnesses to be called solely for impeachment or rebuttal need not be included. A 

rebuttal witness is narrowly defined as a witness whose testimony rebuts a new issue raised by the

testimony of a witness in opposition to a party's case-in-chief or affirmative defense on which the

party has the burden of proof.

Case 5:06-cv-00244-RMW Document 134 Filed 08/30/07 Page 3 of 6
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

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER—C-00-20905 RMW

SPT 4

7. The parties are expected to reduce their live witness lists further before the pretrial

conference and the court may limit the number of witnesses that can be called at trial in addition to

setting time limits for trial at the pretrial conference.

8. This order is without prejudice to an application by any party for substitution or addition

of witnesses but only upon good cause shown on application to the court. 

9. This order is made on the assumption that all witnesses will be produced in California for

deposition, if requested. A failure to produce a witness in California may result in a reduction of the

number of live witnesses allowed to be called.

10. An agreed-upon schedule for the depositions of all initially disclosed expert witnesses

must be filed with the court by Friday, August 31, 2007. The court should be alerted to any

unscheduled deposition and such deposition will be scheduled by the court around, to the extent

possible, any unavoidable conflicts of counsel or the witness. Failure of the witness to appear as

scheduled will preclude, absent extraordinary circumstances, the witness from testifying at trial.

11. No trial counsel is to be deposed or called as a witness absent further order of the court. 

A representative of trial counsel's firm may be deposed on the issue of attorney's fees and expenses

incurred but not called as a witness absent further order of the court.

12. The court may re-visit at or before the pretrial conference the question of whether

judicial economy and fairness is best served by conducting the trial now set for January 22, 2008 as

a consolidated proceeding or whether there are too many party unique issues to make a consolidated

trial fair and efficient. The court at this point believes that the consolidation still makes sense but is

concerned about the number of witnesses listed for unique issues and the differences in the parties'

lists of issues.

13. Micron and Nanya confirmed that their antitrust claims will be fully resolved at the

January 22 trial despite their statements on the attachments to the Joint Case Management

Conference Statement filed July 31, 2007 saying that "[a] part of Rambus's anticompetitive course of

conduct includes spoliation of evidence. This part of Micron's (Nanya's) monopolization claim

cannot be fully tried in the January 2008 module." Micron and Nanya do contend, however, that

spoliation has relevance to Rambus's intent and thus evidence of it may be admissible in the January

Case 5:06-cv-00244-RMW Document 134 Filed 08/30/07 Page 4 of 6
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

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER—C-00-20905 RMW

SPT 5

2008 trial. Rambus disagrees and points out that it previously agreed with Hynix that neither of

them would seek to admit spoliation evidence at the January 2008 trial. Rambus also contends that

Micron and Nanya elected to try their spoliation claims in separate modules and thus should not be

permitted to offer evidence of spoliation at the January 2008 trial. The question of the admissibility

of alleged spoliation evidence will have to be resolved by in limine motion. The parties will need to

address, among other things, how such evidence, if admitted, could be limited such that it would not

prejudice Rambus in its defense of Hynix's antitrust claims.

14. The parties are to confirm by letter sent within 10 days a list of the hearing dates of all

motions which have been filed but which have not yet been heard.

DATED: 8/30/07

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-00244-RMW Document 134 Filed 08/30/07 Page 5 of 6
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

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER—C-00-20905 RMW

SPT 6

THIS SHALL CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THIS ORDER WAS PROVIDED TO:

Counsel for plaintiff:

Daniel J. Furniss

Theodore G. Brown, III

Jordan Trent Jones

Townsend & Townsend & Crew LLP

379 Lytton Ave

Palo Alto, CA 94301

Patrick Lynch

Kenneth R. O'Rourke

O'Melveny & Myers

400 So Hope St Ste 1060

Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899

Kenneth L. Nissly

Susan van Keulen

Geoffrey H. Yost

Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner LLP

225 West Santa Clara Street, 12th Floor

San Jose, CA 95113-1723

Allen Ruby 

Ruby & Schofield 

125 South Market Street, Suite 1001 

San Jose, CA 95113-2285 

Counsel for defendant:

Gregory Stone

Kelly M. Klaus

Steven M. Perry

Munger Tolles & Olson

355 So Grand Ave Ste 3500

Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560

Peter A. Detre

Carolyn Hoecker Luedtke

Munger Tolles & Olson

560 Mission Street, 27th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94105-2907

Peter I Ostroff

Rollin A. Ransom 

Michelle B. Goodman

V. Bryan Medlock, Jr.

Sidley Austin Brown & Wood

555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000

Los Angeles, CA 90013-1010

Jeannine Yoo Sano

Pierre J. Hubert

Dewey Ballantine

1950 University Avenue, Suite 500

East Palo Alto, CA 94303

Dated: 8/30/07 SPT 

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:06-cv-00244-RMW Document 134 Filed 08/30/07 Page 6 of 6