Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-05273/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-05273-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 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

C-02-5273 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TOSHIBA CORPORATION, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

LEXAR MEDIA, INC,

Defendants.

________________________________/

No. C 02-5273 MJJ (JL)

ORDER 

(Granting Docket # 272)

The Court received the parties’ joint statement regarding its discovery order issued

February 22nd. Toshiba also seeks clarification from this Court: (1) whether the order

encompasses Toshiba’s USB products, which Toshiba contends Lexar never

identified in its infringement contentions and (2) whether the order requires Toshiba to

provide Rule 30(b)(6) testimony on products on which it contends it has already provided

Rule 30(b)(6) testimony.

 The parties met and conferred, albeit by telephone. On March 9th Toshiba filed with

the district court (Hon. Martin J. Jenkins) its objections to this Court’s February 22nd

discovery order, along with a request for additional time to comply, should the district court

affirm this Court’s order (Docket number 268).

This Court reviewed the parties’ joint statement and finds no basis to reconsider its

earlier order. The Court finds that the limitations sought by Toshiba, that is, to exclude its

Case 3:02-cv-05273-MJJ Document 278 Filed 03/22/06 Page 1 of 2
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

C-02-5273 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 2 of 2

USB products and to limit 30(b)(6) deposition testimony, are unjustified and misinterpret

this Court’s order.

Accordingly, Toshiba is ordered to comply with the February 22 order as issued, with

the proviso, of course, that this order is without prejudice to review by the district court,

should Judge Jenkins elect to set a briefing schedule on Toshiba’s objection or overrule

this Court’s order, as provided by Civil Local Rule 72-2:

“If no order denying the motion or setting a briefing schedule is made within 15 days

of filing the objection, the objection shall be deemed denied. The Clerk shall notify

parties when an objection has been deemed denied.” 

The fifteenth day following Toshiba’s objection is Friday March 24th. If no order has

issued from the district court by the following business day, March 27th, then, pursuant to

Civil Local Rule 72-2, Toshiba’s objection shall be deemed denied and compliance with the

February 22nd order shall be due immediately.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 22, 2006

__________________________________

JAMES LARSON

Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 3:02-cv-05273-MJJ Document 278 Filed 03/22/06 Page 2 of 2