Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00358/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00358-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

17cv358-BEN-MDD

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Wi-LAN, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

LG ELECTRONICS, INC, et al,

Defendants.

Case No.: 17cv0358-BEN-MDD

ORDER ON JOINT MOTION 

FOR DETERMINATION OF 

DISCOVERY DISPUTE

[ECF NO. 83]

BACKGROUND

Before the Court is the Joint Motion of the parties to determine a 

discovery dispute filed initially on January 11, 2018. (ECF Nos. 71-73). The 

entirety of the motion was lodged with the Court together with a motion to 

seal the whole package from public view. (Id.). On January 16, 2018, the 

Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to seal ordering that a 

redacted public version of the motion and supporting materials be filed no 

later than January 26, 2018. (ECF No. 77). The redacted version, as well as 

another sealed version, were filed that date. The sealed motion is located at 

ECF No. 79, the public version is at ECF No. 83. 

The Joint Motion presents Plaintiffs’ motion to compel additional 

Case 3:17-cv-00358-BEN-MDD Document 91 Filed 02/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

17cv358-BEN-MDD

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

responses to five Interrogatories (3, 4, 6, 8, 10) and twelve Requests for 

Production (20, 23, 27, 30, 34-36, 46-48, 50, 51). Defendants assert that with 

the possible exception of Interrogatory 3, Plaintiffs’ motion is not timely. 

Plaintiffs disagree. 

DISCUSSION

A. Timeliness

Section IV.C.2 of the Court’s civil chambers rules provides:

Any motion related to discovery disputes must be filed no later than 

thirty (30) days after the date upon which the event giving rise to the 

dispute occurred. For oral discovery, the event giving rise to the dispute 

is the completion of the transcript of the relevant portion of the 

deposition. For written discovery, the event giving rise to the discovery 

dispute is the date of service of the response, not the date on which 

counsel reach an impasse in meet and confer efforts.

All of the Magistrate Judges of this Court have some version of this rule. 

This Court adopted the rule so that disputes timely would be brought before 

the Court and to minimize the possibility that discovery disputes, left until 

the last minute, would derail the overall case schedule. Also, by requiring 

the joint motion to be brought within 30 days, or a motion to extend the 

deadline to accommodate further efforts to resolve disputes, the Court would 

have insight into the relationship of the parties regarding discovery, and be 

in a position to intervene early. The Court has and will continue to enforce 

this rule absent some manifest prejudice to a party. 

Plaintiffs served the Interrogatories and Requests for Production at 

issue on August 16, 2017. Defendants served their initial responses on 

October 6, 2017. Defendants assert that they did not supplement their 

responses to the Requests for Production. Plaintiffs appear to concede the 

point, arguing that Defendants agreed to supplement the responses but never 

Case 3:17-cv-00358-BEN-MDD Document 91 Filed 02/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

17cv358-BEN-MDD

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

did. Defendants admit that their response to Interrogatory 3 was

supplemented on November 10, 2017, December 4, 2017, December 12, 2017, 

and on January 9, 2018. Defendants supplemented their response to 

Interrogatory 4 on November 10, 2017, Interrogatory 8 on November 20, 

2017, and Interrogatory 10 on December 4, 2017. (ECF No. 73 at 2).1 

Plaintiffs argue that the motion is timely because it was filed within 30 

days of the latest supplement, placing all the discovery responses in issue. 

Plaintiffs also argue that the dispute arose when Defendants failed to 

continue to supplement responses. 

The Court finds that the motion is not timely. The 30-day period cannot 

be construed to restart with each supplementary production or response. The 

consequence of construing the rule in that manner is that the Court loses the 

ability to manage the discovery process. Disputes could pile up and when 

finally brought could interfere with overall case management. Also, the 

Court would not know that there are disputes pending allowing the Court, if 

necessary, to have a discovery conference or hearing with the parties. 

The Court has reviewed the substance of the disputes and finds that 

denying the motion does not prejudice Plaintiffs. Defendants continue to 

have the duty to supplement their production and responses under Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 26(e), upon pain of serious sanctions under Rules 26(g) and 37. 

B. Compliance with Rule 34

Although the Court is denying the motion on timeliness grounds, the 

Court has serious concerns with Defendants rather cavalier approach to the 

requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 34, which governs requests for production. A

 

1 The Court will refer to pagination supplied by CM/ECF rather than original 

pagination throughout.

Case 3:17-cv-00358-BEN-MDD Document 91 Filed 02/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

17cv358-BEN-MDD

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

party may request the production of any document within the scope of Rule 

26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). “For each item or category, the response must 

either state that inspection and related activities will be permitted as 

requested or state an objection to the request, including the reasons.” Rule

34(b)(2)(B). If the responding party chooses to produce responsive 

information, rather than allow for inspection, the production must be 

completed no later than the time specified in the request or another 

reasonable time specified in the response. Id. An objection must state 

whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that 

objection. Rule 34(b)(2)(C). An objection to part of a request must specify the 

part and permit inspection or production of the rest. Id. 

Defendants’ responses to each Request for Production is deficient. 

Defendants recite meaningless, boilerplate objections and do not indicate 

whether documents are being withheld pursuant to any of the objections. 

Defendants assert privilege without complying with the requirements of Rule 

26(b)(5), which requires a party asserting privilege to expressly make it and 

identify the information withheld. And, Defendants appear neither to 

produce documents nor state when they will. All they agree to do is to talk 

about it. 

Consequently, although the Court is denying the instant Joint Motion, 

the Court will order Defendant, to the extent that it has not done so, to 

identify whether it is withholding any responsive documents and, if so, to 

identify the basis for the withholding. To the extent that Defendants have 

not completed their production of responsive, non-privileged documents, they 

must specify a reasonable date by which they will do so. Plaintiffs will be 

given leave to challenge Defendants responses as provided herein. 

Case 3:17-cv-00358-BEN-MDD Document 91 Filed 02/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

17cv358-BEN-MDD

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

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel, as presented in the instant Joint Motion 

for Determination of Discovery Dispute, is DENIED as untimely. 

Nevertheless, Defendants are ORDERED to identify whether they are 

withholding any documents responsive to the Requests for Production in 

issue and identify the objection pursuant to which they are withholding 

documents. To the extent that Defendants are continuing to produce 

documents pursuant to these Requests for Production, Defendants must 

identify a reasonable date by which production will be completed. 

Defendants must provide this information to Plaintiffs within 14 days of this 

Order. The parties are given leave to bring a further joint motion to the 

Court, in compliance with this Court’s chambers rules, to determine any 

dispute regarding Defendants responses required by this Order. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 6, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-00358-BEN-MDD Document 91 Filed 02/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5