Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_00-cv-20905/USCOURTS-cand-5_00-cv-20905-53/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract

---

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 

 

4187977.1 Attorneys Listed on Signature Page

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION 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.

CASE NO. C 05-00334 RMW STIPULATION AND [] 

ORDER RESOLVING 

MANUFACTURERS’ MOTION IN 

LIMINE NO. 2 AND RAMBUS’S 

MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5 

(DOCUMENT RETENTION AND 

DESTRUCTION EVIDENCE) 

Date: January 17, 2008 

Time: 2:00 p.m.. Judge: Hon. Ronald M. Whyte 

*E-FILED - 1/17/08*

Case 5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document 3013 Filed 01/17/08 Page 1 of 6
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 

 

STIP RE: MOTION IN LIMINES ON ALLEGATIONS ABOUT

DESTRUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

CASES 00-0020905, 05-00334, 06-00224 RMW

 

2

RAMBUS INC.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., and MICRON 

SEMICONDUCTOR PRODUCTS, INC.,

Defendants. CASE NO. C 06-00244 RMW HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., HYNIX 

SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA INC., HYNIX 

SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING 

AMERICA INC., 

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. RAMBUS INC., 

 Defendant. CASE NO. C 00-20905 RMW

 

Case 5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document 3013 Filed 01/17/08 Page 2 of 6
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 STIP RE: MOTION IN LIMINES ON ALLEGATIONS ABOUT

DESTRUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 

CASES 00-0020905, 05-00334, 06-00224 RMW

 WHEREAS, the above-captioned cases have been phased such that the claims and 

defenses asserted by the Hynix, Micron, and Nanya entities (the “Manufacturers’”) based on

allegations of spoliation by Rambus have been, or will be, adjudicated in separate proceedings; 

WHEREAS, the parties’ claims and defenses set forth in Attachments 1 through 3 

and 5-5A of the July 31, 2007 Joint Case Management Conference Statement will be tried on 

January 29, 2008 (hereinafter the “January ’08 Trial”); 

WHEREAS, as a condition to continued coordination, the Court at the December 

14, 2007 pretrial conference required the parties to enter into a stipulation addressing limits on 

evidence of document destruction, document retention, or spoliation; and

WHEREAS, the parties have agreed that no party will seek to introduce this 

stipulation as evidence, or rely on this stipulation or its terms: (i) to defend against any allegation 

of spoliation or unclean hands in the above-referenced action; (ii) in the action entitled Micron 

Technology, Inc. v. Rambus Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, 

C.A. No. 00-792 (SLR); (iii) in the action entitled Rambus Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc., et al., 

in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco, Case No. CGC 

04-431105; or (iv) in any other action. 

THEREFORE, IT IS STIPULATED AND ORDERED THAT during the January 

‘08 Trial, no party shall raise any allegations about the document retention policies or the

destruction of documents by any party or about any party’s alleged or adjudicated spoliation of 

evidence. If, however, a witness testifies about a document that has not been produced, a party 

may seek leave of the Court to pursue questioning of the witness about what happened to the 

document or documents. In addition, if a witness testifies that a party has not engaged in the 

destruction of documents or spoliation of evidence, then a party may seek leave of the Court to 

pursue questioning of the witness about that assertion. However, before pursuing any line of 

questioning related to the destruction of documents or spoliation, a party must make an offer of 

proof explaining the specific line of questioning the party intends to pursue.

IT IS ALSO STIPULATED AND ORDERED THAT no party will seek to 

introduce this stipulation as evidence, or rely on this stipulation or its terms: (i) to defend against

Case 5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document 3013 Filed 01/17/08 Page 3 of 6
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 

 

4 STIP RE: MOTION IN LIMINES ON ALLEGATIONS ABOUT

DESTRUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 

CASES 00-0020905, 05-00334, 06-00224 RMW

 any allegation of spoliation or unclean hands in the above-referenced action; (ii) in the action 

entitled Micron Technology, Inc. v. Rambus Inc. in the United States District Court for the 

District of Delaware, C.A. No. 00-792 (SLR); (iii) in the action entitled Rambus Inc. v. Micron 

Technology, Inc., et al., in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San 

Francisco, Case No. CGC 04-431105; or (iv) in any other action. SO ORDERED.

DATED: _____________ ___________________________ 

 Hon. Ronald M. Whyte

1/17/08

Case 5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document 3013 Filed 01/17/08 Page 4 of 6
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 

 

5 STIP RE: MOTION IN LIMINES ON ALLEGATIONS ABOUT

DESTRUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 

CASES 00-0020905, 05-00334, 06-00224 RMW

 Dated: January 4, 2008 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 

By:/s/

 Gregory P. Stone

 Steven M. Perry

 Peter A. Detre

 Carolyn Hoecker Luedtke

 Counsel for Plaintiff RAMBUS INC. Dated: January 4, 2008 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART OLIVER

& HEDGES By:/s/

 Harold A. Barza

 William Price

 Robert Becher WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP

 Jared Bobrow

 John Beynon 

 Counsel for Defendants

 MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC., et. al.

Dated: January 4, 2008 THELEN REID BROWN RAYSMAN & 

STEINER LLP By:/s/

 Kenneth L. Nissly

 Susan van Keulen

 Geoffrey H. Yost 

RUBY & SCHOFIELD

 Allen Ruby O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP

 Robert Draper

 Wallace Allen TOWNSEND and TOWNSEND CREW LLP

Case 5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document 3013 Filed 01/17/08 Page 5 of 6
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 

 

6 STIP RE: MOTION IN LIMINES ON ALLEGATIONS ABOUT

DESTRUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 

CASES 00-0020905, 05-00334, 06-00224 RMW

 

 Theodore Brown, III

 Jordan Trent Jones 

 Counsel for Defendants

 HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., et. al. Dated: January 4, 2008 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE

LLP By:/s/

 Robert E. Freitas 

 Craig R. Kaufman

 Jan Ellard 

 Counsel for Defendants

 NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORP.

 et. al.

Filer's Attestation: 

I, Carolyn Hoecker Luedtke, am the ECF user whose identification and password 

are being used to file this STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RESOLVING 

MANUFACTURERS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 AND RAMBUS’S MOTION IN 

LIMINE NO. 5 (DOCUMENT RETENTION AND DESTRUCTION EVIDENCE). In 

compliance with General Order 45.X.B, I hereby attest that Jan E. Ellard, Robert Becher, and 

Belinda Vega concur in this filing. By: ____________/s/____________________ Carolyn Hoecker Luedtke 

Case 5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document 3013 Filed 01/17/08 Page 6 of 6