Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-02138/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-02138-38/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ATMEL CORPORATION, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

 AUTHENTEC INC,

Defendant. /

No. C-06-02138 CW (EDL)

ORDER RE: PARTIES’ FEBRUARY 19

AND 20, 2008 LETTERS

On February 19, 2008, Defendant faxed a letter to the Court informing the Court of another

discovery dispute with respect to Plaintiffs’ response to two court-ordered Requests for Admission. 

Defendant seeks to be relieved of the in-person meet and confer requirement imposed by the Court

and to be given leave to file a motion for terminating sanctions on shortened time. Pursuant to the

Court’s Order, Plaintiffs filed a response on February 20, 2008. 

Given the unavailability of lead counsel for both parties, the Court relieves the parties of the

in-person meet and confer requirement for this discovery dispute. However, lead counsel shall meet

and confer in good faith by telephone no later than February 28, 2008. If any dispute remains,

Defendant may file a motion for sanctions no later than March 4, 2008, which will be heard on

March 18, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. Plaintiffs shall file an opposition no later than March 7, 2008 and

Defendant may file a reply no later than March 11, 2008. 

On the one hand, the Court notes that terminating sanctions are extreme, and counsel should

also address the prospect of lesser sanctions. On the other hand, the Court is troubled by what

Case 4:06-cv-02138-CW Document 425 Filed 02/21/08 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

2

appears to be Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the Court’s order with respect to its response to the

Requests for Admission, after Plaintiffs did not raise any objections to the Requests as rephrased by

the Court at the hearing. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 21, 2008 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:06-cv-02138-CW Document 425 Filed 02/21/08 Page 2 of 2