Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00986/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00986-60/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

1

 The subpoenas were issued by the District of Arizona, and AMD filed a motion to quash with

that court. See Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Samsung Elec. Co., Ltd., No. 10-0031 (D. Ariz.)

(Docket No. 1). AMD has apparently advised the court of the pending motion to compel in this Court.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, et al.,

Plaintiffs and Counterdefendants,

 v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD, et al.,

Defendants and Counterclaimants.

 /

No. C 08-00986 SI

ORDER RE: SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO

ALLOW DEPOSITION OF WILLIAM

TRIGGS

Samsung seeks an order allowing it to take the deposition of a third-party witness, William

Triggs, to support its theory that AMD’s Iacoponi ’592 Patent is invalid due to prior anticipation. Fact

discovery in this case ended on March 5, 2010. According to Samsung, Mr. Triggs was unavailable for

deposition prior to that date; therefore, Samsung now seeks to depose Mr. Triggs on March 25, 2010.

AMD objects that Samsung’s request to take the late deposition should not be granted because Samsung

intentionally delayed subpoenaing Mr. Triggs until just before the discovery cutoff “to avoid revealing

its new theory of anticipation to AMD.” AMD further objects that Samsung’s motion, although styled

as a motion to compel, is really a motion to extend the fact discovery deadline. AMD points out that

Samsung filed its motion on the last day set by the Court for filing motions to compel without first

attempting to meet and confer with AMD regarding potential extension of the discovery deadline. 

Samsung initially sought to take the depositions of four third-party witnesses with respect to the

Iacoponi ’592 Patent.1

 Six days after Samsung filed its initial request with this Court, Samsung filed

Case 3:08-cv-00986-SI Document 392 Filed 03/24/10 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

a notice stating that it had taken the deposition of one of the four witnesses off calendar and was

“presently considering whether to withdraw its request to take some or all of the depositions at issue.”

The next day, Samsung formally withdrew its subpoenas with respect to three of the witnesses, leaving

only Mr. Triggs. 

In the ten-day period since Samsung’s motion was filed, the parties have submitted a total of

seven letter briefs in quick succession, each taking issue with the other party’s conduct during discovery.

Many of the issues raised in the parties’ letters are irrelevant to the dispute raised by Samsung’s request.

For example, AMD complains that Samsung wishes to submit hearsay declarations from the three

witnesses whom it no longer seeks to depose; however, Samsung has not sought to offer such evidence

for any purpose, so its admissibility is not an issue at this time. In addition, Samsung complains that

AMD is impeding its efforts to depose Mr. Triggs despite its willingness to “allow” AMD to take

several late depositions. AMD responds that the depositions at issue were only conducted after the

discovery cutoff because Samsung would not make the witnesses available until then.

By raising these disputes through a flurry of letter briefs, the parties are essentially asking the

Court to referee their disputes play by play. It is not the Court’s role to oversee discovery to this extent.

The parties must attempt in good faith to resolve their disputes before seeking the Court’s intervention.

It is apparent to the Court that the parties have been attempting to satisfy their meet and confer

obligations solely through written communications. Under Civil Local Rule 1-5(n), however, meet and

confer requirements “can be satisfied only through direct dialogue and discussion – either in a face to

face meeting or in a telephone conversation.” The parties are therefore ordered to confer via telephone

or in person, no later than March 30, 2010 in a good faith effort to resolve their dispute concerning

the deposition of Mr. Triggs. If the parties are unable to resolve their dispute, Samsung may renew its

motion to compel no later than March 31, 2010, and AMD may respond no later than April 2, 2010.

No further letter briefs will be accepted, and no extensions of these deadlines will be permitted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 24, 2010 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00986-SI Document 392 Filed 03/24/10 Page 2 of 2