Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01728/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01728-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

PNY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MILLER, KAPLAN, ARASE & CO., LLP, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 15-cv-01728-MMC (EDL) 

ORDER ALLOWING SUR-REPLY 

 This is a complaint for breach of a non-disclosure agreement, fraud, intentional 

misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation and tortious interference with contract brought by 

Plaintiff PNY Technologies, Inc. (“PNY”) against auditor Miller, Kaplan, Arase & Co., LLP 

(“Miller Kaplan”). After PNY filed a Motion to Compel, the presiding district judge referred the 

case to a magistrate for discovery on December 21, 2015. See Dkt. # 66. In the referral order, the 

presiding district judge ordered the parties to meet and confer and to file a five-page letter brief 

summarizing the dispute. Id. The case was assigned to this Court on December 30, the pending 

Motion to Compel was set for hearing on January 26, 2016, and the parties were ordered to follow 

the briefing schedule set by local rule. 

 No formal opposition to the pending motion to compel was timely filed, presumably in 

light of the referral order requiring a joint letter brief instead. On January 5, 2016, the parties filed 

a five-page joint letter brief indicating that some of the issues raised in the Motion to Compel have 

been resolved, but there are two remaining disputes. On January 7, 2016, non-party SanDisk filed 

a letter brief addressing the outstanding discovery issues as they relate to SanDisk. On January 11, 

PNY filed a 12-page reply brief. 

 In order to proceed most efficiently and fairly given the unusual state of briefing of this 

Case 3:15-cv-01728-MMC Document 73 Filed 01/13/16 Page 1 of 2
2 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

dispute, the Court will allow defendant Miller Kaplan and third-party SanDisk to each file a brief 

sur-reply of no more than seven pages addressing only the issues raised for the first time in PNY’s 

reply brief by no later than January 19. After receiving any sur-replies, the Court will decide 

whether to hold the hearing on the motion to compel currently set for January 26, conduct an 

earlier phone conference, or issue a written order without the need for oral argument. In the 

meantime, the parties along with SanDisk should meet and confer about the proper protection 

and/or redaction of the documents that Miller Kaplan has agreed to produce on January 15, 2015. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 13, 2016 

 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:15-cv-01728-MMC Document 73 Filed 01/13/16 Page 2 of 2