Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-01665/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-01665-44/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SUN MICROSYSTEMS INC.,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

_____________________________________/

Case No. C-06-01665 PJH (JCS) and

Related Case Nos. C-06-2915 PJH (JCS)

 C-07-1212 PJH (JCS)

 C-07-1207 PJH (JCS)

 C-07-1200 PJH (JCS)

 C-07-1381 PJH (JCS)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO TAKE DEPOSITION OF

30(b)(6) WITNESS 

[Docket Nos. 248, 312 in C-06-01665 PJH;

Docket No. 217 in C-06-02915 PJH]

Plaintiffs and the Nanya Defendants submitted a joint letter dated December 28, 2007 (the

“Motion”). The Motion is suitable for resolution without oral argument.

In the Motion, Plaintiffs seek the production of a witness, under Rule 30 (b) (6), to testify on

the decline in “wafer outs” in late 2001 and early 2002 and on the “challenges with [defendants’]

yield and production” that allegedly caused this decline.

The Motion is DENIED. Plaintiffs complain that the witness identified with respect to this

topic, Dr. Pai, did not have any specific knowledge about this topic. While Plaintiffs are correct that

the subjects of these wafer outs and their causes conceivably fall within one or more of the many

deposition topics contained in Plaintiffs’ notice of deposition, Defendants did not agree to those

topics and, in fact, objected to those topics. Indeed, on November 19, 2007, Defendants’ counsel

notified counsel for Plaintiffs of the four topics on which this witness would testify. None of those

four topics was the wafer outs in 2001 and 2002. Plaintiffs specifically agreed that the witness

would only have to discuss production topics generally, and would not be required to discuss the

reasons for any particular decline in output at any particular time. Ullman Declaration, ¶ 9. Finally,

Plaintiffs were alerted to the fact that Mr. Pai could not answer questions about this detail when he

Case 4:06-cv-01665-PJH Document 318 Filed 02/13/08 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

testified in Taiwan on November 28, 2007. Plaintiffs completed the deposition – not even using the

second day set aside for the witness’ testimony – and did not object to the witness’ lack of

knowledge at that time, or ask the witness to provide additional information that might be more

readily available in Taiwan.

While an additional deposition should not be compelled at this time, the information

requested is undoubtedly relevant to the claims at issue in this case. Accordingly, the Court gives

Plaintiffs permission to propound five interrogatories on the topic of the decline in wafer outs in late

2001 and early 2002 and on the challenges with Defendants’ yield and production that allegedly

caused this decline.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 13, 2008 

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:06-cv-01665-PJH Document 318 Filed 02/13/08 Page 2 of 2