Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-02138/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-02138-39/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’ LETTERS

DATED MARCH 5, 2008 AND MARCH 6,

2008 AND SETTING NEW BRIEFING

SCHEDULE FOR DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

On February 21, 2008, the Court issued an Order addressing the parties’ dispute regarding

the adequacy of Plaintiffs’ response to two court-ordered Requests for Admission. In that Order, the

Court required lead counsel to meet and confer by telephone regarding the dispute, and gave

Defendant leave to file a motion for sanctions on shortened time if any dispute remained after the

meet and confer. According to the parties’ March 5, 2008 and March 6, 2008 letters, lead counsel

met and conferred pursuant to the Court’s Order, but there is some dispute about the subjects

discussed at that conference. The Court, however, is not willing to resolve collateral disputes about

the subjects discussed during the parties’ meet and confer sessions, which are unfortunately typical

of this heated litigation. Although Plaintiffs supplemented their responses to the Requests for

Admission as discussed during the parties’ February 27, 2008 meet and confer session, Defendant

contend that those responses are inadequate and filed a motion for terminating sanctions on March 4,

2008 as permitted by the Court’s Order. 

Plaintiffs argue that because Defendant’s motion for sanctions alleges extensive discovery

misconduct, they require more than the originally ordered three days to oppose. The Court agrees

Case 4:06-cv-02138-CW Document 448 Filed 03/06/08 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

1 Plaintiffs state in their March 5, 2008 letter that “the type of relief Defendant has

requested (i.e., case terminating sanctions) is not the type of relief that falls within the ambit of the

Court’s jurisdiction.” If the Court were to conclude that terminating sanctions are warranted, it would

do so in the form of a Report and Recommendation to Judge Wilken. 

2

that based on the scope of the motion for sanctions and the severity of the relief sought,1 the briefing

schedule should be extended to give Plaintiff adequate time to respond to the wide-ranging issues. 

Moreover, Plaintiffs’ supplemental responses to the Requests for Admission alleviated at least some

of the urgency which was the basis for the shortened briefing schedule. Accordingly, the Court

continues the hearing on Defendant’s motion to April 15, 2008. Plaintiffs shall file their opposition

no later than March 25, 2008, and Defendant’s reply shall be filed no later than April 1, 2008. 

Because the meet and confer process with respect to these issues does not appear to have been

particularly productive, the Court relieves the parties from any further meet and confer requirement

for this motion only, although it urges the parties to informally discuss resolution of the issues

without court intervention. The parties are reminded that lead counsel are required to meet and

confer in person with respect to any future discovery disputes. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 6, 2008 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:06-cv-02138-CW Document 448 Filed 03/06/08 Page 2 of 2