Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-01081/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-01081-21/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

1 

Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG 

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTES 

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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

GSI TECHNOLOGY, INC., 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

UNITED MEMORIES, INC., et al., 

 Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: DISCOVERY 

DISPUTES 

(Re: Docket Nos. 468, 469, 471, 473, 

475, 478, 481)

 

 After a lengthy hearing, before the court are seven remaining letter briefs on various 

discovery disputes between the parties. In the interest of resolving these disputes in a timely 

fashion, the court rules as follows: 

Docket No. Issue Ruling Reason/Explanation 

468 GSI’s motion to compel 

its Request For 

Production No. 116: 

Joint defense agreement 

between UMI and ISSI 

DENIED GSI does not show substantial need 

for the joint defense agreement.1

468 GSI’s motion for UMI to 

complete and clarify 

responses to Requests for 

GRANTED UMI must qualify what parts of the 

RFAs are admitted. In particular, 

UMI must specify page numbers and 

 

1 See AMEC Civil, LLC v. DMJM Harris, Inc., Case No. 06-cv-064-FLW, 2008 WL 817059, at *4 

(D.N.J. July 11, 2008) (“Generally, joint defense agreements are protected by work product 

privilege, and are therefore not discoverable without showing substantial need.”) (citing R.F.M.A.S. 

Inc. v. So, Case No. 06-cv-13114-VM, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14969, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)). 

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 601 Filed 06/11/15 Page 1 of 3
2 

Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG 

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTES 

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 

Admission Nos. 8-9, 20-

30 

Bates ranges where possible, and at 

least specify the rationale provided in 

its opposition to GSI’s motion. 

469 GSI’s request for 

production of “complete” 

UMI and ISSI privilege 

logs 

DENIED GSI’s challenge is not reasonable; 

mere speculation is not enough, and 

post-litigation communications and 

work-product are presumed 

privileged.2

469 GSI’s request for 

production of documents 

withheld based on 

improper privilege claims 

by UMI and ISSI 

DENIED GSI does not show substantial need 

for the joint defense agreement.3

469 GSI’s request for 

production of the Kim 

Hardee document by ISSI 

GRANTED UMI does not assert privilege over the 

documents anywhere in its papers. 

471 ISSI’s request for 

sufficient answers to its 

Requests For Admission 

Nos. 52-56 under 36(a)(4) 

and 36(a)(6) 

DENIED “A denial is a perfectly reasonable 

response.”4

473 UMI’s request for GSI to 

supplement its deficient 

responses to all 124 of 

UMI’s Requests for 

Admission 

GRANTEDIN-PART GSI shall admit or deny each request 

for admission. To the extent GSI 

admits only in-part, GSI shall identify 

what it admits to under Fed. R. Civ. P. 

36(a)(4). UMI’s request that denials 

based on objections should be deemed 

admitted is DENIED. 

475 UMI’s motion to compel 

GSI to provide a prepared 

30(b)(6) witness and Paul 

Chiang for deposition 

GRANTED The March 20, 2015 order explicitly 

extended the deadline for both UMI’s 

30(b)(6) deposition and UMI’s 

deposition of Chiang. As addressed at 

the hearing, the deadline for these 

depositions is July 24, 2015. 

 

2 See Ryan Inv. Corp. v. Pedregal De Cabo San Lucas, Case No. 06-cv-3219, 2009 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 118337, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2009) ([C]ounsel’s communications with the client and 

work product developed once the litigation commences are presumptively privileged and need not 

be included on any privilege log. . . . Plaintiff’s motion to compel is therefore denied to the extent 

it seeks to require a log of postlitigation counsel communications and work product.”). 

3 See AMEC Civil, LLC, 2008 WL 817059, at *4. 

4 K.C.R. v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, Case No. 13-cv-3806-SSX, 2014 WL 3433772, at *3 (C.D. Cal. 

July 14, 2014). 

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 601 Filed 06/11/15 Page 2 of 3
3 

Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG 

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTES 

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 

478 GSI’s motion to compel 

ISSI’s written discovery: 

Interrogatory No. 25 

DENIED GSI does not show substantial need 

for the joint defense agreement.5

478 GSI’s motion to compel 

ISSI’s written discovery: 

Requests for Admission 

DENIED “A denial is a perfectly reasonable 

response.”6

478 GSI’s motion to compel 

ISSI’s written discovery: 

Interrogatory No. 13 and 

Requests for Production 

Nos. 68, 69 

GRANTED ISSI’s responses were deficient and 

not reciprocal to its discovery requests 

from GSI. 

481 ISSI’s Rule 37 motion for 

sanctions (UMI joined) 

DENIED Even though Defendants have shown 

that GSI’s search efforts were 

unreasonable, Defendants fail to show 

any legitimate prejudice from the 

untimely production of the disputed 

documents. The court has made no 

conclusive findings about the survival 

of the non-compete—only a 

preliminary determination. 

Defendants can still rely upon the 

documents in pursuing summary 

judgment. 

 Except as stated otherwise above, the parties shall produce all discovery ordered by June 

19, 2015. 

SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 11, 2015 

 _________________________________ 

 PAUL S. GREWAL 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

 

5 See AMEC Civil, LLC, 2008 WL 817059, at *4. 

6 K.C.R, 2014 WL 3433772, at *3. 

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 601 Filed 06/11/15 Page 3 of 3