Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-04669/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-04669-31/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

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

RICOH CO., LTD.,

Plaintiff,

v.

AEROFLEX, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-03-4669 MJJ (EMC)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION TO COMPEL

(Docket No. 499)

Ricoh has filed a motion, asking the Court to compel the Matrox Defendants to produce

documents in accordance with a prior Court order or to impose an evidentiary-type sanction. Having

considered the parties' briefs and accompanying submissions, the Court hereby GRANTS in part and

DENIES in part the motion.

This motion is yet another example of a dispute between the parties that should have been

resolved without the need for Court intervention. Under a prior Court order, the Matrox Defendants

were required to produce the product packages for their ASICs. See Docket No. 460. According to

Ricoh, the Matrox Defendants failed to produce the product packages for two of their ASICs known

as Maven and Rainbow Runner. In response, the Matrox Defendants contend that the documents do

not exist. 

The Court hereby orders that the Matrox Defendants serve a declaration, certifying that they

have produced the responsive documents -- i.e., product packages for Maven and Rainbow Runner --

that are locatable after a diligent search of all locations at which such documents might plausibly

Case 5:03-cv-04669-JW Document 523 Filed 07/05/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

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

exist. If no documents exist, then the Matrox Defendants should state such. The declaration shall

describe in detail the search efforts undertaken (e.g., which locations were searched, who

participated in the search). The declaration shall be served no later than a week after the filing date

of this order. If Ricoh thereafter has concerns about the adequacy of the search that was conducted

and/or the potential destruction of documents (whether advertent or inadvertent), then the parties

should meet and confer to discuss these matters.

Ricoh's request for sanctions is at best premature. That Ricoh "has no desire to conduct a

detailed investigation into when the relevant documents were destroyed, and whether Matrox failed

to take adequate steps to preserve these files during the pendency of this litigation" is irrelevant. 

Mot. at 3. Based on the record before the Court, there is no evidence that the Matrox Defendants

have not complied with the Court's prior order.

This order disposes of Docket No. 499.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 5, 2006

 

 EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:03-cv-04669-JW Document 523 Filed 07/05/06 Page 2 of 2